User talk:Vickser

Thanks!

Thank you for providing the Curriculum vitae on my friend Kaye. It really helped the case, and the article can only prosper now! Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard^(Bloom) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

GOOD Magazine

I've copied your comments on my talk page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GOOD Magazine (2nd nomination). Thanks for finding these references. -- The Anome (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone is trying to be you

You may want to know about User:Vikser. --Damiens.rf 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i think Damiens.rf is wanting to be you

Check again, and follow the path of Damiens.rf activity. I think he is the one forging IP's and Usernames to make his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebprofiler (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Flynn

Hello Vickser. I've found some evidence that the Irish League is not fully professional - see this Irish News article. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. New Jersey School Report Card

Hello Vickser. I have withdrawn my nomination for deletion. You did a terrific job and I must concede defeat. Well done. I should hate you now for that, but I'll fare any anger good bye with some WikiLove below. Regards, Húsönd 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some pebbles for you! Pebbles somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD for New Jersey School Report Card as "keep"

You should be good to go on the DYK now. S. Dean Jameson 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Vickser (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to be able to help. S. Dean Jameson 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, sorry I forgot to remove the oldafd tag from the main article. I guess I must have just missed it. Thanks for fixing it for me. S. Dean Jameson 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My talkpage...

Go away weirdo. Just kidding. You are more than welcome to ask anything you'd like at anytime on my talk, don't ever feel like you're "intruding" or anything. As you've quite likely learned already, my talkpage is ridiculous. Lots of eyes on it, so if you ever want something done (for example, your latest post), WP:AN/K has more views than User talk:Jimbo Wales, and over 10% of the views of WP:AN/I. I'm not really sure how that happened, but most issues on my talkpage get solved by someone other than me. Strangely, my stalkers leave the "difficult" ones for me to fix. Hmmm. Anyway, I've seen your name surface quite a bit in the AFD discussions, a venue I frequent, and want to say that I'm very impressed with your thoughtful and civil approach to the discussions, with a dab of humor even. It's refreshing to see someone do something there other than "delete per nom" followed by "keep per YOUSUCKNOM". Not to say that I'll always agree with your position necessarily, but I have certainly decided that your opinion will at the very least be well-founded, with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. So, anywho, I'm a rambler, sorry 'bout the tldr, just wanted to drop by here. "I hope you like the place and decide to stay!" Cheers, Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Journeyman

Comment copied from User talk:Gatoclass I saw you've got an under construction box on top of the next DYK template, so I didn't want to edit it myself, but I was wondering if you'd consider removing the word journeyman from the Mike Cervenak so it would read simply "... that infielder Mike Cervenak spent so much time as a member of the Norwich Navigators that the residents of the town dubbed him the "Mayor of Norwich"?" Journeyman's a pretty pejorative term, and it seems like some unnecessary editorializing to put on the front page. It was discussed on the template talk but never changed. Especially with a living person involved, I think it's better not to insult. Vickser (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry, I meant to do that myself, but I'm in such a hurry right now, as it's way past my bedtime I must have forgotten. Hang on a sec, I'll get rid of that now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment copied from User talk:Gatoclass Thank you! And by the way, thank you for taking care of the next updates so often. It seems like you've been one of the administrators who are really on top of it, and as new DYK addict, you get a ton of my gratitude. Thanks for keeping the updates coming, and I'll see you around! Vickser (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if I'm not "on top" of it by now I guess I never will be :) Thanks for your own assistance BTW, it's been very helpful to the updaters, I can assure you! Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Treehopper and Leafhopper

Vic, thanks lots for the work you are doing on the DYK project! I left a note in Template talk:Did you know beneath the Candy-striped Leafhopper and Buffalo Treehopper article. You may want to comment on my suggestion. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All done and commented. Great suggestion, I think it improves DYK and doesn't have any negatives I can think of. Vickser (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had originally posted the hook under July 14 but someone looked at the creation date and moved it. I know that people do series of articles and have seen runs in which every DYK has featured a Turkish politician or Ohio high school or whatever for days in a row. It's not optimal! - House of Scandal (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Star of the Day

WORKING WOMAN'S BARNSTAR Vickser, thanks for all your work auditing DYK submissions thoughtfully and well. It's very helpful for the project. I hope you keep submitting quality articles to DYK too. Best wishes. - House of Scandal (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Vickser (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey School Report Card

On 17 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Jersey School Report Card, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Spacecraft magnetometers

Hi. You're right that my hooks (one of which has now been selected for the next update) were a little clunky - I spent ages thinking but somehow couldn't quite get the prose right. I think yours is somewhat better: feel free to change it on the next update page if you want. Seems a slight shame that Bedford decided to drop the picture as I thought it was good - but then I have an obvious bias in addition to being the nominator!

Anyway, thanks for reviewing the nom. and catching my original error. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I had a lot of fun going through the article. I spent some time trying to think of a non-clunky way to write the hook, and quite simply, I'm not sure there is one. No matter what you do, "spacecraft magnetometer" just isn't going to flow well. Anyway, it was a good find and a great article, and i'm glad to see it making it's way to the front page, even if the awesome Luna 2 picture won't be there with it. Vickser (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lexis Nexis link

Do you know how to make a permanent link to a Lexis Nexis document? I realize that not everyone has access to Lexis Nexis. But for those that do... I think it'd be nice to include a link in my referencs. For example, I placed this reference -- Bob_Barr#cite_note-CongressProfile1999-13 -- but haven't figured out how to place a link that doesn't expire. Thanks for your help. Noca2plus (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if you can provide a perma link to a lexis nexis document. Since there a bunch of different ways people can get into Lexis Nexis (some people have nexis side only, others get lexis only, there are a few different academic versions, some people have a LN username/pw, others use a proxy server or straight IP approval), I don't think there are stable links you can share that anyone using any type of LN could use. I searched around the site to see if anything quick came up on the help, but the only information about sharing talks about the emailing documents, downloading them to your computer or printing out, none of which are appropriate for wiki-sharing. When I'm citing a LN document, I'll just provide as much information as I can so that whoever wants to check it out for themselves can have an easy search.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Vickser (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the email option; but as you say, it just emails the text, not a permanent link. I appreciate you looking into it. Drop me a line if you ever figure out a way make such a link. Noca2plus (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The image

It's for Robert F. Kennedy assassination - if you can help, I'd be very grateful, as I'm trying to get the article to FAC in the next 24-48 if I can Fritzpoll (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I already replied over at WP:AN/K, but if you stop by here first, the image is up at [1]. Just be sure to use it in the page before someone marks it as orphaned! Vickser (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Many, many thanks! If you look at the article, you'll see the result of your handiwork - the rationale looks good to me. FAC in 20 mins...just a few more checks Fritzpoll (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. It seems like a great article. Good luck on the FAC! Vickser (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll need it! Fritzpoll (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I really, really appreciated the help

		The Original Barnstar
		Regardless of how the FAC goes, your leaping in to give me a hand with the fair-use upload meant that I at least got that far. Many, many thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your well-intending prodding of discussion and then later clearing up the mess that I myself created when trying to clear up ... another mess! Thank you for helping make a path clear for future actions in regards to the Article Rescue Squadron. Banjeboi 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pro Evolution Soccer 2009

Can you please stop people who aren't registered editing the page because I edited [Pro Evolution Soccer 2009]] with the correct information but now people are just vandalising the page!!!!

Please respond to this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaos d 2294 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the page and it looks like there was indeed a little bit of vandalism, but it's already been reverted. I'm not an administrator so I can't semi protect pages, nor do I think an administrator would approve a protection request right now since there's only been one small vandalism incident. To read more about when protection is appropriate, check out Wikipedia:Protection policy. In the future if you ever want to report a page for protection, you'll file a report at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Hope that helps! Vickser (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Palacio

Why was michael palacio deleted that does not make sense he is on the ny red bulls he didnt get a chance to play because of a season ending injury but he did make his professional debut last year when he played in an open cup game.Mlsnews10 (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)jon

If you're interested in seeing why Michael Palacio was deleted, an archive of the debate is available here. In short, athletes must have played in a league match in a fully professional league (or at the Olympics, or World Cup, or a similar tourney). A debut in a friendly match wouldn't count. If Palacio ever plays in an MLS game, you should feel free to recreate the article. However, until that time it is likely the consensus will be that he is not yet notable enough to have an article. Vickser (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Credit

Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the least I could do. Thanks for updating! Vickser (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/G notification

User_talk:Giggy#Help_writing_an_image_request :-) —Giggy 09:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Conway

Nice looking article! My opinion of the "scandal" section is a bit harsh I'm afraid. I don't think it belongs there at all. The "scandal" is his father's scandal, and doesn't add to HC's notability/notoriety. The first paragraph, giving the background, never even mentions HC, only DC and FC. (HC wasn't part of the investigation). A "press" revelation that HC was also paid continued the investigation, therefore I think the entire thing can be pared down to one sentence with a ref.

As of July 2008, there is a House of Commons investigation as to whether Henry's father, MP Derek Conway, had misused taxpayer money by paying Henry, and his brother Frederick, to be research assistants for his office while the brothers were at university. (ref, ref, ref)

Any more than that, it's a bit coatrack-y for my tastes in a BLP article, especially one that's about to be on the main. I'll watch your talkpage, no need to reply at my ridiculous talkpage, unless you'd like to flame me :-) Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look! You're right that I need to focus it somewhat more around Henry and maybe pare it down. I do think it needs a reasonable sized mention just because it became such a media circus and seemingly always gets substantial coverage in newspaper and magazine articles about Conway. It's also going to be what people know Henry Conway from. While he's gotten occasional cover stories since then (the most recent profile in independent, and the horse drawn carriage was used as a cover story at one tab), papers were using pictures of Henry and revelations about him (rather than his father) as their front page stories for prety much a whole week at the end of January/beginning of Feb.

What would you think if I changed the "Early life" section title to "Education and family" and made "Parliamentary payments scandal" a subsection of that with a paragraph reading:

In January 2008, Conway's MP father Derek was kicked from the Conservative Party after the Committee on Standards and Privileges of the House of Commons announced that he had misued taxpayer money by paying his son Frederick as a research assistant even though there was no record of Frederick's work. After press revelations that Henry Conway had been paid for the same position when he was an undergraduate, the Standards Committee announced in February 2008 that they would investigate whether or not Henry's employment was also in breach of normal protocol. As of July 2008, the investigation is ongoing. Derek Conway has maintained that both sons did work as research assistants and that the lack of records was merely a result of administrative shortcomings.

I think the essential points that need to be made are: 1. Derek Conway got in trouble for doing things wrong with Frederick. 2. Henry had the same position according to the press. 3. Parliament is holding an ongoing investigation into it. 4. Derek Conway denies that it was improper.

Does that sound good or would it still be too coatracky? Would moving it to a subsection in family even help? I mean, it decreases the importance by not giving it its own section, but it also moves it earlier in the article. I could also try keeping it as a section and shifting the focus to how the media covered Henry, which is something the more recent profiles of him have mentions of. But I worry if including things like "Paparazzi were following him everywhere! He got criticized for going partying while it was happening! Papers were running stories about his facebook profile!" gives undue weight to tabloids.

Thank you again so much for reviewing and advising. Vickser (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely improved! I'm not completely convinced yet. What about starting it with an explicit sentence as to why this is in HC's article? Something along the lines of In January 2008, Henry was _________(not sure the word here, hrm, featured? criticized? written up? in the news? after his MP father, Derek...' (and then continue on with your good stuff. Explains why it's being added. I didn't realize that HC himself was the subject of the press matters beyond "he's DC's son". Keeper ǀ 76 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and added your revised section to the article. I renamed the section but I'm still not totally happy with my new title, but I don't think it should go any "higher" in the article body or be called what it was called, maybe you can think of something better? I of course, gave you full credit for the overhaul in my edit summary :-) Let me know when it hits the main! Keeper ǀ 76 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Family controversy is definitely a better title than the old one, but it still feels off. Maybe "Parliamentary payments investigation"? I don't know. I think I'll probably also add a sentence or two describing the press coverage. Maybe "As a result of the controversy, Henry came under intense media scrutiny, with Liz Smith of The Daily Mail saying the press had "opened up and prodded [him] like an albino mouse in a dissection class."[2] Vickser (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Image:Common galaxias, Galaxias maculatus.jpg

I notice you have replaced this image on the the Common galaxias page. I have niminated this image for deletion because of its poor quality. Also, this image is not G.maculatus. I do not wish to engage in a revert war with you over this, but please see my comments on the article talk page.Nick Thorne ^talk 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to get in a revert war with you either! I acually found the image through its IfD, where the only reason I saw given was poor quality. Since a google image search turned up a good number of fish that looked to me like the same species, I figured we'd be better with a thumbnail of less than perfect quality than no image at all and went ahead and added it in to the article and commented to that effect on the IfD. I didn't even think to check the article's talk page, so I didn't see your comment there.

To me it does look like the same species, but I'm certainly not a fish expert, so if you're confident it's not the same species then I'll believe you. While I do think a poor quality image is better than no image at all for a species article like Common galaxias, a poor quality image that isn't the type of fish it claims to be and that we can't identify as another type is certainly not worth keeping.

I'd encourage you to expand the IfD nomination to explain that this isn't actually the image of the fish it says it is. I think that information is very relevant to the debate. Vickser (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand, I noticed the reason you gave on the talk page was that Common galaxias doesn't have a black stripe. However, the Australian Museum [3] has an image of a G.maculatus that does indeed have the black stripe and looks (to me) like the same fish. You might want to take a look at that and see if you still think it's not the same. (Again, not a fish expert, so I'll trust you on it if you are, and if neither of us are, we could try asking Wikiproject Fish.) Vickser (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the AM site and the top photo certainly would give you the impression of a black stripe, but I think it is a lighting issue. The lower image is more like what the fish really looks like. I have handled many G.maculatus and although their colouration is somewhat variable, the most obvious characteristic of their markings are small verticle stripes or blotches. I have never seen one with a distinct black horizontal stripe. Now, I agree that it is possible that the same thing is happening in the image in question, but it is very misleading to use this image as a representation of the species. As for my qualifications, I am not a fish biologist, but I am National Secretary of Native Fish Australia, I have been actively involved in the native fish scene here for about 18 years, I have handled this species many, many times and I have run the NFA web site (www.nativefish.asn.au) since its inception in around 1996, for what that is worth, plus my library has most of the books commonly used for Australian native fish identification, and before I posted anything about this image, I double checked in 5 of those titles. Nick Thorne ^talk 13:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)