User talk:Hekerui/Archive 1
 | This page 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. |
Welcome!
Hello, Hekerui, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Notability of Ruby James
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ruby James, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ruby James seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ruby James, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Deletion
As the warning above states, the article was deleted because it did not explain why the person was notable or significant. You can recreate the article if you like, but the article must explain why the person is notable and include citations or references or it may be deleted again. For more information, please see some of the following resources:
- Why was my page deleted? and What you can do about it
- Website notability guidelines
- Creating your first article
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! -- pb30<talk> 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review (listed in #1 of Wikipedia:WWMPD). Be sure to include reliable sources (more than just blogs) when proving notability and state specifically why they are notable (awards, charts, etc). -- pb30<talk> 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Karen Bass image
That's actually a work of the California, not the Federal government, so I would suggest requesting its deletion. -- Biruitorul Talk 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Deletion requested. Hekerui (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, great to hear. The image copyright rules can indeed be confusing (one almost has to be a lawyer to understand them all), so I quite understand, and I appreciate your request for deletion. -- Biruitorul Talk 06:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Louisiana Elections
The template and articles look fine to me. Could you point out the specific section you are questioning?DCmacnut<> 02:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see the 2002, 2006, and 2008 senate elections on both pages. However, the 1996 election for some reason doesn't appear on the Elections in Louisiana page, but appears on the 2008 election page. Weird. I'm not sure exactly why it's doing that.DCmacnut<> 23:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
California Legislative LGBT Caucus
Hi, Hekerui, I was trying to use the red and green colors since those are the colors of the Senate and Assembly, but I think Lincolnite's inserting the word Assembly and Senate solves the problem. Thanks for pointing that out; I'll be more careful about that in future charts. OCNative (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Political Party offices
FYI, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Political_Party_offices.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for assessing and commenting on Matthias Steiner. As for the fragmentation, the layout is modelled after Rafael Nadal - apparently not such a great model in this respect. Best wishes -Nikai (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey Hekerui, thanks for creating William Lynn! I had realized there were multiple with the name, and therefore not redirected it to William J. Lynn when I started that, but it seemed to have slipped my mind to make a disambig. Joshdboz (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for upgrading the article on Sandra Samuel. I appreciate your quick response.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC))
Pulse
Hehehe. Who are you on Pulse? Just wondering. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Nancy Landry
I moved it! It's in the talk page, where it should be. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am doing in two steps: First I add it in the talk page (message:Adding...) and then I delete it from the article (message:Moving...). All these categories (except from Year of...) must be placed in the talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
...and we have to quit writing at the same moment! lol -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: HD 217107 b
I had to think hard about that one. I promoted that to GA back when the GA assessment process was still a new thing, & we didn't need to provide a review to grant that status. (I understand things have changed since then.) In effect, all I did was look at the article, agree with its nominator that it was well-written & covered the material in a satisfactory manner -- which is still not that common on en.wikipedia -- & added the template. I don't know if that is still an adequate justification for a GA assessment, but considering the subject & what information is likely to be available I don't see how in the foreseeable future more can be said about this extrasolar planet. Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for assessment of this article and more particularly for extensive editing and advice re. further improvement. RashersTierney (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
John Ordronaux
Thanks very much for upgrade and positive comments, regards, Wfm495 (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Userbox for GA reviews
The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using
{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}
which displays as
|
There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.
Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.
Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, dan56 asked you another question on my talk page... I'll leave that thread un-archived and the two of you can feel free to use that space to discuss assessment / upgrades... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: DYK for Hawaii House Bill 444
I just submitted a DYK that was created by User:The Obento Musubi. Please feel free to add an alternate hook for consideration. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for your tweaks to the Geoffrey L. Smith. In this edit[1] you add importance=Mid but then overwrote it with a photo-request-tag in a second edit[2]. Was this intentional? Once again, many appreciations. —Sladen (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I overwrote it with the part because I copied it quickly, not realizing it was rated (it's often not). Of course, one can add a priority, I would judge it low in that Smith is notable in his main discipline. I'm going to readd that. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just see it's already done for hours. How come you even bother then lol? Well, have a good Sunday. Hekerui (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed new policy
As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:
- A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.
Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say
- Support.
or
- Oppose.
Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Hawaii House Bill 444
|
On March 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hawaii House Bill 444, 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. |
Royalbroil 12:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice work
Nice work on John Berry (administrator) - that's coming together into a really good article. Thanks for creating it, and for all your work on it. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Jonathan Alder...
Hello, you just removed Jonathan Alder from the WPBIO Assessment page, and I had a question for you... my comments on the entry were that it was obviously at least a C-class, possibly B-class, and then I had asked for a review as to, if it was not B, what I needed to do to get it to B-class... The person who assessed the article only changed the banner from Start to C, without any comments or suggestions... would you mind terribly reviewing the article yourself and giving suggestions, and/or allowing me to place it back up for re-assessment? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Brodir&Ospak
Hi Hekerui. Thanks for your comments on my talkpage and for highlighting problems in the WP:lead that I missed. I have now copy edited the article, I trust that your concerns have been addressed?Pyrotec (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry you were not quick enough, but no offence was taken. I'm trying to complete 20 GA reviews in a month (finishing on Friday); which is probably too many. I did two on Sunday, one on Monday, two yesterday and two today. I have one new one for tomorrow and three Holds to finish. After that I will do them less frequently; and try and do them better.Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hilda Solis edits
Hi, Hekerui, thanks for your GA review of Hilda Solis. In reviewing your large "copyedit" edit, I see that you're unlinked and unitalicised all of the publishers in the cites. Why is this? Newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times are always italicised, whether they're used in the main text or footnotes. And I think that linking publishers is valuable in that it gives the reader an easy way to better understand the source that's being used. For example, this article uses some California and Congressional reporting sources that may not be familiar to many readers. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. {{cite news}} is kind of messed up in that work= and publisher= aren't clearly defined as to what you use when. My style is always to use publisher=, and then to italicise it when appropriate. It makes no difference to the reader than using work= in the italicisation cases. I've done that on a dozen or more FA and GA articles without objection. The fact of life is that there are a number of different ways that editors do cite formatting, and there's an informal standard among many GA/FA editors and reviewers to not disrupt an existing article's way of doing it, as long as it's internally consistent and the result looks good to the reader. When I do a review, I "go along" with how the article is doing it cite formatting and do any fixups in that style. So to be honest, I don't think you should have disrupted this article's way of doing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you improved the article overall or not, the diff is almost impossible to follow. This will take a while ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- For future reference, it's a good idea not to make meaningless whitespace changes, like you did when you added a blank line after the "California State Legislature" section header. The HTML rendering engine ignores it, so the page looks the same to the reader either way. But the addition fools the not-very-good diff tool, such that this diff after your edit renders that whole section all in red with staggered paragraphs impossible to follow. Once I deleted the blank line, the diff of that section becomes much more tractable. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's move the discussion of actual article changes onto the GA1 review page, where they belong. I have to take a break for a while, but just let me say I am quite aware that you put a LOT of time and effort into the review, and that you were obviously trying to make the article better. My problems come from you doing everything in one edit, making it very difficult for me to follow and understand, and from you making some substantial content changes all under the name of "copyedit" with no further explanation, and from you not giving deference to the original author's decisions in areas like cite formatting. But let's move on and try to make useful progress here. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I've responded to all the GAN comments now, so give it a look over and let me know what is still outstanding or what changes I've made that you have any issues with. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review and the pass. I'm sorry about the conflict that arise at the start. It didn't take me long to restore all the publisher formatting in the cites, so I overreacted on that part. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Webcite
Viriditas (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Sorry
I reverted your edit because it claimed Jim Naugle was no longer the Mayor of Fort Lauderdale. While he in fact is still the Mayor, I see he won't be tomorrow as tomorrow is the day the new mayor takes office. My history comment says "rv v" and what you did is perhaps enthusiasm, but not v, so I'm sorry. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Jack Seiler
Just so you know, the list of mayors that I added in the See also section, which you removed, is not linked in the succession box. The link there is to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the article on the city, not the list of mayors. I'm not going to revert your edit (because there is a lot of good stuff in there), but I'd appreciate it if you'd re-insert the section I added. Thanks. Horologium (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not true, have you tried clicking on the link? lol Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- We're both right, as we're talking about different things. You were talking about the infobox, which is linked to the list. I was talking about the succession box (down at the bottom) which is linked to the city. I misread your edit summary, and thought you were talking about the succession box as well. My apologies. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome
Links for Wikipedians interested in India content |
 |
|
|
Welcome kit
Register
Network
Contribute content
| ||
--GDibyendu (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
GA review of Hannes Vanaküla
Hi,
I disagree with your assessment of the article being unstable. Please check its history -- no significant changes have been made by anybody since March 18th. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Thank you for your advice. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Asad Ali Khan
|
|
On March 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Asad Ali Khan, 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. |
Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Voorhis review
Thanks for the hard work. Sorry if I was irate about the cite/citation thing. I will certainly contact the Voorhis archive to see if they have any free use photos of him, but obviously that won't be a short process.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's everything. Things got a bit messy on the review page, so I consolidated where I differ from you at the bottom of the page. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of J.C. Watts
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article J. C. Watts you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. RayTalk 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ram Narayan
I have commenced the review of this interesting little piece, if you want to visit the review talk page. Look forward to working with you. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're supposed to let the bot change the rating to GA, right? Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you just changed the class. Thanks for doing that. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Thurbert Baker
Wow, that was a major brain fart. Thanks. Nevermore | Talk 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Rand Paul
Rand Paul has been overhauled. This may affect your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Paul. This message is being copied to 8 people. JJB 07:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of J. C. Watts
The article J. C. Watts you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:J. C. Watts for things needed to be addressed. RayTalk 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, realized I forgot to tell you -- I asked for a second opinion on the prose, and another reviewer has chimed in. Cheers, RayTalk 21:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- And sorry if I offended you there in any way, I was just giving a few observations to make sure the consensus was read correctly. Cheers, Spring12 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Vermont same-sex marriage
Hi Hekerui, could you explain to me the process of changing the "Recognition of same-sex unions in Vermont" to "Same-sex marriage in Vermont"? Sorry for moving it by hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasblueonce (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Vermont bill
Northeastern states are not the only place where bills go through three readings. It is the norm across the U.S. and in the rest of the English-speaking world. The reason the article said it had passed was that the media reported that it had passed. Since they don't understand parliamentary procedure, they were wrong. -Rrius (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Glasses
That was a few years ago :-) My picture contributed greatly to the Glasses wikipedia page for two years from 2005-2007 :-) Haha.. Thanks for the advice! Iwasblueonce (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Making changes to box
Hey, I have another question for you.. The "Legal recognition of same-sex couples" box that appears on the same-sex legal status wiki pages.. how do you make changes to that? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasblueonce (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wondered. There have been times in the past where knowing how to edit it would have been nice. Thanks! Iwasblueonce (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Recent good articles
I apologies if my initial edit summary was unclear - I initially added Samuel Conway without removing the last entry, and then made a quick edit removing it - only the second one with both changes went through. The article has just been promoted and has not been listed before. GreenReaper (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Homogenic review
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review my article. No worries about Easter getting in the way. I've addressed your comments on the article and corrected them as I could. Re-assess it when you have a moment. :) Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
K
Okay, its cool. I was out of it. I stayed up all night and was about to pass out while nominating the article. Then got back on after a small nap and felt like I was in an alternate dimension with questions about stuff that I couldn't figure out how I had screwed up or if the article was quick failed, etc. It is all cool. I would have probably done the samething.--WillC 23:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for help with Kano
Thanks for all the help with Noriaki Kano. I'm taking a Six Sigma class right now and am trying to "learn by editing." :) It was nice to add my first infobox, and good to learn about persondata as well. Kjtobo (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
|
The Citation Barnstar | |
| I hereby award you this barnstar for your work on Devendra Banhart. Mgm|(talk) 08:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I put some (4?) {{clarify}} tags in the article that may help guide rewriting a few sentences. Good work so far! -- Banjeboi 05:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Álvaro García Linera
Look through the page history again. I just wikilinked him. Eco84 | Talk 04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)