User:Zzyzx11/Archive24

This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The archives Archives
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34
This user is an administrator

Current time: Tuesday, April 30, 2024, 03:10 (UTC)
Last edit: April 3, 2023, 19:21 (UTC) by MalnadachBot (talk · contribs)


Then fix it...

So why do you have to be such a Nazi and change what everyone else does? I know I did not reference properly, but you should still try to help me reference properly or perhaps just do it yourself since my blurb WAS correct. Especially the Jose Angel Gutierrez one!! It was just an edit because racist Mexicans change it everytime and we DID have evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonrr (talkcontribs) 07:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Tiebreakers

Sorry if I broke the referencing rule ... as it was, it failed to make clear that only one wild card team at a time qualifies for the playoffs, that is once the Jets qualified, all 9-7 teams remaining after division tiebreakers had been applied had tiebreakers applied to determine the second wild card team. Can you fix it?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to fix it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Saw you did it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Go

Template:Go has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject California/City navigational boxes

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/City navigational boxes, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject California/City navigational boxes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject California/City navigational boxes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject California/County navigational boxes

Wikipedia:WikiProject California/County navigational boxes, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject California/County navigational boxes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject California/County navigational boxes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Optigan13 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Walter Anderson redirects

Please reconsider reverting my edit. The otherperson templates all go to Walter Anderson (disambiguation) page.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Answered on Talk:Walter Anderson. Please redirect all discussions there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Miracle at the meadowlands.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Miracle at the meadowlands.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to abstain. WP:NFCC was not really strict as it was back when I first uploaded the image in 2005, and I don't really care whether it is kept or not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

POTD 2010-01-19

Hi Zzyzx11! Further to this edit, I was not confused. The template that had been tampered with by Microxsolutions was {{POTD/2010-01-19}}. What took me to it is that I have {{Pic of the day}} on my user page. Seeing no picture, and instead seeing an external link to the other user’s company website, is what twigged me that something was amiss. When I went to {{POTD/2010-01-19}}, it was clearly tampered with as both its template page and edit history showed.

When I reverted the edit, the problem was resolved.

Now, where I may have been mistaken is that the template accessed by {{Pic of the day}} and by the Main Page may not be the same one. Is that the case? And, if so, should I have filed a report with WP:VP/T instead of WP:ERRORS? What do you think? I would appreciate your thoughts since they’ll give me a better understanding of the various dimensions to this issue. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said on WP:ERRORS, there are two versions that are created on different pages: One that appears on the main page and a regular version that is not protected. {{Pic of the day}} shows the current non-protected version for today. And since it is not protected, you can just go through the normal procedure of responding to vandalism like any other non-protected article, and revert it on your own, and optionally reporting the vandal on WP:AIAV.
As for the reason why there are two different versions, here's my understanding: When the POTD first got started in 2004, it was not yet included on the Main Page, so there was no need to protect it. Thus, it enabled regular users to easily make changes on their own. As User:Howcheng noted in that WP:ERRORS discussion, "anonymous/new editors often make useful edits".[1] But when it was decided to post the POTD on the Main Page (I think it was around 2006), those that maintained POTD still preferred that anonymous/new editors contribute, so the compromise was to have both the protected and the non-protected versions. If you have further questions, it's probably best to ask User:Howcheng since that user is the primary active admin maintaining POTD these days. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification. To be honest, when I rolled back the vandalizing edit to {{POTD/2010-01-19}}, I just assumed that it was the same template that put the Picture of the Day on the Main Page. It did not occur to me to check the Main Page source code.

Also, as I mentioned in my post to WP:ERRORS, after I rolled back the “bad” edit, I placed a warning on the miscreant’s talk page and filed a report with AIV. Subsequent to that, an Administrator placed a block on the vandal’s account.

My motivation for going to to WP:ERRORS, was that I wanted to be proactive and prevent such problems again in the future.

Thanks again Zzyzx11 for explaining everything to me. I very much appreciate it! — SpikeToronto 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Late Shift

Thanks for your help! I split it off into two separate articles:

Should makes things a bit less unwieldy to work with. I also did a bit of research and added some more sources to the article about the book. Feel free to help out with either or both. :P Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. There probably should have been more content about the book earlier, but since another controversy is in the headlines, it seems Carter's book and film have been mentioned again. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

db-pagemove

Hi. I have just asked Baseball1015 (talk · contribs) why he switched {{db-pagemove}} from {{db-g6}} to {{db-g3}}, and he replied "not sure." I think it's a bad idea: I have been sorting out problems that arose when Baseball put the tag on an article that contained the actual text, and filled in a redirect as the "page to be moved here", so that when somebody clicked on "click here to perform the move" the result was a page consisting of a redirect pointing to itself, and the actual article lost in history. This was made worse because the circular redirect was tagged "vandalism", so that coming upon it in CAT:CSD I nearly deleted it without looking at the history, and another like it actually was deleted. If it had been tagged "uncontroversial maintenance" an admin finding it would have been more likely to check what was going on. Do you see any good reason not to change it back to db-g6? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you examined the full history of Template:Db-pagemove [2], or my edits to that page. Yes, I originally reverted Baseball1015 to have it point back to db-g6 when I saw his edit while monitoring Special:RecentChanges. But I needed to verify that this was in fact the correct action to take to avoid any future confusion. So after digging through its history, and its What links here list, I realized that Db-pagemove is in fact suppose to point to db-g3 instead.
First of all, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates still currently lists Db-pagemove next to db-g3 instead of g6, saying that it should be used for "Nonsense redirects that are created from the cleanup of page move vandalism." Secondly, examining earlier versions of the template verifies that this was in fact the original intent of that template.[3][4] before it was eventually merged and redirect to db-g3.[5] Thirdly, I noticed that Baseball1015 made his edits with the Twinkle editing tool. Therefore, I examined the Twinkle script code and tested Twinkle on my own user sandbox[6], and verified that Twinkle does in fact still tag pages with Db-pagemove when you choose "G3: Pagemove vandalism" from the "Choose criterion for speedy deletion" menu.
So until changes are made to both Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates and the Twinkle editing tool, I insist that you keep it pointing to db-g3 instead of db-g6. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I take it back, I see what it is, there are two of them: {{db-move}} for ordinary page moves redirects to db-g6 and {{db-pagemove}} for reverting vandalism uses db-g3.
What confused me was that in CAT:CSD I came on a page redirecting to itself tagged as "pure vandalism", nearly deleted it, then saw there was a deleted history and worked out that what Baseball1015 was trying to do was to move "Henry Merritt Wriston" to "Henry Wriston" over a redirect. Then I wondered why that was tagged "pure vandalism" rather than "page move that is non-controversial", and then I looked at the history of db-pagemove and saw that Baseball, a fairly new user, had just altered it from g6 to g3.
I'm not familiar with Twinkle; I hope it makes it clear which of these to use when. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Technology & Engineering Emmy Awards

Hi! Noticed you moved this article back to its original namespace, because of WP:SINGULAR. But if you look at the official website, they use the plural form as a proper noun. So it should be moved back again... Hope you will correct your mistake, or if you have any other take on this case, please state it... lil2mas (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The ATAS and NATAS treats the Emmy as a registered trademark, right?[7]. And of course, WP:TRADEMARK says to not solely rely on the preferred spelling or formatting of the trademark owner.
Secondly, I will repeat the gist of what I wrote on Talk:Academy Award#Requested move: Such awards like the Emmy are not always in a plural form in English. It is grammatically incorrect to say: "I have an Technology & Engineering Emmy Awards". That is why the titles of the major award articles, including Nobel Prize, Pulitzer Prize, Peabody Award, Emmy Award, Grammy Award, Tony Award, Golden Globe Award, etc. have historically been singular as per WP:SINGULAR. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Saints

Sorry for the bad edit; do you have the ability to semi-protect the page? --laurap414 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I decline to preemptively change the protection for anticipated vandalism. For a related debate, see WP:VPR#Semiprotection of BLP articles for Super Bowl players. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but then why is Colts protected (it's not a BLP)? Also the Saints has had some minor vandalism already today (not counting mine ;-). Cheers, laurap414 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Scott Green (American football official) move

Hello. I saw you took the first two steps towards contesting the requested move of Scott Green (American football official). Now that you've created "a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal" at WP:Requested moves, I hope you'll contribute to the article's talk page so that your issues can be discussed. Thanks. 72.244.200.127 (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Re: Favor: Send me a deleted page please!

I understand that you have no obligation to send me the deleted page (Jennifer Fabes) and that the second half of the page was a copyright violation (I'm not looking for that half of the page), I'm only asking for the favor because I did write the rest of the page myself, and while I understand it was an attack page I would like to be able to see what I had written on this subject quite some time ago. There were a few quotes on the page as well that I would like to have. So if you could send me the page minus the copyright violation I would be extremely appreciative. I don't know what to offer really, but I would be willing to contribute nearly anything for a chance to have the text I added to that page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Fir3 (talkcontribs) 00:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ányos Jedlik

In your edit summary at WP:LAME#Ányos Jedlik, you asked, "Can we be consistent with the style of the rest of the page and write a humorous summary, and not flat out copying and pasting a section of the article?". It appears that yes, we can, thanks to your well-written and very funny contribution. Well done! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 16

Regarding this image, it is totally unrecognizable at 100x100px. Are you sure it is a good idea? --BorgQueen (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the same size when it was on DYK.[8] Of course, I would prefer it to be a little larger, like the same size as on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 11, 2007. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose TFA doesn't have much choice, but would have rather used another image for DYK if I were the promoting admin, because I don't see much point in showing an image of a document that is not recognizable at the size displayed on Main Page, even if it is a historically important document. If you think it is not a problem I wouldn't argue further, but I wouldn't be surprised if we get complaints on WP:ERRORS or Talk:Main Page for that. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I'll test other images to see how they look. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle

Hi! Curious: Why was the page for that game deleted? The deletion note said "blatant copyvio" with a link to the company site. Was the text simply copy-and-pasted? If so, is it OK to recreate the page? Miqademus (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes,[9] the page that was deleted just consisted of a three-sentence paragraph that was cut and pasted from the company's web site. So go ahead and start a clean new article. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Bears FAR

I have nominated Chicago Bears for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

FAIL

Sorry about this, I am a complete and total idiot. [10] I can't believe I didn't get a trout. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 16:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

21 January anniversay

Hello - I'm interested to learn why you removed a featured article from January anniversary. What criteria other than FA does an article need to meet to be included on this page? Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

When you made that addition back in May 2009, there were then now two 1968 events showing on page: 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash and Battle of Khe Sanh.[11] The problem is that we try to avoid listing two or more events that happened in the same year as per the "array of topics should be varied" rules of WP:OTD.
What tipped the balance against the B-52 Crash and in favor of the Battle Khe Sanh was ultimately the unfortunate timing of a then-ongoing discussion on Talk:Main Page regarding U.S. bias. – way too many American events showing up on OTD.[12] That whole discussion is now archived on Talk:Main Page/Archive 148#On_this_day.
Now granted that the 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash happened in Greenland, but it did involve a U.S. Air Force plane and base. And whenever someone complains about bias on the Main Page, I always try to immediately counteract that for the next few days until the discussion dies down. So in this case, trying to include more non-U.S. events for the next few days. Now some have objected when I do this, and you might as well, but it is the only way I know that helps ensure that such Main Page discussions quickly die down into no consensus instead of resulting into more instruction creep. In other words, I don't want a discussion that would result in enacting rules that would basically put a specific limit on how many U.S. events we could list per week or month on OTD. IMO, such a rule would dramatically decrease the chances of having, for example, the 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash article posted on 21 January in future years. And it's not like someone is going to always complain about U.S. bias on the Main Page every 15-25 January, right? Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I'm still not clear though why an article about Greenland, Denmark and the US is considered more US-centric than the one you selected, or why you would have chosen an A-class article over an FA article - it undermines the whole FA system my view and certainly removes my incentive to want to push another article to FA. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It's because those who mostly complain about U.S. bias tend to also count anything that mentions the U.S. military, or even anything that has "U.S." or "American" in it, as U.S.-centric – never mind the fact that these events may have happened in another country or involved multiple countries. As long as Americans were involved, that's all that matters to most to these complainers.
Also, the OTD rules are more general and flexible, in that the selected article has to be "a relatively complete and well-formatted article. In other words, it should be a good example of Wikipedia content". Many FA's are not tied to a specific, notable event (and thus ineligible for OTD) while many other pages do. Let's be honest: A current B-Class article like Attack on Pearl Harbor will almost always be posted every 7 December, while an FA like Free will currently has no shot at every appearing on OTD. That is probably why most people who push articles to FA status do so to make them automatically eligible for the more prominent "Today's Featured Article" spot on the Main Page rather than the OTD section. On the other hand, FAs may have a greater chance of getting posted on OTD, but at the same time, that must be balanced with other factors like the question, "is it tied to a notable event with an exact day when it occurred?" and the "array of topics should be varied" rules.
So if your goal is to only get your articles posted on OTD and not the more prominent TFA section, then I fully understand losing your incentive to push articles through the FA process. I just don't 100 percent agree that it "undermines the whole FA system" when I see the constant activity on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
My primary goal is not to get articles posted under OTD, however I do expect an FA to trump other articles, all things being equal. The two examples you chose for illustration above are wider apart than the two articles you had to choose from on 21 Jan in terms of date-specific notoriety and US-centricity. The OTD process is not transparent if an article of lower quality and with less US-focus (your temporary criteria) is selected. It might be simpler just to state that the process is subjective than to try to justify this decision. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, for some reason I could have just basically mentioned in my earlier explanations about the very first sentence on WP:OTD#Criteria for listing items on this set of pages: "The criteria for inclusion in the selected anniversaries queue are rather subjective due to the fact that any given day of the year can have a great many historical events worthy of listing" (emphasis added). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:2003StanleyCupPlayoffs.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2003StanleyCupPlayoffs.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

National Hockey League

I don't really care about what or if flags are displayed beside team names but WP:MOSFLAG states: "A common example of use of subnational flags is in tables or lists of sporting information with regard to subnational teams; in such contexts, the appropriate flag is of course not the national one, if multiple entries in such listing would end up with the same flag". If you're going to change it here, shouldn't NFL and Major League Baseball be changed too? --NeilN talk to me 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For the NHL page, my understanding from the folks at WP:HOCKEY was to emphasize the fact that there are at least 6 NHL teams based in Canada, while the others are in the USA. The NFL only has American based teams (and no, the Buffalo Bills only playing one home game in Toronto once per season does not really count), so every club being tagged with the US flag would be ridiculous there. As for the MLB, I don't really care since I don't really participate in those pages that much. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
But if it were up to me, since there is only one Canadian MLB team, the Blue Jays, I would tend to lean toward the state/province flags. On the other hand, I lean leaving the national flags for the NHL page, since it seems that those fans, among other things, make a big deal about the 1993 Montreal Canadiens being the last Canadian club to win the Stanley Cup. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I didn't think about the Canada/USA split in teams so that's why I raised the matter. --NeilN talk to me 04:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnail for Selected Anniversaries/March 24

I think I didn't get the rationale for your removal of the thumb. Was the image too cropped? Too ill-defined? Not cropped enough? Thanks for your attention. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though the image is a crop of File:Que digan dónde estan.jpg, IMO, it is still unrecognizable at 100px for those people using high computer monitor display resolutions. Keep in mind when this roates onto the Main Page, it is the most viewed page on wikipedia, so it has to be clear and recognizable as possible to everybody. So, to answer your question, it may not be cropped enough. Although, if you do crop it to a 100x100px square, you'd probably only get to show only 16 or so of the 200+ faces appearing in the original picture. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BLW

Is double-listed, and it already had a go in December YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

SA

this should not have happened unless you protected the image first. Prior to adding/changing images on the main page please protect them otherwise you expose the main page to goatse.cx images. βcommand 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did, but apparently according to the Commons logs (as I also have sysop permissions), it didn't go though. I should double check next time. I apologize. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ventura Freeway

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ventura Freeway. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging Operation Searchlight and commenting in the talk page

I admit I should have done this myself (and was thinking of it) but was frustrated enough with the way things had been handled by YM (the problem of course coming of the (IMHO) equal frustrating ITN image fufa) that I didn't bother Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in all honestly, I really didn't like the fact that while he was complaining on WP:ERRORS, Talk:Main Page and Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 26, he never, ever once touched the Operation Searchlight article or actually made a comment on its talk page. Otherwise, his objections with the current state of that page will never get addressed, and it may wind up being posted again next year. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 15

I noticed your edit of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 15. Oddly, you removed both baseball hooks. Jackie Robinson has appeared on this date several years in a row and I understand its removal for this reason. However, I think you should readd the 1958 hook for two reasons.

  1. It has never been used on this date and is an extremely important event for the business of professional baseball.
  2. If it runs, I can earn the first WP:GOLDENW award ever awarded and I don't think you should stand in the way of that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply, but I have been busy in real life and unable to login swiftly this week. If you're curious about the rationale behind those choices, there were three reasons. First, the 1989 blurb also on there, the Hillsborough Disaster at the FA Cup semi-final, makes it a third sports-related event, so I felt all three shouldn't be visible at the same time. The second reason, which you can infer based on the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 15#Hillsborough Disaster, is that it was added late last year, so I kind of wanted it to have its chance to appear for the full day this year.
And thirdly, as I explained on Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 15#Walter O'Malley vs. Jackie Robinson, I was concerned about choosing between one or the other. Because Robinson breaking the color barrier in baseball may be more significant in the eyes of some fans than the first game held on the West Coast. Remember, as WP:OTD says, "a combination of the 'majorness' of the event, the mix of items already listed, and the relative completeness of the article, are the criteria used". So instead of myself picking one or the other, I just deferred both to the hidden backup list.
In terms of majorness, keep in mind that no pro baseball was played west or south of St. Louis before O'Malley took baseball a few time zones west. If you choose O'Malley one year and Robinson the other six, it should probably be a decent mix, but you are the boss.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And yes, I'm one of those who disagree with merely tacking on something on the Main page just for the sake of a Wikipedian getting an award, because it looks bad in the eyes of the average reader. This is especially true for the "On this day" section where "majorness of the event" is also a factor. For another example, September 11 attacks will always take precedence over Eastern Air Lines Flight 212 (which helped lead to the Sterile Cockpit Rule) or any other air disaster on Septmeber 11. So even if that Flight 212 article ever gets to FA status, it will never see the light of day on the Main page (with American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93 also FAs too). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request on prospective SAs

I am hoping to achieve an SA before May 14 in order to get the first WP:GOLDENW. I have gone through my FAs really quickly and here are some prospective SAs. Let me know if you think any of them are sufficient for use. If none of them are any good, I will go through my GAs and then the rest of my stuff.

  1. May 1, 1885 - The original Chicago Board of Trade Building opened for business.
  2. April 28, 2008 - Trump International Hotel and Tower, which would later become the second tallest building in the United States, had it full service grand opening for its 339-room hotel.
    I see you have added this hook. However, the description is a bit off because the hotel on the lower floors opened long before the highest residences were built.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm in the process of trying to rework it better.
    I have reworded it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
    As an aside, I'm not sure how strict those handling the WP:GOLDENW are. Because I was going over some of the GAs that you listed on your user page, and one of them, Millennium Park, did appear on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 16 last year after you brought it to GA in 2008 -- its just that you didn't nominate it yourself (which IMO is a little strict that you would have to actively both nominate and have it posted). Cheers.Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. April 29 or May 7, 1980 - Jimmy Carter became the first Democratic President of the United States to use the Saxbe fix when he appointed Edmund Muskie as United States Secretary of State.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  4. March 20 or April 22, 1923 - Arts Club of Chicago hosted Pablo Picasso's first United States showing, entitled Original Drawings by Pablo Picasso from March 20 to April 22, 1923
    Unless it made a significant cultural impact in the United States (like The Beetles coming to America and sparking the British Invasion), there is nothing out of the ordinary about an artist showcasing his work in different countries. Something more interesting would be "the 1951 exhibition by Jean Dubuffet and his "Anticultural Positions" lecture at the Arts Club were tremendous influences on what would become the mid 1960s Imagist movement". Unfortunately, there is not yet a specific date mentioned for that.
    I was under the impression that Picasso was not accepted in the US arts scene before this exhibition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  5. April 20, 1944 - Elmer Gedeon becomes one of two Major League Baseball fatal casualties during World War II.
    A number of athletes around the world entered into WWII military service and were killed. So why baseball players?
    I doubt more than a dozen pro athletes were killed in WWII. Only two of them were baseball players.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  6. May 11, 2005 - The online edition of the Encyclopedia of Chicago is released following the October 15, 2004 print edition.
    Again, hesitant on a reason for international significance or interest. World doesn't revolve around Chicago, you know. And there have been previous encyclopedia compilation efforts of other cities and subjects. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
    Yes. I thought this one might be a stretch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Board of Trade Building has probably the best chance, especially since it is an FA, buildings and structures are underrepresented on there, and will have an x5 or x10 anniversary this year. Trump International Hotel and Tower is a close second since it was the world's highest residence above ground-level before the Burj Khalifa was built. Saxbe fix probably has the least in terms of international significance since Carter was not the first U.S. President to use that practice. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you are the guy who decides, should I sort of count on CBoTB being added, or keep mining my articles. P.S. I did not notice it is the 125th anniversary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Other dates outside of date range:

  1. June 11, 1920 - Associated Press coined the phrase Smoke-filled room when Republican decision-makers selected Warren Harding as their nominee in a clandestine meeting at the Blackstone Hotel.
  2. January 8, 1904 - Blackstone Library was dedicated marking the beginning of the Chicago Public Library system
  3. August 11, 1929 - Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic began its annual tradition, which is now the oldest and largest African American parade in the United States.
  4. September 25, 1977 - The first modern era Chicago Marathon, which has now become one of the five World Marathon Majors, is held.
  5. July 27, 1919 - The Chicago Race Riot of 1919 began.
  6. October 26, 1921 - The Chicago Theatre opened.
  7. February 16, 1961 - DuSable Museum of African American History was chartered.
  8. February 20, February 27, March 6 and March 13, 1943 - Norman Rockwell's Four Freedoms were published in the Saturday Evening Post
  9. November 8, 2003 - Harris Theater opens, commencing a renaissance in the Chicago performing arts community.
  10. June 29, 1889 - election results affirmed that Hyde Park Township, Cook County, Illinois and several townships would be annexed by Chicago forming the largest United States city in area and second largest in population.
  11. September 6, 2000 - Joanne Gair's Disappearing Model becomes the highest rated episode of Ripley's Believe It or Not!.
  12. November 9, 2009 - Joe Cada becomes the youngest champion of the World Series of Poker's main event.
  13. October 14, 1912 - After an assassination attempt in Milwaukee, Theodore Roosevelt is driven to Chicago for treatement by John Benjamin Murphy
  14. August 4, 2007 - María del Luján Telpuk discovers a suitcase with undeclared money that started the Maletinazo scandal.
  15. October ?? - Midnight Madness occurs on a varying mid-October date that would be an interesting main page hook.
  16. June 4, 1825 - French American Revolutionary War General Lafayette speaks at what would become Lafayette Square, Buffalo during his United States visit.
  17. October 11, 2009 - Million Dollar Challenge (poker) becomes the most watched poker show in television history.
  18. April 15, 2005 - McDonald's celebrated its 50th anniversary at the Rock N Roll McDonald's.
  19. July 2, 1996 - Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago re-opens in its current location.
  20. April 8, 1964 - Frank Sinatra records "My Kind of Town".
  21. January 27, 2003 - The first selections for the National Recording Registry are announced by the Library of Congress.
  22. July 2, 2002 - The first exclusive online selection of participants in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game are made via the All-Star Final Vote.
  23. September 1, 1920 or November 15, 1922 - Fountain of Time is opened and dedicated.
  24. July 9, 1962 - Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans exhibition opens at the Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles.
  25. September 6, 2008 - Dow Jones & Company launches WSJ. as an insert in The Wall Street Journal.
  26. October 4, 1941 - Norman Rockwell's Willie Gillis character debuts on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post.
  27. August 1, 1995 - The first Victoria's Secret Fashion Show was held at the Plaza Hotel in New York City.
  28. November 7, 2002 - The University of Michigan pronounced itself guilty and imposed sanctions on itself in the wake of the University of Michigan basketball scandal.
  29. March 4, 1972 - The Buffalo Sabres traded for René Robert and teamed him with Gilbert Perreault and Rick Martin to form the The French Connection line that would play together for most of seven season together.
  30. October 25, 1940 or November 12, 1940 -Hansberry v. Lee was argued and decided to adjudicate the legality of discriminatory covenants South Side of Chicago in the Washington Park Subdivision.
  31. January 10, 2003 - Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted the death sentences of 167 prisoners on Illinois' death row based on the Jon Burge scandal.
  32. August 7, 2007 - Barry Bonds surpasses Hank Aaron's career home run total with his milestone 756th home run.
  33. March 4, 1909 - President of the United States William Taft used what is now referred to as the Saxbe fix to appoint Philander C. Knox as United States Secretary of State.

Above, I have added a bunch of prospective articles. I am sure some are less important than they are in my mind and others I may be misplacing emphasis on the wrong article because it was mine. Let me know which ones I should nominate and I will do so. Since for the WP:GOLDENW I have to nominate them myself let me know and I will then do them. One is coming up on the 20th and needs prompt attention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you forget about me, or should I just add these to the respective dates and let you sift through them when the date comes up? I would think it would be easier to chop the list down now so that I don't add some that you think are too far from what is wanted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Among them, I added the Chicago Marathon,[13] and saxbe fix.[14] I'm planning to add the Chicago Race Riot of 1919 when I come up with a more descriptive blurb than a ho-hum "The [insert event here] began". As for the others, I'm currently hesitant about its amount of international significance to supplant the ones already visible or backups listed on the respective OTD templates. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the Hyde Park Township, Cook County, Illinois, National Recording Registry, Fountain of Time, Campbell's Soup Cans and maybe Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds, Joe Cada, and Jon Burge all should be seriously considered.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Those eight can probably be all added as backups, but not necessarily the first visible five. Although they are GA and above, the strikes against you are that they are more U.S.-centric, and 20th-Century or later events. Both issues are what we have received the most complaints about OTD for the past few years. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
For Fountain of Time would you prefer it on the date it was opened or the date it was dedicated?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
My first choice would have been date of opening, September 1, 1920 -- 90th Anniv in 2010. But I don't know which one of the top visible five to move off there, since you got a bit more significant events posted there already. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added a dozen of the hooks above and will add the Fountain of Time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I am still pondering adding Blackstone Hotel, John Benjamin Murphy, María del Luján Telpuk, Midnight Madness (basketball) (which should be at the top on whatever day it falls on that year even though it does not have an anniversary), and All-Star Final Vote. The problem with Midnight Madness is that it falls on a different date (something like the third Friday in October) every year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NFLplayoffs2005-06.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NFLplayoffs2005-06.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

April 22

I am just trying to get a vibe for this by watching. Why only 4 selections today?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

At 00:57, 22 April 2010 UTC, User:Tariqabjotu hid the fifth one, saying that "this is extremely long today"[15], which I assume was done to balance the text on both columns on the Main Page. Most of time when there is a need to balance the main page, one is actually added to OTD first instead of re-adding an old event to ITN. But I guess both the TFA and DYK were unusually short that day. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
And no, there is no set rule on which one gets added or removed. It's at the sole discretion of the admin trying to re-balance the main page, although they might get partially reverted by another.[16] Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cincinnati Bengals helmet rightface.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cincinnati Bengals helmet rightface.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 USRD newsletter

Volume 3, Issue 1 • April 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
ArchivesNewsroomFull IssueShortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
JCbot (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Trump Tower

You tweaked the Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), WP:SA hook to be incorrect. It was not the world's highest residence until it was later completed. It was still under construction and only 50 or 60 stories high at the time. The hotel floors are all below the 15th floor.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Then I should actually move it to the date of when it was topped off, as that is more internationally significant than its opening. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You moved it to the date of the topping out party which was a month after the topping out. Do you want to recognize the date of the party or the date of the topping out?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)