User talk:Remember/Archive Jul 2007

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, Remember!!

Thank you for your nice edit about that chinese rebel (sorry i can't remember the name). I hope you like this place and have fun editing.
We always like to meet new Wikipedians! Here ar some more things to do, in case you're bored. But don't feel pressed by that.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

• Apollo Creed
• Acts of the Martyrs
• Vilnius
• Arnon Nampa
• History of the Maldives

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

• Haplogroup E-M2
• Aldous Huxley bibliography
• TGIF (TV programming block)

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

• Victor Backman (ice hockey)
• Ann Ollestad
• Jowai
• AirShow San Diego
• Land register building (Amsterdam)

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

• Sesioidea
• Bill Lennard
• Millie Tomlinson
• Lauren Siddall
• Ewan Park

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

• Wink Martindale
• Abeokuta
• Emma Sheerin
• Skyfall
• Roter Ochse

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

• Chinese Academy of Engineering
• Matthew Hilton (boxer)
• Frontier
• St Vincents GAA
• Defense against swimmer incursions

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

• Chandigarh Municipal Corporation
• Love/Hate (band)
• Brad Ludden
• State terrorism
• Shepherd Clark

More... • Learn how

Add an image

• Jackson Park Highlands District
• Jaffna Lagoon
• John Kerkhof Park
• JIC Germplasm Resources Unit
• Jokpyeon

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

• Joseph Roth (politician)
• Acher
• Gabriela Pizarro
• Yushaev Zamir
• Directorate of Cooperation of Security and Defence

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you want get to know more people here, list yourself at Wikipedia:New user log, and go back there sometimes to see if you find people matching your intersts. Go to Wikipedia:Community Portal to learn more about wikipedia and ways to participate.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, or add a question to the village pump. You also can leave me a message at User talk:Lady Tenar, but it may take a few days bevore i see the message and can respond.

Here are some more tips:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! Lady Tenar 22:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Duke-UNC rivalry

I saw that you marked the page as one that you thought should possibly not be included in Wikipedia. I'm confused why you think this should not be included when a bunch of rivalries are already mentioned and have their own page see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_rivalry. This is by far the most important rivalry in college basketball and I am unsure why you think it does not deserve further information.

Thanks, Remember 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello! The article makes none of the above assertions clear. It should be written with the idea of a user who knows nothing about the subject in mind, in order to bring out these hidden assumptions. The article as-written when I tagged it appeared to be a record of two college basketball teams facing off against each other. If what you state is true and can be written about in an encyclopædic manner, then the article would be a neat summation of the ongoing sport-related situation between the two colleges. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  17:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is very weak as I created it and needs much more demonstrate how it is important. I started the article and plan to add to it when I have some time to make it better. But please feel free to add to it yourself or get others to make it better in the meantime. Remember 17:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Glad you like it. The most significant thing that can be added to it is a record of some of the great games that have played between the two schools. So info on those would be good.--Mike Selinker 20:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Remember, thanks so much for telling me about the UNC-Duke Rivalry page. I'm doing some research and I'll make some contributions in the next couple of days. I think it would be a good idea to do small sections about women's basketball and the Carlyle Cup. A memorable men's basketball section would be cool too. -Tar Heel 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your request to help with the rivalry article. I'm not necessarily qualified to write much about it, but I do think it belongs. I happened to be in the Triangle recently, and it's interesting to see the speculation on the women's NCAA's. If both Duke and UNC-CH can get to the finals, that could certainly be one to add to the list of great matchups. Wahkeenah 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure I'll help out- it really doesn't take a student who has been to the games to figure this one out but I guess I'm a primary source so here it goes.... ArchonMeld 01:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

assistants

Yeah, we've been putting assistants in the coaching categories. For example, Geno Auriemma is at St. Joseph's and Virginia as well as UConn.--Mike Selinker 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond

I totally understand what you are saying I debated the changed for a good 5 minutes. I wasn't sure either if it was correct so I was hesitant to change it. The only problem I have with the article is that it has tricky wording which implies a lot about Thurmond which I feel doesnt comform to NPOV. I dont know what the facts are but I think that part of the article should be rewritten if possible.

Jerry Jones 19:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Please don't upload almost any new sports images from internet sites as they are copyrighted and wikipedia can't use them. That was the situation with the UNC image, it's copyrighted and it was tagged as sportsposter which it isn't. Some images from the internet like album covers are ok only with a valid fair use rationale. Try to take your own images for sports articles. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more info. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Raymond Felton Florida Atlantic University Twin-screw type supercharger Naismith College Player of the Year Drug interaction Contract Research Organization New chemical entity Polyene Copenhagen Business School Deron Williams Valencia Community College Commonwealth Cup Psychology Today Governor's Victory Bell Pure Food and Drug Act University of North Carolina at Asheville Western Carolina University EU-Eco-regulation Empire State College

Cleanup Sam Perkins Covered clinical study Free electron laser Merge Health informatics Approved drug Aegis School of Business Add Sources George Stafford Parker Medicare (Canada) Health reform Wikify Music in Elizabethan Era Sodium tripolyphosphate Congaplex Expand Tourism in China Federal Analog Act Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

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 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: UNC-Duke rivalry and Dean Smith

I'd be glad to help. Let me know what specifically you'd like to see done. Cheers! Dubc0724 14:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Roy Williams

"And the third part belongs on the Roy Williams page and which I have added there: "Williams eventually did return, but not until after he stated (on national television): "I could give a shit about Carolina right now"."

Not exactly what you posted there, so why use quotation marks? Duke53 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Duke53

I have responded on the Dean Smith discussion page.

Alumni

Would be appreciated if you could add citations for the "notable alumni" noted for Waldo High. The school website has an "alumni" section that offers no help. Bustter 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just what I was looking for, thanks! Bustter 22:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dean Smith

I have tried to clean the article up a bit. How does it look now? (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Got your message on my talk page. I did a little bit of work and put a few comments on the article talk page. The Duke user has an axe to grind, and some of his points are true, but he's not properly citing them, and sometimes uses weasel words. I'll continue to work on the article where I can. Thanks Dubc0724 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV from a guy who describes himself on his user page as "This user is Tar Heel born and Tar Heel bred"? I think not. As far as Coach Smif getting ejected intentionally from the Final Four game: what a load of crap! He was trying to play the refs like he was used to doing in the ACC

Name another head coach who has been ejected from a Final Four game, okay? I'm waiting. Smif is the only one.

Weasel words? Try calling it the truth. Duke53 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53

Yes, I'm a Carolina fan. But I also have enough respect for the encyclopedia we're supposedly working on to produce good faith edits, rather than push my POV. I'm not sure one can say the same for some of your edits. Keep it NPOV and play by Wikipedia's rules and we'll all get along fine.

Yeah, Dean got tossed. Big deal. Nobody's denying it. I don't think anyone took issue with its inclusion; I personally only took issue with the writing style and presentation. It looks better now than it did. And I never said Dean wasn't the only one who got tossed. All I asked (and haven't seen yet) is that you at least refer to the game/opponent/date for those unfamiliar with the event. That's not too much to ask.

Finally, the weasel words. Have you read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding them? I'd suggest you do so. Like it or not, some of your edits had them, and while what you are suggesting may well be true, you need to present verifiable facts while avoiding weasel words. If you can't do that, the edits won't stand. And again, please be civil. PS: You might want to have your spell checker looked at; you keep spelling his name wrong. :-) Dubc0724 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your idea of NPOV is not the same as mine. Facts are facts ... just because you choose to deify someone doesn't change them.

As far as being civil: I never attributed quotes to another editor that the other editor didn't make. Not everybody involve on the Coach Smif article can say that.

Nothing wrong with my spellchecker ... Coach Smif is what he's known by to many people. Duke53 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53

I feel that this discussion would be more appropriate on the Dean Smith discussion page and so I have copied the above text and moved it there. Please include all further replies to this chain of discussion there. Remember 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job of distancing yourself from this ... move it to another page and then don't address it.

Obviously you think it perfectly correct behavior to attribute quotes to somebody who never said or wrote them. Your 'Good Point' remark just doesn't cut it.

Duke53 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53

I have responded on the Dean Smith discussion page.Remember 21:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Remember. You asked for my opinion again. I believe the article is being improved with all of the references. I also believe that all of the personal sniping ought to end. If anyone is uncivil to you in the future, I recommend not responding to the attacks or negative tone. Only respond to the parts of the comments (if any) that directly relate to the content of the article. I will watch the page. If personal attacks or incivility continue, I will take steps to officially warn the person making the attacks and contact those responsible for sanctioning editors who persist in making such attacks. Rohirok 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, are you saying that I shouldn't have challenged someone who improperly attributed a quote to me? With that move (and subsequent non-apology) that editor's credibility took a hit, IMO. It's hard for me to look past something that serious.

If I quote someone I make darn sure that that person said exactly that in the first place. I expect the same from all other editors. No more, no less.

I won't be sending anybody any 'stars' or stickers or whatever ... seems like some sort of pandering to moi. I don't know how people are contacting you for advice (PMs or E-Mail maybe) but anything I have to say about this topic will be done out in the open, where everybody is privy to it. Call me suspicious if you will, but ....

If you are dancing around the fact that you're going to 'warn' me, have at it. It seems to me that more than one person should be 'warned' for their behavior here. Duke53 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53

p.s. What exactly is your Wikipedia title again?

I think it's time everybody calmed down. Reading Duke53's talk page, these types of altercations seem to be a recurring theme. Perhaps a glance at WP:Civil is in order. Dubc0724 21:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Æon ^{Insane Ward} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zatopek.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zatopek.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Hello Remember. Good job adding all of those references to the article!

Since you are citing the same sources several times, you might consider naming the references. This will consolidate all of the times you've used a source into one entry in the References section. It's a bit more typing at first, but it can save time in the long run, and makes the References section look a lot tidier.

Here's how you do it: The first time you use a particular source in the article, type <ref name="ref_name_here">[http:\\something.com Source title here] Additional information, if any, here</ref>.

The next time you use that same source (and every time after), just type <ref name="ref_name_here"></ref>.

The source will only be listed once in the References section, but the entry will have links upward to each part in the article where it has been used.

Again, good job with all of the sourcing you've been doing. This is probably the most important thing to do to improve an article, and to prevent future disputes over facts. Rohirok 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a good name for a reference would be something like: "Authorname_year." You can make the date more specific if you cite different articles by the same author in the same year. Rohirok 17:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Also, do you have any examples of a page that uses this coding so I could check it and see if I am doing it right? Remember 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Telecaster players. Ignore all the {{Harv|yadayada}} stuff in the middle. The <ref> stuff is what you're concerned with. Also, since I don't usually check back when I leave comments on someone else's page, please leave responses on my own talk page. That way, I can see I have new messages right when I log in. Rohirok 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Natasha Demkina might be an example that's easier to follow. I learned about references here. Rohirok 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dean Smith Center article

You said: "The other citation just leads to one quote where someone refers to music being piped in. It would be nice to get an article that more fully talked about the incident."

The cited article said:"But we're in the goose-bumps business. To make it sound like it is happening at the moment is hardly a federal offense. It's called Showbiz."

- Art Chansky, on adding artifcial [sic] crowd noise to the UNC broadcasts

I don't know about any 'piping in music', I just found a source where Art Chansky defends the practice of piping in crowd noise. If it doesn't please you then feel free to find more. Duke53 22:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to the Talk:Dean Smith Center article and responded there. Remember 06:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thanks for the tedious work you're doing to add complete scoring history to the UNC-Duke Rivalry article. I promise I'll get around to helping you sometime!! Dubc0724 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

change on Virginia United States Senate election, 2006

I am confused why you think that the information relating to George Allen's response during the 2006 campaign relating to his possible Jewish heritage should be put on his page and not on the campaign page? See change here [1] It certainly is getting a lot of press in the coverage of the campaign and it was made during a campaign debate. I would think it would more appropriately belong on this page than on his personal page. Remember 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well for starters, the same editor added the whole passage verbatim to both this article and George Felix Allen simultaneously, and it's more speculation on his lineage than an actual election issue. Beyond this, it's a huge section that dwarfs most of the sections other than "Macaca controversy" and seems to be just an excuse to rehash the Macaca issue.--Rosicrucian 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but while I agree it is not as big an issue as Macaca and should not be used to rehash this issue, I do think that the issue itself is noteworthy for this election more so than for his general biography. I may try to revise and add a section describing this in more clear and concise language. Do you have any issue in general with including this information on the page? Remember 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think in the context of the debate it could work. It'd have to be sorted chronologically with the other sections of the article and put more about the debate as a whole to make sure we're not just focusing on the Jewish issue.--Rosicrucian 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Roy Williams Biography

Remember, Thank you for your message. Your dedication to wikipedia and the Roy Williams biography is very impressive.

In response to your question, I removed the section temporarily until it can be edited into a more appropriate addition to his biography. The section on the "controversy" was given more size than any other section in the entire biography, including his national championship win, while this "controversy" was not nearly as big of news story. It did grab some headlines, so yes, if you would like I think some attention should be given to it within the biography. But I hope you see my point is that by making it the largest section in the biograpy it is indirectly implied that this was the most pivotal moment in his career and life. This I think we both agree is not true. Thus I pulled it, for now.

How about we both work on adding it back, yet this time with a little less focus. I agree it is important and I appreciate your work on it. However, it shouldn't be the biggest thing in the biography, particularly since it was not nearly the biggest thing in his life. I think it is only worthy of a short paragraph or blurb. Do you agree? THANKS

RE: Roy Williams Biography

Okay Remember, I can agree to that. Let's both try to beef up Roy Williams' page. I am a senior at UNC currently so I have little time. However, regarding the fact that one Duke fan was determined to keep the information up there doesn't surprise me. I had a similar battle on Coach K's page, regarding his officiating controversy. I edited and edited to try to appease the Duke fans but they wouldn't have it on his Bio in any shape or from. Now, what gets more news attention, Roy leaving Kansas, or the Duke ref scandal with the suspensions of last year?

UNC and Duke

I am trying to keep the information on Wikipedia with respect to UNC and Duke encyclopedic and not inflammatory. I would appreciate your help in achieving this goal by, for example, not creating redirects or web pages whose only nature serves to insult or attack one of the schools. Please let me know if you think this might be achievable. If you look at my contributions, you will see what I have done in this regard. DukeEGR93 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Duke, if I recall correctly, Remember created the UNJD redirect at my request, because I didn't know how to do it myself. If anyone is to get blamed for inflammatory comments regarding Duke, please leave Remember out of it, as I haven't seen any evidence of inflammatory conduct coming from this user. Thanks Dubc0724 15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just got Dubc0724's note - with respect to you, I added the note to your talk page due to the speed with which Dook was changed to again include an incendiary disambig. DukeEGR93 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Annnnnnd just got your note to me  :) (sorry - just got done with one lecture and getting ready for another). "I think that is probably the best way to get a resolution to the issue that everyone will agree to and abide by" - heh heh, we can always hope. I promise to back off if it's consensus that those kinds of pages, links, and notes are accepted; the flip side being that if not, I'll root out as many about UNC, NCSU, and Duke attacks as I can. When it comes to academics (and athletics, most of the time), I am a Triangulist. DukeEGR93 15:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dook, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

UNC-Duke Trivia Section

Hey, sorry if I got over-zealous with my edits. My main goal was to simplify a few things and correct a few minor spelling/style things.

I deleted some of the series information because "this coach vs. that coach" stuff seemed like overkill, and as I read down the list, it started sounding like a back-and-forth between Carolina & Duke editors. Feel free to put back whatever you & other editors deem necessary. Perhaps just a formatting and/or wording change would be all we need. Thanks, Dubc0724 15:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I believe I was the one that put most of that information there (and so it wasn't some Duke-UNC back and forth thing). I thought it was some interesting stats, but I don't really mind if it is deleted because people think it is unnecessary.

Thanks for your edits on the UNC-Duke rivalry page. This page is slowly moving towards a good article about the rivalry. Remember 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Carolina-Duke Scores

Hello - an anonymous user just made a bunch of changes to the scores of the games on the rivalry page. You might want to verify that those changes are accurate. User called them "corrections" (and it may be rightfully so) but I won't be able to verify them for a few hours yet. Thanks much. Dubc0724 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dean Smith citation

Before I make a copyedit, which style do you want to use? Footnote or embedded links? There is a mixture of these two in the article. The choice is up to the editors, but I have more preferences in footnote style. If you do not know about these style, you can read more in WP:CITE. I'll wait for your response. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 14:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: North Carolina Tar Heels

Nice job! This page will be fun to update. I just spent quite a bit of time tidying up the all-time results table for basketball, and I'm pretty tired, so I'm going to head to bed. I'll work on football tomorrow or whenever I get the chance. Thanks for showing me this! Heelsrule1988 05:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank youuu !!

Hey, it's my pleasure. Thanks a lot for the barnstar. Honestly, I like the article. Hope it gets to FA soon. Oh, I've a suggestion about the article. Some sections have list items, which is not desirable in WP, per WP:MOS. If you could rewrite it into more textual form, then it would be great. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 15:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For all your hard work...

If you wish to withdraw your nomination, please type I withdraw under your acceptance, and your candidature will be withdrawn. I wish you best of luck in your future endeavours. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tar Heel article

Good job. It looks much better than it did last time I saw it. I only had a few minor tweaks to make thus far. Thanks! Dubc0724 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Howdy! I did some re-working on the references on Tar Heel; please let me know if you like them that way better (mainly, having that one article show up a single time). If not, I'll undo the damage. Thanks DukeEGR93 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just wanted to mention that the Tar Heel article and the UNC Info Box are looking really good! DukeEGR93 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

UNC-Duke Rivalry

Hey! I will definitely take a closer look at the page in the next couple of weeks. I am ridiculously busy the next few days, though, so probably won't be able to do much. I have made a few very minor tweaks to the page without logging in so I am familiar with the page. I think an interesting thing to add would be the decade breakdown of wins and losses (it is already done on that deja blue website) to show how the rivalry has shifted throughout its history (although the decade breakdown seems to show that UNC has dominated a lot more decades than Duke, namely the 20s, 70s, and 80s). Also, I'll look to expand the prose significantly, which is where I think the article needs the most improvement. There are plenty of lists and tables already so those seem pretty set (I like the option to hide them). Good work! -Bluedog423^Talk 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

MedCab Case - You are an involved party

You have been listed as an invloved party in a recently opened Mediation Cabal case ("UNC Carolina nicknames and links"). I will begin reviewing the case. Please write a comment representative of your view or a compromise offer. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the review

I am glad my review was appreciated. Good luck, and whenever you feel experienced enough, try to drop by Wikipedia:Editor review and review a couple of random users. We are very few there, and will appreciate any contribution you can do there. -- ReyBrujo 05:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject College Basketball: Collaboration of the Month

Hello there. There's been some good movement going recently at WikiProject College Basketball. The first Collaboration of the Month is a new North Carolina Tar Heels basketball page. One of the projects goals is to have specific team articles for every D-I team. I'd like to turn our first collaboration page into a model for future team pages. We want to expand on the history of the basketball program at UNC, bring in more details on past championship teams, and also talk about current status. You seem like the right person to help out! Beside, you don't want two Duke fans creating this page. Who knows what nefarious details we'll try to sneak in.  :-) -- Daveahern 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome

Hi there, you're quite welcome re: the tx template, but I have little experience myself in editing templates. I'm glad that you created that template and put it on various relevant pages. --Kyoko 14:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ted Rodrigue

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess

Hello Remember, I think that your chess template is a great idea, but please remove it from the main Chess article until it is ripe. I will help you as my time allow but now it seems impossible to use it there because of its content. People like Tim Redman or Nathaniel Cook cannot stay in the template because of their low notability for chess etc. The Chess article is now struggling for survival in FARC and we cannot experiment with it just now. Thank you for understanding. Happy editing! --Ioannes Pragensis 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!--Ioannes Pragensis 14:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again - I copyedited the template and added it back, I hope that it is already good enough. Greetings--Ioannes Pragensis 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image on your user page

I noticed that Image:Eldest-usa.jpg is on your user page. Per WP:FAIR#Policy article 9, no fair use images are to be used outside the article namespace. Thanks. Thunderbrand 15:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed. Remember 16:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Organ transplant information

Thank you for the interest. I just created the category because another article, Howard W. Mattson, was about an organ transplant recipient. BTW, are you from South Carolina because Wando HS is in the Charleston, South Carolina area? I knew several people from Clemson who were from there. Chris 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I went to Riverside High in Greer, South Carolina after having transferred from Doyle High (South-Doyle High since July 1991) in Knoxville, Tennessee. Doyle is where Get Fuzzy cartoonist Darby Conley graduated from in 1988 (I was two years behind him when I moved to South Carolina in the fall of that year.). Chris 22:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Economics template

Nice work. I like the way you include just a portion of the template for each article (the macroeconomics part for Macroeconomics). If there is a WikiProject economics, we should both be part of it. If there isn't, maybe we should get it started. Or maybe I have enough to do... Anthon.Eff 00:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Economics template

Nice work. I like the way you include just a portion of the template for each article (the macroeconomics part for Macroeconomics). If there is a WikiProject economics, we should both be part of it. If there isn't, maybe we should get it started. Or maybe I have enough to do... Anthon.Eff 00:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have giant topic here. Obviously, we all recognise vandalism. What we do not know, in depth, is who does it, and categorising it is going to be a mammoth task.

There are two main categories of vandalism - wholly new non-encyclopedic articles, and vandal edits to existing articles. And both can be made by account holders with userpages, account holders without userpages (who might be seen as less committed to wikipedia), and anonymous IP addresses. We need to analyse these various vandalism types in order to establish the best way in which to combat the most frequent; but I have got to say that the size of the task I find daunting. I am, of course, in the minority who would not allow non-account holders to edit, but I recognise that wiki policy is against me.

I really do not know how to count and classify all of the vandalism edits that occur in an average day. Or week. But am happy to help if you know how to do it.--Anthony.bradbury 23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stats

If you're interested in vandalism stats, talk to User:Tawker as he runs the Anti Vandal Bot. American Patriot 1776 21:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My favourite kind of vandalism is a sport that's beginning to immerge called 'wikijacking', in which either subtle misinformation or extreme truthiness is imported into pages that few people visit, and various people compete to see who can have the most extreme BS stay up the longest. I'm the current champion in my area, but my attempt is still up so I won't give it away until the present contest is over.

UNC-Duke rivalry links

I removed those links because they were all violations of WP:EL: two were personal sites not written by a recognized authority, and one was a blog. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Growth Attenuation

You're welcome! :) Rosemary Amey 21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Internet Scams

Hello, I am Alex Bonaro, perhaps you could help me with a specific question I have about a company on the internet. My email is brooklyn_mafia@hotmail.com and I would be most appreciative if you could contact me via that address. Alexbonaro 11:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism studies

Hi. You put the study 1 page in the main namespace (I presume, by accident). I moved it to Wikipedia namespace. Hope that's alright. Thanks. Trebor 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

data points

hi there! ten more data points for the study over in my sandbox. No vandalism in any of them, i was surprised. something that I ran into as well; articles created after 2004 but had edits nov 2005 or 2006 i just put n/a in the edit field for 2004. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

done! did you just put zeros in where the article hadn't been created yet like the above scenario i ran into? or did you get all articles created before nov 2004? i just want to make sure we are using the same methods. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in zeros but I should change it to NAs

I was thinking of repeating the results section each time, so if there is a mistake somewhere you can pinpoint where it happened and you wouldn't have to start all over. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what I meant to have by the summary but either way is fine by me. Remember 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Im gonna switch it back; the cumulative results are easier to follow screw-up wise than cumulative data. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Na Pali Coast Image...

Hey, sorry I just reverted the image -- you can put it back if you want. It would be nicer if it was cleaned up more -- right now it doesn't look very professional with the boxes and obvious stitching job. It needs some rotation and cropping, which I can try to work on later if you don't want to do that. --MattWright (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of the edit -- I replaced it onto the Na Pali Coast page in a smaller size. --MattWright (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the Peer Review Page. Having stitched photos myself I think one could do better, personally I like the results produced by the free programs hugin and enblend. First is the question on how much the photographer moved in between shots, and how big the effect is. One has to try and see. Secondly I think that the original photos do not have the same exposure. Can probably be corrected, more easily if one has access to the original unmodified files and look into the EXIF metadata. And thirdly, given the artifacts, I wonder whether one has used photoshop or gimp as the main stitching tool instead of a proper stitching software.

With the original photos (unmodified as from the camera) I am game to give the stitching a try myself.--Klaus with K 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also have a suggestion for future panoramas. If you are using a panorama mode on your camera, you will want to start at the brightest point in the series of shots. Otherwise, if you're doing this manually, you will want to lock the exposure close to the values that would be used to photograph the brightest area. If you look on the right side of the image, the sky is clearly blown out and you can see no detail because it was too bright there for the exposure settings used. --MattWright (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo Contest

Sorry for the delay in answering. I would be more than happy to help you with this. Danny 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism studies

hi there! i didn't want you to get the impression that i forgot or don't care about the vandalism studies project; i've been stupid busy lately, but i'd still like to help when i can. i'll add some more data points ASAP. also, are we counting linkspam as vandalism now? what criteria are you using? JoeSmack ^Talk 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

linkspamming can be difficult to judge :/. i'd put in somewhere what criteria you were using in a sentence or two. this way if later down the road you want to add more data but refine the criteria, you could go back and see if the new criteria works with the old data, and could show that the criteria has been revised.

as for refinement and word, the first thing i'd do is post it to the village pump, and perhaps the community bulliten notice board. i'd also drop a message in a stats wikiproject or two asking what they think, how the validity is, if they know anyways to refine/show the data, etc. stats guys love this stuff! :D you should also ALWAYS ALWAYS along with your findings in the post everywhere give a concluding blurb about the next study, and ask anyone who wants to help to come on over to the wikiproject page. i'd say 200 data points for the next, and as long as all the criteria etc stay the same it'll be 300 data points total to add power to the findings. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rem. I got down ten more data points. As a quick consult, please look at data point 49's history and tell me what you think about nov 2006; potentially vandalism, but used an article source? seemed good faith to me, but would like a second opinion.

I'd also like to ask that we get some clear definitions of what each type of vandalism is and put them at the top of the study. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vandalism_studies/Types_of_vandalism doesn't include 'Obvious vandalism' or 'Linkspam', and inaccurate vdl and POV vdl could be the same thing, etc. I'm confused now as to which you are using.

In addition to stats wikiprojects, you might send it out to everyone's talk page on the participants list. After the definitions of types are clear again, you could also send out a tap on the should to everyone now - 'we're half done at 50 data points, still want to help?'.

It should also be noted that people who 'test things out' - those who put 'benny is stuuuuuPID', then remove it 0 minutes later - is still vandalism (as it was for however many seconds it was up there).

Anyways, these are all the things that came to mind for the last 10 data points. Lets keep on going, this is getting really interesting! :D JoeSmack ^Talk 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Still interested? ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lets get this thing finished; after the first study i think we'll get enough interested hands to help out the load for the second. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Crime

Remember,

A User:Wooyi recently left me a message regarding his starting a WikiProject Criminal Biography and I was curious, as you've recently proposed a WikiProject Crime (which now has met the minimum 5 user requirement), you might consider some sort of collaberation. Also, I've asked around the various crime related WikiProjects and there is some interest in the project (particularly on the idea of a Portal:Crime). MadMax 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Rwandan Genocide as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year

Thank you for voting in the picture of the year. However your vote was invalid because you did not have 100 edits on Commons, or the diff you supplied was not correct. Please read the instructions on diff making how to do this. You can remove the strike from your vote once you have add a correct diff. Thanks, Bryan 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Vandalism studies - 100 data points reached

Hey guys,

Just wanted to let you know we've reached a 100 data points in the vandalism studies now. I resulted the data points 81 - 90 from Remember, and acquired and resulted data points 91 - 100, and the total results.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1#Results 1-100

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

More at User_talk:JackSparrow_Ninja - trying to keep things centralized :) JoeSmack ^Talk 05:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've moved the discussion to the project page now =) Talk to you there! JackSparrow Ninja 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Eight U.S. Attorneys

The 2006 Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy entry is now listed as one of today's current events. Thanks for all your good work on the entry. Terjen 21:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay!

I am just so pleased that we have a template on extremophiles now! Thank you for creating it. Well done! DS 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sports Illustrated and Hansborough.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sports Illustrated and Hansborough.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Fair use and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytny (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Project proposal, Political Scandals and Controversies

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Political_Scandals_and_Controversies
It seems like a good idea. You might want to post the proposal to a selection of controversial issues talk pages. I don't think I have time to participate, alas. -- Yellowdesk 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that, 'Some of the biggest editing disputes at Wikipedia naturally mirror the intensity of the controversy in the outside world. The clash between what the West (and particularly the U.S.) call "liberal" and "conservative" fuels many of these disputes.' [2] I said this back in January. Entered it directly into the project page Wikipedia:List of controversial issues, in fact. Of course I'll join your WikiProject! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'm willing to be a freindly...slightly more than observer. Cool that Ed Poor is interested. There's a big name. I think the mission is...huge. I fear that it would take only one controversy to exhaust everyone on the project. How could it be made useful, and less amorphous? Could it be a sub-part of an already-going activity? I find that it is plenty to keep on on the one technical aspect of one system of articles--good citations--let alone excellent prose. Care to turn on an email? -- Yellowdesk 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My email is on now. Remember 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit to AG Storey

Remember, I appreciate your input on this article, however I think it was not at all constructive. Yes, you can argue that "extraordinary" is POV, and if you just eliminated that word I would not complain. I do not consider it POV since it does effectively describe the situation but I agree that it is debatable and would be happy if another word was used that made clear that fact that Clinton was the only president to immediately fire all (actually, 91) USA's. He gave them 10 days to clear their offices.

All other presidents including Regean have replaced most of the USA's as their term expired. In fact, this is stated in the reference from the WSJ that you also deleted with your reversion.

You may have a POV on this subject, or you may just be misinformed. Or maybe I am misinformed, but if I am misinformed please provide a citation. I have provided mine, and you deleted it.

Maybe you thought I was a right wing troll, but if you did shame on you. I used a name, left a comment in the talk page, and provided a citation to a major news source. Probably you are just a Clinton supporter that is sticking your fingers in your ears screaming "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" right about now. jcp 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because I thought "extraordinary" was POV and you deleted another citation that supported the idea that previous administrations had dismissed attorneys. You also deleted the fact that Reagan had dismissed his attorneys as well. I am happy for you to add as much relevant information as possible regarding past history related to past firings of attorneys, but please do not delete relevant information. Please add any further information you think that helps illuminate this debate. Also, in the future I would rather do any talking about this article on the article's talk page. Thanks. Remember 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete any citations! You seem to think that your words are more real than the truth. I moved one citation to a more relevant sentence. I also removed the Reagan reference since (a) it was contradicted by the WSJ cite, (b) was not supported by any other cite, and (c) I could find no supporting evidence after an exhaustive five minute google search. (admittedly inconclusive.) This was stated on the talk page and in the edit summary. Please, you accuse me of doing what you have done. I very rarely edit Wikipedia, but you appear to have some investment of time in this project. I applaud that. [Again, I make excuses for you] Perhaps you were inattentive in your editing, but I did everything right when I added this citation and then to be accused of deleting cites makes me sad for others that have invested time in this project and those foolish enough to use Wikipedia as a reliable source of unbiased information. A bird should poop on your barnstar. jcp 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the talk here since It was directed at you personally (and somewhat negatively), and since you apparently did not read my comment on the talk page.jcp

You are right that you did not delete the citation and that you simply moved it. I was mistaken (I went back and checked). While you seem to have some personal negative feelings towards my editing, I have no intent to block useful sourced information from the page. I am just trying to stop people from deleting content that is relevant to get their POV across. I mistakenly thought that you had done this by deleting the references to Reagan (which I was wrong about), and defining the firing of Clinton as "extraordinary" and so I quickly reverted it. I apologize if I hurt your feelings by quickly reverting your edit, but I assure you that I did this because of a lack of time and not some overall theme to push my POV on the page. I along with several other dedicated editors, are trying to manage a constantly changing complex current event with strong feelings on both side. In retrospect, I should have looked at your source, read it and revised the sentence to include the revelant information in a way that was NPOV. In conclusion, I appreciate your input and I hope you continue to add information to this article so that it can be a complete accounting of the controversy. Remember 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology understood and accepted. And sorry about the barnstar; I think it will wash off after a good spring rain. 221.28.55.68 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

vandalism studies update

hi hi. im about to finish the last summary/results section. unfortunately i think we're going have to *gulp* triple check the math, i found some errors that went back in the data to where it had been 'double checked' and it was still wrong. most of this is probably due to skimming over the revert math element of the study. the 3rd time around it isn't going to be as bad though (no arg, where did these 34 extra edits come from!?). i'll be done in like 10 minutes, but maybe start drafting the wording of the conclusions section in a sandbox? don't put them in yet until the final numbers are triple checked, we dont want anyone bumping into the draft and jumping to conclusions. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. we're getting to the end! huray! :D also, look what i found for study 2: [3] - a link to users who use the 'im a statistician' userbox. maybe we can get a specific stats brain on board for the 2nd study in addition to some wikiproject mathematics peoples. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Awwwwwsome, thanks for Excelling the math, it needed it! :D More on the wikiproject talk page. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I may have pinned down what our Arabic dif in data point 68 was. See the wikiproject talk page and tell me what you think. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Michael is active normally for another few hours, he doesn't login until later in the day, fyi. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for leaving a message on my page. The only suggestion I would have for your vandalism study would be to take a random sample of edits instead of a sample of articles. The reason being, as it stands, heavily edited pages will have (what would seem) a disproportionate weight in the resulting statistics. If you are trying to estimate the true rate of vandalism in terms of vandalized edits per total edits, then the effect of this will be increased variance of your statistics in the best case (that vandalism rates are uniform across articles), and increased variance PLUS BIAS in the worst case (that some articles are systematically vandalized at a higher rate than others). So if the goal is to estimate the encyclopedia-wise rate of vandalizing edits, my recommendation would be to randomly sample edits, not articles. Btyner 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but how can we do that when there is no random edit button. Any ideas? Remember 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do the randomization with your own software; randomly draw from integers {a,...,b} where a corresponds to (say) the first edit of the year and b corresponds to a fairly recent edit. Say your pseudorandom number generator tells me to check edit number 87310788. Then go to the corresponding edit and compare to previous version to see if it was vandalism. There may be a more automatic solution but you'd have to ask someone more advanced in such things. Btyner 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea that you could check edit number 87310788. Where can I find out about this edit index? Remember 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Odometer which has information in this vein. Note that for some reason the link I gave above originally had /w/ instead of /wiki/ in the title but now I've fixed it. Btyner 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Vandalism study.xls

Thanks for uploading Image:Vandalism study.xls. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

proposed conclusions section

At your request, I added a proposed conclusions section to your favorite study. Pdbailey 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Remember 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem

Thanks for the kind words. The rankings (which I assume are AP) are available at the recently completed official Duke Blue Devils Basketball Statistical Database.[4] It was quite an accomplishment by the department to aggregate all the data from every game ever played. Click "season database" and then choose the year, the click "schedule & results".link for 60-61 I would then just change the url on top to get to the next year rather then having to go back. It also lists the sites for all the games (so "neutral" or "acc" could easily be changed to the name of the stadium) as well as attendance figures for most of them. It's quite interesting that there were big stretches when UNC (60s) or Duke (70s) were unranked, but they never really overlapped, leading to the fact that there hasn't been a matchup since 1960 when both teams were unranked. Enjoy! -Bluedog423^Talk 22:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

vdl studies

so, should we get the next round going? study 1 was an amazing success in my eyes. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was planning on waiting until April 7 to get everyone's input on what study we should conduct, but there has been no movement for some time now so I think it would be safe to assume that the random edit study is the one we should do and start getting that started. So feel free to start it up. I think we should try to get some people to commit up-front to doing a certain amount of edit reviews so we can gauge how much people are willing to volunteer. Remember 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to chime in here on your talk page as a well and note that I would be happy to take on the position of prime coder for your upcoming study. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 14:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we hit signpost this week (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Single#News_and_notes). :) JoeSmack ^Talk 12:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

table

Yo, I messed with the table you made. If we go with the table approach for the study, I think we'll have to do something like this so that volunteers don't actually have to do any table formatting, but can just plug in data. The numbers on the left column would, of course, be the randomly chosen edit number, not sequential ones.

Edit #	Article name	Edit date	Edit type	Date of ten edits later	Date of ten edits previous	Text char. change	Editor type	Name	Number of edits at time/number of edits currently	Date of first edit	Edit #	Revert date	Reverter type	Length/size	# categories	# links to	Creation date	Date of collection
00000001	AN	ED	T	10B	10A	C	ET	N	#Es	1st	R#	RD	RT	L	Cat	L	Cr.	Col.
00000002	AN	ED	T	10B	10A	C	ET	N	#Es	1st	R#	RD	RT	L	Cat	L	Cr.	Col.
00000003	AN	ED	T	10B	10A	C	ET	N	#Es	1st	R#	RD	RT	L	Cat	L	Cr.	Col.
00000004	AN	ED	T	10B	10A	C	ET	N	#Es	1st	R#	RD	RT	L	Cat	L	Cr.	Col.

Martschink 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Thompson

Thanks for adding this to the Dismissals article! I waited until I had a formal link in the form of Tammy Baldwin's request and the Leahy letter. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question at [5]

Hi, now, what's your question? ;) -- Aka 05:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway to use your wikipedia stats tool (or another tool) to get information about an article at a specific point in the article's history? On the English wikipedia we trying to study aspects of vandalism on wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies) and for our second study (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study2) we want to gather this sort of information. Thanks for your reply. Remember 13:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With this tool it's currently not possible and I do not know of such a program. -- Aka 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

wikizine story

wikizine just came out and it has study 1 in it! yowzah! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 12:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the update.

Microformats

Apologies for the late response; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats#Question. Andy Mabbett 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Market Approval

Hi Remember, I just wanted to let you know, since you were the creating author, that I've reccomended this page for deletion. The title is not consistent with the usage on the FDA website (premarket approval - no hyphen or caps) or the Wikipedia naming guidelines. Also the definition seems overly narrow, since there is nothing about this concept which is specific to medical devices or the FDA.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. No objections. Remember 03:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the FDA

The page has been temporarily restored so we can reach a consensus on the fate of the content. I've suggested we keep the vote open for five more days.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

vdl studies news / study 2

hey rem! yeah, i heard the podcast! the info was sort of lightly regarded on the show (ack!) and you're right, and i bet they'd love to have someone come on the show to talk about it. it terms of that and study 2 - im going to be kind of busy for the next week or so due to finals and such (it'll actually go for two weeks, but hopefully it won't be as bad the second week). i'll be pretty stuck in the books unfortunately. i'll prolly be around for quick comments and my normal watchlist vandalism reverting but not much else. if you want to wait a week or two before revving up study 2 i'd be more around then, or you could run with the torch now and i'll catch up when im done with the heavy part of my classes. if you wanted to go on wikipediaweekly, i'd suggest having study 2 set up and waiting for work to be done so you can ask the listeners to help out as well as being able to present them with a nice round picture of study 2. or, you could go on now to present study 1 better and come on again for study 2 if it takes a while to set up. that one would be better actually, cause it'd supply some continuity to the project on a well circulated news source. still - it depends on your free time.

i'm glad you're still into vdl studies, cause i think this is a great wikiproject. im still here, i'm still into it, just unfortunately busy for a week or two! :/ JoeSmack ^Talk 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible peer review for Dismissal of USA's controversy

At the instigation of User:Bdushaw I have drafted something (based on his questions) for the Wikipedia:Peer Review page for Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I'm interested in knowing your level of interest in participating in responding to suggestions made there, whether such a review would be worthwhile, given the changing nature of the article, and your suggestions for revisions to the request for review, which is in draft form at User:Yellowdesk/scratch4. -- Regards, Yellowdesk 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Submitted. -- Yellowdesk 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, over at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/archive1 an automated bot ran an analysis on the text and for simple formatting...and I decided to take on fixing the easy ones, like malformed < refs > and poorly formatted wiki dates. That report/output is at: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/May_2007#Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy -- Yellowdesk 04:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

I removed your addition to the gallery. As you can see in the article, that gallery is for showcasing one dog of each coat type. As the "Bleihnem" coat was already shown (in the gallery and the infobox) I reverted your picture. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an image gallery for pets. thank you VanTucky 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being so reasonable. You wouldn't believe the resistance I'm getting from people on removing images that have no encyclopedic merit on pages such as Snowshoe (cat). VanTucky 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism study bot

I cranked out a bot in the past 24 hours (sorry it took so long for me to find the time). I'm kicking off my first sample set of 500 edits right now and will post it to a wiki table. (I'm dumping into an SQLite database, so we can manipulate it to get just about anything). --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And.... check out some sample output.

Curious.. what did you use to pick the numbers you posted on my talk page? --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I might be able to use that for the next run, but I decided to go ahead and kick off the first 1000 tonight with the random number function I was using before instead of writing up a quick queue... spent a while coping with all the changes to api.php and the library I've been using to accommodate it. I'll let the batch run for the rest of the night and see where we end up when I'm awake. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight problem... I had numbers for the year 2006 (Jan 1 - Dec 31)... I would have to throw everything out and resample tonight if we're doing May 31 - May 31... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I just realized... we changed the pattern to get the size of the article at the time of editing... but I've already been collecting that data. The change in WP software in April didn't affect the way I coded things... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 13:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

US Atty timeline

Great work. Sorry I was not able to help out today. Any objection to putting year with each month? Might aid in future edit summaries, as more fingers get into the pie. -- Yellowdesk 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Remember 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		is hereby awarded to Remember for his outstanding work on Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline, which includes, but not limited to, creating it to begin with, and adding a huge amount of well documented and sourced material, all while the current event is changing -- and new revelations appear -- almost daily. Well done! Sholom 14:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WikipediaWeekly

i don't have a microphone or skype, is there another way i can join the podcast? :/ i have a cellphone with free long distance etc, but not sure how many minutes, maybe my plan is free after 9pm?, can the meeting be after that time PST yet still be able to sleep before 3am, etc. etc. i'm just not sure how flexible i can be, but i still happy to be on to talk about WP:WPVS if i can hammer out stuff. i'll look for a mic when i get home from work. i'll be most available after 6pm until this thurs btw, then i'm free from school and work for a while after that (i.e. can do it anytime of day). JoeSmack ^Talk 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure sure! In retrospect the message above seems kind of fussy, but yes, definitely ok to include me in the talkpage note to fuzheado. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

US Attorneys section draft - interest welcome

There's a draft outline on rewriting the "administration planning" section. Probably will evolve into thematic section building. Thoughful additions/comment desired. I don't think I'll have time to convert from outline to prose; it looks like Bdushaw is willing to take that on.
In progress at Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/sandbox. See also: Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#New_section_underway_in_sandbox.

-- Yellowdesk 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Do you have any cites and sources that could expand upon the limp Sara Taylor bio? -- Yellowdesk 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

You are correct in that I would be extremely interested. In fact, I just joined. It's a great idea for a WikiProject. Let's get to work!  hmwith  talk 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Behindthename and SSA

I took the links out of the name template because: - BTN is a personal website, and I do not think WP should be promoting it by linking to it, per WP:EL and - The SSA is excusively a U.S. site and so violates WP:CSB. Responses welcome, here or on my talk page. UnitedStatesian 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

While BTN is set up by a person, which I guess makes it a personal website, it is the only one that aggregates data regarding the popularity of names around the world (which I would think helps counter systematic bias). If you can find a better website then BTN that is more authoritative, please replace it, but right now it is the best source out there as far as I can tell.

As for deleting the US site to counter the systematic bias of wikipedia, I would think that the answer to this problem would be to add more links to other government websites that state the popularity of names and not take the only one I could find away. I have put a lot of work into trying to make the name articles better and I don't think removing the EL from all the pages is helping these articles be more informative. But that is just my view and I could be wrong.

I recommend that we try to get some other people's opinion on the matter so that the community can settle this debate. I will gladly defer to what the community's consensus is. What do you think? Remember 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the talk page for WP:EL may be the best place to do it; I am consistently impressed by the high qulaity of the discussion there. Feel free to revert my changes and I will take the discussion there, unless you have a different place you would rather take the discussion. UnitedStatesian 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Once a consensus is reached we should also post it on the template page. Remember 03:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New project

Regarding new project that you have started to: I am interested. Especially in last names origin and meaning and their original native locations. I could probably know about 100000 Ukrainian, Russian and European last names. Recently my page that I wrote was deleted. So now I have doubt about if it is possible to keep pages I have worked on on.

Did you check policies about describing surnames? Project can give for a million pages, that is right - that s how much I think surnames are around. So let me now or I will check project page later for an answer. Sincerely.--Tomakiv 08:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I work on the same task in Rodovid.

I didn't check the surname policy. We should definitely include all policy information on names on our wikiproject page. Remember 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)