User talk:TonyTheTiger

“ Have nunchucks. Will travel. - Antonio "Tony The Tiger" Vernon ”

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

Image:20070530 Miro - Miro's Chicago.JPG

Hi Tony, I like this photo a lot. However, the sculpture shown is likely still subject to copyright restrictions, so you need to put a fair use tag on the image description—we have {{Non-free 3D art}} for just this purpose. See Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg for an example of this tag in use. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be able to help

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. You're an art man! Any assistance welcome. Tyrenius 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Twas just a tiny misunderstanding

No problem! Some people at Wikipedia:Wikiproject baseball/players were completely adamant that all teams be listed even though it said "Former Teams," so after some discussion, it seemed the one thing everyone could agree on is that if it says "Former teams" then the current team doesn't go there; if it says "Teams" then everything should go there. I think more people had a preference for the "Teams," but it's not really a big deal whether it's former teams or teams.

I figured also that you might be using the commented out MLB summary to help with an improvement drive for the article, so I also felt bad removing it for copyvio, but it's still in the history so we can consult it easily for adding to the article.

Glad that we could sort this out--your contributions have been great, so I hated that we were rubbing each other the wrong way in these reverts. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New Images

Hey, I have noticed you have been adding A LOT of pictures of Chicago, and I say awesome. When you add them, would you mind adding the Category:Images of Chicago, Illinois at the bottom for me. And in the talk area add in a:

{{WikiProject Illinois|class=image}}

Thanks ahead of time, I appreciate it. Helps keep track of all the Illinois pictures for me.--Kranar drogin 02:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys have a class called "image", right? That is what I will plug in, and do with all the Chicago ones that are done so far (if they aren't done already).--Kranar drogin 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot and WP:Chicago

Hi, Tony!

Sorry for the delay! I think I've got the bot programmed correctly to run through WP:Chi categories on a weekly basis and tag any that have snuck in. However! I can't run that list as it is. The railway categories are still in there, which would cause the bot to tag many many articles that it shouldn't.

There are three possible solutions to this:

1. Remove the categories from the list that aren't 100% within the project scope. That reduces the usefulness of that list, so that's not really optimal.
2. Split the list into two sections - "Bot Run" and "Bot Ignore" (for example). That reduces the reader-usability of the list, since those aren't sections people would be looking for or find useful.
3. Add a tag {{bots | deny=SatyrBot}} to the category pages that the bot should ignore. That's probably the best solution, but I'll leave it up to you.

Let me know when you've got that set up and I'll fire up the bot :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

J. R. Richard FAC

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard. I made the recommended changes, but I left a note about your first recommendation. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:20060627 Trump Plaza et al from Atlantic City Expressway.JPG

Hi. When you uploaded Image:20060627 Trump Plaza et al from Atlantic City Expressway.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 07:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:20060627 Trump Plaza from Atlantic City Expressway.JPG

Hi. When you uploaded Image:20060627 Trump Plaza from Atlantic City Expressway.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 07:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:20070520_Lifesize_Darth_Vader_at_Lego_Store.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:20070520_Lifesize_Darth_Vader_at_Lego_Store.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Objections at JR Richard FAC

I have made the necessary corrections, and hope you will reconsider your comments at the FAC. I don't think my baseball writing was at fault; just some grammatical errors here and there (such as the Willoughby bit). Btw, if you have any more corrections, feel free to make the necessary changes yourself. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please copyedit J. R. Richard. You said you could see many more corrections needing to be made, and I think it would greatly help the situation if you could copyedit the article. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:20070602 1700 East 56th Street.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:1700 East 56th Street.JPG. The copy called Image:1700 East 56th Street.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Historic Michigan Boulevard District

On 5 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Historic Michigan Boulevard District, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Monet (Haystacks)

First, I did virtually nothing. The i.d.'s for most of the paintings were embedded, so all I did was copy info that was there already. I assume it was you who spent the initial hard research time on that--I did the easy work. I will continue to look for the as yet unidentified owners; I think at least one of them is private. As for the painting template: I don't know. Some of these things are just plain over my head. My enthusiastic thanks to you for creating the article, and structuring so much of the content that I've enjoyed tweaking! Best regards, JNW 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Emil Bach House

Hey Tony. I am working on an article about the Emil Bach House (a Chicago Frank Lloyd Wright house) and I was wondering if you could tell me what neighborhood it is, see [1]. Thanks. IvoShandor 08:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Figured it out, a couple of my refs that I hadn't found yet when I posted that pointed it out. Check out the article anyway. I added several to the new articles page for Chicago WP. All of the articles I have written lately have been DYK or have been nominated for DYK and are pending except for Peter A. Beachy House which wasn't long enough because the book I am waiting for hasn't arrived yet. IvoShandor 11:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they probably have enough significant buildings that will eventually be written about to warrant a cat, just haven't gotten around to making the other one. The Ridgeland district has over 1500 contributing properties and the other FLW one has over 80. What did you mean about lists? I don't think any of these articles need lists or tables. IvoShandor 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I tweeked that sentence you pointed out, btw the infobox adds Category:Historic district contributing properties, no need to add it to articles with "cp" parameter set in the box. Just FYI. IvoShandor 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

More pointless blathering from me. I much prefer the way I did Central Park West Historic District for district articles, I just separated the list and that one is comprehensive. IvoShandor 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming templates

Please note that you don't need to use the "templates for deletion" process in order to rename a template. When in doubt, you can discuss this on the talk page; otherwise you can just move them. >Radiant< 09:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Block 37 / you are beautiful

sure next time im by the area ill try to take some more pics of the 'you are beautiful' in other languages . any idea who made this art? who funded it? whose idea it was? cause i gave also seen a bunch of stickers tat say the samew messages all over the city and i wonder if its the same artist

J. R. Richard

I said that I could not obtain a free equivalent anywhere, and my best option as of now is to use a fair use image. Given my options, I don't think I could really flag down someone who just so happens to have a picture of Richard (he pitched 20-30 years ago). Anyway, I'll put it up for WP:LOCE for now, but any help from you would be appreciated. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like all three are backlogged. I'll ask user:Awadewit (he did great work coypediting Samuel Adams during FAC) to take a look at it. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally-re:architecture

I think it's more useful to keep information condensed in the main article unless it gets extraoridnarily long, then I'd split it off. Mostly I just try to look at it from the pOV of a reader, what would they expect to find, Board of Trade Bldg or Art Institute bldg, that's the best way to decide. If you do have separate articles be sure to summarize and refer to it from the other article in a section like "additions" or "alterations" or something, use the {{main article}} or {{see also}}. Hope that helps and I hope I understood you correctly. : ) IvoShandor 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image-Class Chicago articles

I've added Category:Image-Class Chicago articles to {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. I placed that template onto one image as a test, but it should be possible to put the template onto other images now to populate the Image-Class category. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why images that already have "class=image" don't show up in the category. I think it might be that if I edit a template, the category changes implied by the template don't get done unless something is edited on the articles that include the template. I edited Image talk:20070605 South McCormick Court Fountains.JPG to include the "importance" parameter, and suddenly it showed up in the category. Otherwise, your guess is as good as mine as to why they don't go into the category right away, even though bringing up the appropriate image talk page says very clearly that they're in the Image-Class category. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you might need to find a template expert to figure out why these images don't get placed into the category automatically. I'm not a template expert, though I've been able to get things done with this template so far. You might want to ask at the help desk. Alternatively, you could use AutoWikiBrowser to do null edits on each of the image talk pages that transclude {{ChicagoWikiProject}} as a hack to get them to show up in the category. I could do that later on this evening if you don't have AWB, but at the moment I'm at work trying to figure out some thorny problems. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and AWB-ed through all the articles that had {{ChicagoWikiProject}} in the Image talk: namespace. Some of them didn't have "class=Image" in the template, while others had it in lower case (although that shouldn't matter, in theory). In any case, they should show up now. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Douglas Park (Chicago)

The article Douglas Park (Chicago) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Douglas Park (Chicago) for things needed to be addressed.

GrooveDog 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I will review this article again tomorrow (June 10), and if it looks okay then it will pass. If not corrected, I'll alert you so that you may make any changes necessary. GrooveDog 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations Tony - my reading of it did not see any problems at GA level either - and I see that it has passed. Well done to all.--VS ^talk 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Harold Washington Cultural Center

On 10 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harold Washington Cultural Center, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Blackstone Hotel

Aw man. I'm sorry. I have been kinda preoccupied with my failing RfA. I will try to get to it in the next few days. IvoShandor 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Not a big deal. I will check out your question. IvoShandor 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support at RfA.

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

IvoShandor 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Chi checkup

I'm glad you asked. The bot ran - see [2] and the next several screens down. It says "weekly LGBT banner search" because I forgot to code that correctly - as you can see from the list, it's trying to add the banner for WP:CHI.

However, it doesn't look like it actually added the tag to many articles. See [3] and scroll down about a page. I have no clue why that happened. I think I'm going to run that now and watch what it does to see if I can catch it. I'll give you an update here in a little bit. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Found the bug. I'm running the full WP:Chi check now. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The full run has been completed. It will run every Thursday morning (I think it's 04:00 UTC?). The project list is something I put together manually while the project is running - since this is an ongoing thing, I won't be copying the logs there. You can either check the User:SatyrBot/Logs (which I empty out periodically) or Special:Contributions/SatyrBot. And do let me know if it doesn't seem to be working or anything - once it's automated, I tend not to check it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans

I removed the non-breaking spaces to make the page more human-readable. Sure, they are rendered perfectly readable but from other Manual of Style entries (WP:DASH for example) I read a preference for human-readable markup over non-essential html character encoding. The role of the non-breaking space characters is trivial here—would it be any less readable or proper if there was a line break between the digit and the unit?

If you disagree, let me know and I will change it back. Thank you for your question —Parhamr 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Return to Wikipedia and WPChi

hello! i took a wikibreak for about 3-4 weeks, but have now returned with a focus on WPChi, Arch, and NRHP. you can expect my contributions to get back to a significant level rather than the zero level of the last few weeks. i look forward to working with you again on collaborations and achieving an even higher level of success than we had before my break. on a related note, i see that you have continued to develop the WPChi project and for that i offer many thanks. thanks! thanks! thanks! ChicagoPimp 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Allerton Hotel

I can add the citations, but not for at least a week. Shsilver 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation format

Nothing wrong with the format at all. Please acquaint yourself with the rules before you perform counterproductive tasks and make groundless statements again. Chensiyuan 04:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

CBOT Peer Review

now that i have returned, i will take an active role with you in shepherding this article to FA status. nothing would make me happier than to have this article featured on the main page, and it would be a pinnacle accomplishment for WPChi and for me personally. i will be watching the WP:PR page and will actively address comments. i believe this article has a strong chance to pass the FAC review on the first try as it stands now, but a strong peer review will help, too. ChicagoPimp 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:20070613 Ludington Building.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:20070613 Luddington Building.JPG. The copy called Image:20070613 Luddington Building.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rockford, Illinois

There is a concern with a person I removed from the Rockford article. Danica isn't from Rockford, she is from Rockton, and I removed her from the Rockford list. I would like your take on this conversation here [4] if you would be so kind.--Kranar drogin 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

J. R. Richard FAC

There has been a great deal of copyediting done on J. R. Richard by a number of editors (Awadewit, SandyGeorgia and MisfitToys). Would you please take a look at the article and possibly re-evaluate your previous position on the FAC? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the condolences and the barnstar. I like shiny. : ) IvoShandor 11:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, I totally saw the four barnstars on the Chicago flag as the regular red stars until about the fifth time I looked at it. : ) IvoShandor 11:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And also . . .

Thanks for your support and kind words in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Old Man Daley, Kingmaker

Old Man Daley did not have a role outside Chicago? How about winning (some say stealing, with substantial evidence) the 1960 election for JFK? How about the 1968 Democratic convention/Police Riot, which likely caused the loss of the White House for the Dems, allowing Dick Nixon to win and leading to Watergate and the only resignation of a sitting President? It changed the course of world history. Perhaps 20,000 GIs and 1 million Vietnamese people died post-1968, and some of those corpses can be laid at Old Man Daley's feet, not to mention the 2 million dead form Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, which might not have happened if Nixon had not bombed Cambodia. Name another mayor in the history of the US with as much power when he was mayor. Speciate 09:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Haystacks (Monet) Peer Review

When I am archiving, I key off of several pieces of information: the date the request was submitted (or resubmitted for cases where an old request is incorporated as part of a request), the most recent signature time stamp, and if someone other than the requester has made a comment. No attempt is made to evaluate the quality of any comments or feedback. For your request, there was a comment made by User:Maclean25 and the most recent comment was timestamped on June 1. As a result of the comment and the most recent time stamp, the request was archived under the second provision of the Peer review request removal policy (request with no activity for 14 days that had received a response). --Allen3 ^talk 16:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The question as to why no automated peer reviews have been performed for the last month or so would be better handled by the individuals that are involved in running them (User:AZPR and User:Ruhrfisch). I have no idea why they have stopped doing them. --Allen3 ^talk 11:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pics

Hey Tony. You should really consider getting an account on Commons and uploading/moving your pics there. The MOS here recommends against image galleries and instead recommends that we construct them on Commons. Just FYI because I noticed the huge gallery on Magnificent Mile. If you have any questions or comments hit me up. Thanks and happy editing. IvoShandor 12:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

While not explicitly against it both guidelines and policy recommend against galleries. They don't really add much anyway. Read this policy and this guideline. Your free to do what you want but in my opinion large galleries detract from the article and I seriously doubt they would survive at FA or GA. The MOS certainly doesn't specifically endorese them. IvoShandor 16:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This part of the MOS on images: Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible. It does say to use galleries for too many images and then it recommends the above.

The best reason I can think of to move your images to Commons (and if you do this they are available here the same as if you ul them here) is since you are freely licensing your contributions anyway making them available on Commons only helps out. It allows all of the other language Wikipedias to use the images and easily find them. So when Portugeuse or whatever language wiki wants to translate something like Magnificent Mile they can include the images too. Just my opinion, do what you want with the galleries (though my recommendation and viewpoint still stands) but the images should definitely be moved to Commons, my guess is that if you don't someone else will so it doesn't matter really. But if you just add them to Commons in the first place it sure does save a lot of work later for someone else. Also I started taking a look at Blackstone Hotel. IvoShandor 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Another arguement against including galleries, or too many pictures in general, is the long load times. Much of the world still accesses the Wiki via dialup. Long load times for pages because of large galleries and the like are very frustrating for the reader. IvoShandor 20:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all NRHPs are architecture

Hi Mr. TheTiger, Can you reconsider adding the architecture tag to every NRHP article? There are now over 6000 architecture articles, and many of them are not architecture worthy of an encyclopedia. Please discontinue adding the architecture tag indiscriminantly to all your great new contributions — especially since they are all in the NRHP project. Respectfully, —Dogears (talk · contribs) 16:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Two Questions

Hi Tony, I have mainly used the locator dot function with templates that use it, such as {{Infobox_protected_area}}. I have also made use of it in dynamic maps like {{State parks of Pennsylvania map}} and could do something like the image on the left (the dot is linked to the 333 North Michigan article)

   

but the dot disappears if someone clicks on the image to see it more clearly. Another alternative is the image at right, with the arrow drawn in by hand. Since Image:20070513 Magnificent Mile arrow.JPG has the arrow in it, it is still there if someone wants to look more closely at the picture.

As for the semi-automated peer reviews, I have the script and can run it for any article in article space (so let me know if you want one or more run). I step in sometimes and do them for all articles at WP:PR when User:AndyZ is taking a break. I did not realize AndyZ was still away, I can work on the semi-automated peer reviews now that I am aware of it. Andy has a semi bot account and can do them a lot faster than I can, so I usually leave them to him.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was bold and added the dot picture to the 333 North Michigan article - I had to adjust it as the example above is 200 pixels wide and in the article it was only 150 pixels wide (so if the image size is adjusted, the dot will have to be moved too). I will work on the PR backlog over the next several days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

It looks like the discussion regarding the number of photos took place on your and JeremyA's talk pages. I noticed that you did post the "result" of that discussion on the talk page of the article. However my major edit in May removed many of the pictures as a result of Disavian's review failing the article's GA nomination. One of the points he stated was "(never thought I'd say it, but:) too many pictures". In the "05.09.07 Edits" section on the article's talk page I stated "Removed pictures - as mentioned for one of the reasons why this article failed GA, we have way too many pictures here. I've removed a lot of them. Unless the text of this article expands, the current gallery and infobox picture will suffice. Be aware that I'm only using pictures in the gallery that showed measurable progress just from looking at thumbnails with a quick glance." At the time I was looking for a better flow of the article using pictures I found significant enough to be used considering the relatively small amount of prose that currently exists.

After reviewing WP:MOS it seems that any number of pictures in the gallery would be OK. I just tried to keep, as mentioned on the article's talk page & above, that images in the gallery showing a measurable progress (from a quick glance). I thought that would be more beneficial to readers. But I didn't realize I bypassed a consensus between you and JeremyA. Feel free to add any and all pictures back in. Chupper 16:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I knew you would mention the number of images in the Chicago Spire article :). A new article has been written for the Chicago Spire. I'll be posting it as soon as actual construction starts on the Spire. Feel free to have a look at it and make changes - it's located at User:Chupper/Sandbox04. Considering the amount of prose on that sandbox article, you'll notice that the image count is way down and I probably need to bring some more pictures into it.

To get the Trump Chicago article to GA status we'll at least need a lot more prose and additional references. In addition I'll be restoring all those pictures back into the gallery section and maybe 1 or 2 into the main article. Considering WP:MOS and the consensus already established, I realized I removed those images in error. If you want to, go ahead and add those pictures back in. I probably won't be able to get around to it until next week because I'm drowning in finals right now. Chupper 12:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

People from Chicago

Hey Tony, I am getting closer to cleaning Category:People from Chicago. There are a few sub-cats in there, and I will have to create a few more to put football players in etc. So, even though I was guilty of creating one like Chicago baseball players, I think I am going to name them more like Football players from Chicago, similar to Actors from Chicago. I just think that sounds a lot better, and we can move the other sub-cats. I just wanted to get with you first and see what your opinion is since you head up the Chicago Wiki. I usually don't step too much into Chicago, but the People From for Illinois REALLY needed cleaning and better organization.--Kranar drogin 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 18 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crown Fountain, 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.

-- Congrats on making the lead entry! I'm aware that usually the COTW templates make the main article, but given the placement on the Main Page (which should hopefully encourage edits in the same manner), would you mind if the template is removed for a few hours? I'm just looking to avoid having comments about it spring up on the article's talk page, Talk:Main Page, Wikipedia talk:Did you know and God knows where else. I'll make sure to re-add it myself once the next update is prepared and transferred :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Colbert

Hi there. You have good timing! Although I've been inactive for a bit, I've been meaning to come back now that a couple of things in my professional life have calmed down. :) If you feel Colbert is ready for FAC, I'll be available to help clean up problems that come up in the process. Although I've been away, the article is looks to be mostly in the same shape I left it in, so it'll probably be good if I'm around -- I'm pretty sure I can still recall what articles have which factiods if sourcing questions arise. I'll take another look at the article tonight. -- Bailey^(talk) 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)