Jump to content

User talk:TonyTheTiger: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Summary box: don't know who added
Radiant! (talk | contribs)
DRV
Line 31: Line 31:
:The "world's largest trading floor" can be resolved one of two ways: the statement could be removed (since it's no longer true), or it could be dated (was the world's largest trading floor on such-and-such date ... or once was the world's largest trading floor ... since it no longer is). I didn't remove it myself since I'm not sure how you would rather fix it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:The "world's largest trading floor" can be resolved one of two ways: the statement could be removed (since it's no longer true), or it could be dated (was the world's largest trading floor on such-and-such date ... or once was the world's largest trading floor ... since it no longer is). I didn't remove it myself since I'm not sure how you would rather fix it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know who added it, but since it's incorrect and we have a correct reliable source, that's not really an issue. It look like Joopers got as far as s/he could, since s/he hasn't updated inventionfactory. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know who added it, but since it's incorrect and we have a correct reliable source, that's not really an issue. It look like Joopers got as far as s/he could, since s/he hasn't updated inventionfactory. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== DRV ==

Oh sorry, I hadn't noticed that one of the paragraphs higher on at my talk page had gotten a new response (it's usually easier if you add your query to the bottom). Anyway, yes, the bot has a log (to wit, its contribution history) that can be used to repopulate the cat by using the 'undo' option on those edits. HTH! [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:09, 6 August 2007

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.


COBT

Hi Tony - it's a great article you've got at FAC there, sorry to see it renom'ed. If it's ok with you I'll have a go at addressing some of Sandy's referencing issues with the pdf I've found and linked at the FAC page. There's some additional info in there, about the artwork, which I'd like to add as well. --Joopercoopers 11:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot - the one thing we might struggle with is the assertion that it was the tallest Art-deco building outside of Manhatten. I'm not sure how to source that claim if we can't use emporis - perhaps we could move it to the talk page for now until someone can? --Joopercoopers 11:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Connection

someone AfDed it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

back to the CBOTB

as you can tell, i have renewed my efforts on the CBOTB article and spent considerable time working through the suggestions from the FAC discussion by adding new text, combining text, and adding new references. i will continue this effort through the weekend, and will try my best to find a reference for the "tallest art deco building outside of manhattan". with luck and others' copy editing, i am hoping that we will pass FAC review in the next 10 days. btw....isn't it interesting that we received feedback during peer review about including the feet to meters conversion template and we are now receiving feedback that use of the conversion template is making the article messy? we'll work through it! LurkingInChicago 14:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC's are always contradictory - sometimes self contradictory - you just can't please all the people..etc. I'd take the 'style' comments with a pinch of salt and do what you think is reasonable. Referencing is the main thing, the rest is people who haven't written the article, thinking they can do it by proxy. If you do get contradictory comments, best to highlight them and pose a question of the reviews which one they prefer. regards --Joopercoopers 14:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of a DYK for this new article? Speciate 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Request

I will add the citation for the Multi-level streets in Chicago. Actually there there are two reasons for the multi-level streets. The one I cited and that the portion of Wacker on the south bank of the main branch was done in accordance with the Plan of Chicago. But this has some limitations as the Plan only envisioned Michigan Avenue going across and not any other streets. Also, I will talk to an engineer from SOM who I worked with at Cityfront Plaza (another place with several two-level streets)and see if he knows anyplace I can get some written sources. But the street-raising above flood levels is not the reason.Gary Joseph 14:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary box

Thanks for removing the box, Tony. Are you able to resolve the remaining non-reliable sources (inventionfactory) and the factual issue (not the world's largest trading floor) so we can be done with that concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "world's largest trading floor" can be resolved one of two ways: the statement could be removed (since it's no longer true), or it could be dated (was the world's largest trading floor on such-and-such date ... or once was the world's largest trading floor ... since it no longer is). I didn't remove it myself since I'm not sure how you would rather fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who added it, but since it's incorrect and we have a correct reliable source, that's not really an issue. It look like Joopers got as far as s/he could, since s/he hasn't updated inventionfactory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Oh sorry, I hadn't noticed that one of the paragraphs higher on at my talk page had gotten a new response (it's usually easier if you add your query to the bottom). Anyway, yes, the bot has a log (to wit, its contribution history) that can be used to repopulate the cat by using the 'undo' option on those edits. HTH! >Radiant< 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]