I have noticed your recent enthusiasm for the pov article created by wikireader may i suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_fallacies
before talking about notability you must not dilute policies for your own anti pakistani agenda [[Special:Contributions/86.156.208.231|86.156.208.231]] ([[User talk:86.156.208.231|talk]]) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
New Messages • 新しいメッセージ • Nuevos mensajes • 新消息 • Νέα μηνύματα • Mensagens novas • Nouveaux messages • Новые сообщения • Nieuwe berichten • Nuovi messaggi • 새로운 메시지 • Neue Mitteilungen • Teachtaireachtaí nua • ====
Hi, i also created Henry C. Nevins Home for Aged and Incurables stub article. It is down the street from Nevins Memorial Library. Those are the only two hits on "Nevins" in the NRHP that i can find (besides a "Nevins Bridge" in Indiana that appears to be unrelated). Also, FYI, I checked and find no hits on "Blackburn". I linked to this Home for Aged and Incurables from the library article. Feel free to work in mention of this Home for Aged and Incurables into your Harriet Nevins article, or elsewhere, or not.
I wish the NRHP nomination documents for MA sites were available on-line, as they are for NYS and some other states' sites. NRHP nomination documents often include biographies of significant persons associated with a given site, so i imagine there is useful info in them about the lives of Henry C. Nevins and about Harriet Nevins. You can obtain these documents anyhow, by email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to be sent to you by postal mail, at no charge, although they say it takes about 2 weeks for u to get them. Perhaps you should try putting in requests for the library and the Home, anyhow, to get info that might be added to Harriet Nevins article later? Cheers, doncram (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I appreciate this information. It's great that you discovered the existance of and created an article about the old age home. I thought about contacting the library but in similar situations I've sometimes encountered people who are either anti-Wiki or who are unaware of it and react with a somewhat flustered "explain to me ten more times what this is for" attitude so it might be more trouble for me than it's worth. I'm eager to incorporate the info about the nursing home into the Nevins' articles. Thanks very much. - Boston (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, without knowing when David died I'm confused about which legacies were a gift from both of them and which were from her as a memorial to him. I am going to try a phonecall to the library and follow up with emails as needed. I sort of forgot libraries have reference librarians whose job it is to dispense info, not to grill the someone as to why the query is being made! - Boston (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevens Family Info
According to a 4 August 2008 communication from Sharon Morley, Reference Librarian at Nevins Memorial Library:
David Nevins Sr. was born in Salem NH on December 12, 1839 To John
and Achsah Swan Nevins. When he reached 21, he moved to New Bedford
and sold supplies to the crews of the whaling vessels. In 1818,
Nevins married Eliza Coffin. She was the daughter wealthy ship
merchant Jared Coffin of Nantucket.
Nevins later went in to business importing cloth. In 1842,
protective taxes began hurting the textile importing business, so
Nevins switched to manufacturing textiles instead. In 1859, he
purchased the ill-fated Pemberton Mill, and in 1864, he purchased
the Methuen Cotton Company on the Spicket River.
Mr. & Mrs. David Nevins Sr. and their two sons returned to the
Methuen area in the early to mid 1860's. David Sr. Died in 1881 at
the age of 72. His wife and sons had the Nevins Memorial Library
built as a memorial to him.
David Nevin's sons, David Jr. and Henry Coffin Nevins took over the
manufacturing businesses when their father Died.
David Jr. born JULY 30, 1839 ran the textile mills which by that
time included India Bagging Company and Bengal Bagging Company in
Salem, MA.
Henry c. born on January 10, 1843 became the agent of the family's
textile brokerage firm called Nevins and Company.
Not only did the company sell the cloth from the Nevins' family
mills, but by this time it was importing textiles from abroad.
David Jr. Died in 1898 and Henry in 1892.
David Nevins Sr. born-Dec.12, 1809-died-March 19, 1881
Eliza Coffin Nevins born June 1, 1817 - died Dec. 30, 1895
David Nevins Jr. Born Jul 30, 1839 - Died Aug 24, 1898
Henry Coffin Nevins Born Jan. 10, 1843-Died June 25, 1892
Within 24 hours I will make sure all the Nevins-related articles we've discussed are in synch with this new information. - Boston (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Putterham
I'm glad you liked them and yes indeed, they're all within a stone's throw of one another. BiruitorulTalk 03:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aptostichus stephencolberti
In response to the pronounciation of Colbert's surname, it says (and is referenced) that:
Colbert sometimes comedically claims his surname is French, but his family is actually of Irish descent. Originally, the name was pronounced [ˈkoʊɫ.bɚt]; Stephen Colbert's father, James, wanted to pronounce the name [koʊɫˈbεɹ], but maintained the [ˈkoʊɫ.bɚt] pronunciation out of respect for his own father (Stephen's grandfather). However, James offered his children the option to pronounce the name whichever way they preferred. Stephen started using [koʊɫˈbεɹ] later in life when he transferred to Northwestern University, taking advantage of the opportunity to reinvent himself in a new place where no one knew him.
I'm therefore guessing that he still pronounces it with the silent "T".
At any rate, it doesn't seem an issue for the purpose of the point I raised about Aptostichus stephencolberti. Thanks for your response. - Boston (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MSPCA-Angell, 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.
On 10 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thyrocopa, 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.
Thanks much. Boston (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baudet de Poitou, 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.
Thanks very much BQ. - Boston (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harriet Nevins, 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.
Thank you much. I am working furiously toward the 100 DYK mark. That's DYK #80 for me. - Boston (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Nevins, Jr., 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.
I've posted a note there you might be interested in. See, if you're planning to do SUL with the Boston account, note that the Russian Wikipedia account has 10 edits, but is blocked indefinitely since 11 June 2008 for personal attacks. The Swedish Wikipedia account may also be a problem, as it has 40 edits. Maxim (☎) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permission
I like the style you used for your userpage. Can I use that format? I really like it. Sυρєrıor (Reply!,Contribs) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Use it and enjoy. - Boston (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and add it to DYK if you can think of a suitable hook; I seem to be running into a mental block and can't think of a good one. Thanks, –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will and will make sure you're credited appropriately. Ulysses Prentiss Hedrick might need a little more text to qualify; I haven't checked yet. Thanks again. - Boston (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) The article currently contains 1523 bytes of "main body prose", so it just barely qualifies as is. I'll try to see whether I can find a few other sources to use to expand the article a little bit more. –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hook looks good. Thanks again, –Black Falcon(Talk) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hook I suggested is a little long considering I am probably the most vocal advocate of shorter hooks. Oh well! - Boston (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 13 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Choctaw Hog, 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.
On 14 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pink tide, 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.
Thanks very much. - Boston (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Garda?
Hello. :) I was just admiring your DYKs and noticed a possible error in the one featuring Castletownroche. It seems to indicate that he was apprehended by the "garda"? But which one? Surely he was apprehended by either the gardaí or An Garda Síochána? Perhaps you simply made an error in transferring it but my curiosity got the better of me and I was just wondering if it featured on the Main Page in that form? --Candlewicke (Talk) 03:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply an error. No one with enough familiarity with things Irish noticed it. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it on my my DYK page. - Boston (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Park, 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.
Thanks, I appreciate the message. - Boston (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colleen Cavanaugh, 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.
On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pomeranian Goose, 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.
On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brookesia minima, 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.
-Thank you! - Boston (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait ... you're not done!
On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Silver Marten, 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.
Thanks again. - Boston (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pemberton Mill, 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.
No you didn't make an edit conflict. ;) By the way, could you review Joe Connor again? I added an alternate hook, and PeterSymonds (talk·contribs) said it is okay, but he suggested you approve it yourself. Thanks! Now I have to finish with the next update... -- RyRy (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original hooks is actually tighter (I also thought for a moment that only 350 times was sarcasm) but it's no worry either way; choose the one you want . Congrats on the milestone. - Boston (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, PeterSymonds asked that you put the tick yourself. ;) Oh, and great job on all those DYKs above. Wow! -- RyRy (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll add Joe Connor to a later DYK update if someone else doesn't. We've already got a sports one in this lot. - Boston (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. -- RyRy (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 18 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amedei Porcelana, 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.
No problem, I replaced the copyright tag with an unreferenced tag. It is a good start-class article and appears to be well-written. The problem is, it still lacks the references to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks for the message, --Jh12 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I spend about 95% of my effort writing articles for DYK but try to contribute to "process" on occassion as well. Congratulations on your article and keep up the good work. - Boston (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taxoboxes
Actually, I don't mind the taxobox errors all that much (I make stupid copy-pasting errors all. the. frickin'. time. over at Wiktionary), but if you could take a bit more time to add a relevant category or two to your new articles, that would be swell ;-) Circeus (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Often, maybe even most of the time, I do. I'll watch that more carefully though! Haste makes waste and all that. Thanks. - Boston (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irene
This can be explained by the "critical response" section. I don't revert what other people do. However, I might recommend that you rephrase it to say: "It has the distinction of being the work that Johnson and his critics agreed is his greatest failure". Johnson did dislike the work afterwards, as did most of his critics. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case there's confusion, I added the [citation needed] prompt but don't object to the wording. The statement as given now, as well as your alternative suggestion, do both require an in-line citation. - Boston (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what MOS says on the issue: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." However, there is no material available to suggest that Johnson et al thought that the play was good or a commercial success, so I don't know if it falls under "controversial" enough to warrant duplicate citations. However, if you raise the concern, then it automatically suggests that it could. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am missing something or perhaps you're overthinking this (or both) -- Why not just add the citations if they can be added? - 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I added. :) I'm just trying to work out the process so that it can be followed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding those in-line references. I am happy to help you understand if I can. Basically, whenever there's a statement like (for example) "...is widely-considered a delicacy" or "...was regarded as his greatest failure/success" or anything like that, it's a good idea to show an inline citation to make it clear that the point of view being discussed is verifiable and is not just the editor's own POV or own conclusion. I'm not sure where this is explained in the MOS or similar documents, but after a time you'll probably come to instantly recognize where these are needed. Happy editing. - Boston (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not really my understanding, because I know what you were saying. :) I just want to make sure that others in the future realize the process, so there wont be any problems. Paper work, I guess you could say? Anyway, thanks for looking out for the page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. - Boston (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Point!
Hi, yeah I have slipped in a few unreferenced statements. It's encouraging that somebody's noticing though! Thanks. Dunno if Irish singing is your thing (it is mine, in case you haven't noticed) but if so, I'd love your feedback on some of my articles particularly Frank Harte. Cheers. --Seamasmac (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bazil Ashmawy, 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.
On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kazabazua River, 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.
Thank you. That's the 98th DYK I've written and gotten promoted. - Boston (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y thank you!
Thx for the barnstar - I again feel like "a city on a hill" ... feels good. I shall think of my barnstar as a civic roll (with bacon!) cheers Victuallers (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85 real ones ... the rest are noms. Am I correct in thinking you are "previously known as House of Scandal"? Oh ... got to go.. Victuallers (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, House of Scandal til recently. 85 is still very impressive! - Boston (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dinosaur Footprints, which you recently 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.
On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wasque, which you recently 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.
On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Petticoat Hill, 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.
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much. Boston (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Portal
The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Photuris pennsylvanica, has been added to the Wikipedia Portal, Portal:Pennsylvania. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.
For the exceptional amount you have contributed to the wild and wacky world of WP:DYK (how many more "W"s can you have in a sentence?), I present you the coveted 100 DYK medal. Keep up your excellant work. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much! Boston (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chamaeleo melleri, 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.
Writing at the speed of light. ;) - Mailer Diablo 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a while I was cranking out a few day and I had them backlogged in my sandbox. I've slowed down in the last few days and may be getting Wikipedia out of my system for a while! - Boston (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK hooks
Hi colleague. I've been campaigning for what I call "shorter, sharper hooks" for 2 years and will probably continue to do so. I respect your work on DYK and respectfully understand that other editors will have opinions differing from mine. Please don't take it personally when I identify how I would change hooks you suggest. I'm not implying you do take it personally...I'm only saying this to promote wikilove and all the stuff! We can disagree about this forever and I'll still be happy to work with you. Best wishes and happy editing. - Boston (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'm a great admirer of your "unwritten rules" and a few weeks ago was actually wondering why you didn't say anything about brevity of hooks along the lines of "shorter is generally better." Now I know why! (smile) - Boston (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Boston. Thank you for the msg. I hope you didn't think that I was upset or anything. I like your work, too. Like you, I prefer shorter, sharper hooks. However, IMO, "sharper" is more important than "shorter". Shorter is indeed generally better, but it's good to have a little extra info so that any general readers (esp. those not familiar with the topic) can appreciate the hook better, and add a little colour and hue so as to paint a nicer picture, so to speak. Hooks that are too short and lack context would appear to be esoteric, and readers would (or at least I would) just give up and move on to the next hook. You will probably disagree about this and I'll still be happy to work with you in DYK, too. It's probably best for us to just leave our comments on T:TDYK and let the hook selectors decide what ends up on MainPage. Oh, btw, User:Art LaPella is not my sock. :-) Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you were a sock...that was just a mindless error on my part because I was watching Lord of the Rings and trying to articulate at the same time! Nor did I think you were upset; I just thought some preventative medicine wouldn't hurt. As for the actual matter under discussion, I guess we both value brevity, only to much different degrees. The cases where I've suggested a cutting a hook way back and someone adds some of it back is exemplary of collaborative editing at its best. Thanks for the note and best wishes. - Boston (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should read "and John Boyle O'Reilly, many of which were written in Irish?" Thank you for proofreading and catching my omission. Enjoy the day!Scanlan (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iranistan, 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.
On 27 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article sang piao xiao, 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.
You know, I much preferred the old user name, this one is so...vanilla...why'd you change anyway? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The old user name made a wrong first impression. Also, HoS is a screen name I have been using since 1995 and I still use on various sites and I just wanted to disassociate the encyclopedic me from the more carnal me. It's nice for someone to have noticed the name change enough to comment though! Thanks for that and for the DYK note. - Boston (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandia Hairstreak, 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.
Terrific new article - and I am curious. Huffing and puffing my way through Fauna of Scotland I decided it had too many red links and bashed in a few new species articles which led me down various highways and byways. I red linked "Pteridomania" on two or three of them as it seemed like a credible topic. Was its appearance shortly thereafter a co-incidence, or did the red links prompt something? Also, I note the article does not mention the devastating effects on rare species in upland Britain. It'd be easy enough to cut and paste a few anecdotes from Woodsia alpina (the story about Williams is farcical), Woodsia ilvensis, Trichomanes speciosum, Cystopteris dickieana. BenMacDui 10:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive appraisal; likewise, you do a great job on the topics you handle. I recall intending to mention the negative effects of pteridomania on certain native species, but since I didn't follow through the addition of material explaining that (all neat and cited, of course) would be great. As best I remember, my creation of the pteridomania article was prompted by the red link in the Cystopteris dickieana article. Some red links are too tempting to not write about. For me, pteridomania was one and, more recently, "Chinese Hand Laundry Alliance was another. Boston (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid stuff. I'll bash something into Pteridomania soon. If it doesn't appear by the weekend, give me a nudge. BenMacDui 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for your interesting Scottish flora articles which prompted me to create the Pteridomania article. Peace. - Boston (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Boston (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dexter Drumlin, 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.
Wow, you've been a DYK machine lately. Great job - keep it up! I'm surprised to see an article on a drumlin - it's always good to see geology articles. --Royalbroil 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. Boston (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri Lhote, 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.
and btw great work on that article of Henri Lhote, I didn't realise all that stuff about him when I set up the translation a few days ago. The credit is to you! Cheers, Eebahgum (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we'll share credit. BTW...my version of the Henri Lhote article was already in my sandbox when you posted the article. Did I make a Henri Lhote-related edit on mainspace that prompted you? I'm just curious. - Boston (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nope, I just translated two articles on Rock art of south Oran (Algeria) and Rock art of the Djelfa region from the French WP, and the author (Michel-Georges Bernard) had made extensive reference to Lhote, so I brought in the short WP:fr article on him too. I had been working on some prehistorians such as Hugo Obermaier and Cueva de La Pasiega so I was looking about for some more related subjects. You, on the other hand, were thinking about flying saucers! I jest. Best wishes from UK, Eebahgum (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. My first thought after your response was that you must have done some edit in mainspace that I saw instead of the other way around as I suggested. However, I recall coming to Henri Lhote from Arbre du Ténéré, and I got there from List of trees, so it really is a coincidence. Happy editing. Boston (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suta dwyeri, 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.
Thanks again. Boston (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a short one...
On 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commodore Nutt, 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.
just kidding, heading had you fooled didn't it? Good work :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the header and waiting those moments for the page to load you did have me fooled! I thought your were a dumb and overzealous bot. Thanks for the note. Boston (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 9 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caesarsboom, 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.
Groovy. Thanks BQ. Boston (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 11 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucien Price, 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.
I've changed the hook for hose strap. Please see if it is okay now. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine. I greatly appreciate that my comment was taken under consideration so close to the 11th hour. Thank you. Boston (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mobile Tigers, 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.
When you add refs to articles, could you please hide the external links by putting them within the title? Ie, instead of writing [http://example.com] Example (which appears as [1] Example), write [http://example.com Example] (which appears as Example).
To make things easier, you can also use citation templates, which do all the formatting for you. Thanks, —Politizertalk/contribs 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pregunta
Haha, I noticed your post on a user's talk page, which was promptly deleted, and it crossed my mind to ask: Do you know what the policy is on regularly jumping back and forth between editing as a registered user and an IP address? There's certainly an open admission, but the regular deletion of talk page comments and jumping back and forth both seem a bit curious to me, and I don't know nearly enough about these things to even have an opinion beyond "intriguing". --Aepoutre (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not much of a wikilawyer. The best I can do is refer you to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry so that you might digest the material there and see whether it is applicable to whatever specific behavior you've identified. Best wishes. Boston (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: Why have you twice now, placed a template on this article indicating that it lacks reliable third party referencing, when in actuality, it already contains a substantiating citation from a standard reference in the field of the study of new religious groups? [2] Granted, the article could use further expansion and the addition of other reliable references, but isn't basic "notability" addressed by the groups inclusion in a basic source on the subject? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is an excellent one. I'm concerned that Melton may be being used here as a reference for other points discussed in the article rather than as verification of the notability of the subject of the article itself -- a common Wikipedia ploy. If Sons Aumen Israel actually has an entry in Encyclopedia of American Religions then notability would be established to my satisfaction (although necessarily to the satisfaction of Wikipedia policy which usually requires three sources). In the meanwhile, I am extremely suspicious of an article about a religion started by four people in 1981 for which the sole online reference provided is the group's own website. Boston (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With All Due Respect.
I am not sure that is is such a good advise.
I think you're on the right track adding fact tags. However, when something just smacks of original research, someone's opinion, or just seems like a dumb thing to include in an article, I advise you to just remove it. Be bold! Happy editing - House of Scandal (talk) 03:17, 3 August
People are not familiar with everytning, and when they do not recognize something they will remove it.
Warrington (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern but my advice is in line with Wikipedia policy (W:be bold). Please note that I did not recommend anyone remove context merely because "hey do not recognize something" as you say. Rather I recommend that original research, point of view and irrelevancies be removed from articles. That isn't just good advice, it's policy. Best wishes. Boston (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think I understand perfectly how you were thinking.
But I wonder if others did it.[3]. (Damper is a traditional Australian wheat flour based outback soda bread, traditionally baked in the coals of a campfire. Damper is an iconic Australian dish, and Christmas Damper is bread moulded into a wreath, or a star, served with butter, jam, honey or golden syrup. ).
Hey, prod templates don't work properly if you don't subst them correctly. The correct usage is {{subst:prod|REASON}}. WP:PRODSUM#Failed to parse are all yours at time of writing :P --Closedmouth (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gatoclass. --Boston (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 'rhomboids'
According to the rhombus article, "a rhombus...is an equilateral parallelogram. In other words, it is a four-sided polygon in which every side has the same length...A rhombus is a variety of quadrilateral. A rhombus with right angles is a square."
However, as the term 'rhomboid' apparently refers to a distinct (albeit similar) type of quadrilateral polygon, one cannot, oddly enough, apparently describe a 'rhombus' as being 'rhomboidal'. My bad. :) -70.251.131.28 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bad or not, you're still my geometrical superior! --Boston (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References in Annunciation Melkite Catholic Cathedral
Thanks for your note, Boston. Reference URLs on the cathedral website need to be respecified, because that web site uses frames. The page displayed when a user opens http://www.melkitecathedral.org/ does not contain any of the history facts in the article. Regards. Chonak (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point your making but still think there's a strong argument that this is primarily a Scandinavian phenomenon. The countries listed are mostly Scandinavian if not 'Nordic'. I am of south Italian ancestry and appreciate there is a tradition of veneration of Santa Lucia but it's not really in the same class. In sweden St Lucy's day is a national festival that involves school children, ceremonies and even the monarchy. In southern Italy celebrations are usually limited to a village parade or so. Now I'm happy to accept that the Nordic idea of St Lucy has very little to do with the woman (rather a pagan hangover) but that's a different issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His 'successful banking career' and education are also arguably not part of his 'early life'. 'Early life' suggest pre-adulthood days. I think it should be renamed 'Professional Life', and the stuff of the top moved into that section. 96.52.162.82 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
College wouldn't be professional life, so make sure you differentiate. I don't want to edit conflict you, so I'll let you play with for a while, experiment, etc. I may or may not make changes when I revisit it later. If I do, you can always change it and fine tune in further. Peace. --Boston (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
College does fit into professional life, especially a professional post-graduate degree like an MBA. The fact that he moved to America when he age 14 isn't really a professional detail, but it is a fact worth keeping so I changed it into a phrase that simply introduces his professional qualifications. I'm mostly done with it now; there are a couple of other interesting details I'll add later once I have adequate references. Take care. 96.52.162.82 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to include the MBA in that section, but we should find a different place to say "Muzzammil Hassan came to the United States from Pakistan at age 14.--Boston (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC).."[reply]
Simple vow
On the article Simple vow, you have placed the label that the tone is inappropriate. The template goes on to say "see talk page" for further information. But the last entry there is nearly a year old! Could you be more specific (and up-to-date) about your concerns? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I left explanation here. Best wishes. --Boston (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I've been rather busy. Image is the same on both web pages you have provided me (I've also done some searching with little luck) but the resolution is much lower then the image thats on Commons so that makes the deletion as a copyrighted image harder, as we have to link on what could be the original but it's still possible to argue. I've not looked at the uploaded images from the user but will when I get a chance. Bidgee (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boston, and thanks for your message. It was quite an interesting subject to research ... I was worried about notability at first, but I found enough decent sources in the end. Despite all the gates being in my local area (the most distant is about 20 miles away), I had only vaguely heard of them and didn't know the name. Just one of many eccentric features in Sussex! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mantis Article
Hello, I am here to say that you have removed alot of value to the Mantis article. I prefer the original version of the page. Yes, there are no species accuracy, however, you could have simply discussed this on the talk page. Until then, the article should be reverted. Thanks. ZooFari 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest in the article. I disagree with your statement and don't see the value of a bunch of unidentified pictures that can't be properly captioned or linked to other articles. The mantis article, like many very popular articles on Wikipedia, is often a mess. Many of the pictures I edited out were of poor quality or had such useless captions as "Praying mantis in Europe." (italics added) Better pictures were available so I used them; these edits brought the article more in line with best practices. Refer to Wikipedia:Captions for a discussion of this. --Boston (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration, I admit your edits are impressive. However, I prefer the old image in the taxobox, since it is featured. If it didn't have the species, I will contact the uploader or find out myself what the species is (of coarse, with a source). ZooFari 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. "Image:Large brown mantid07 edit.jpg" is (I think) the taxobox image to which you're referring. Here the problem isn't one of identification; it's Archimantis latistyla. Rather, I feel that at the size shown in the taxo box the mantis is sort of camouflaged making it difficult to instantly recognize. He's also grooming himself in a strange position. This adds to its interest as a featured photo but detracts from its utility in the taxobox. I think the Sphodromantis viridis picture now in the taxobox is better because it has a clear outline and instantly gives the viewer a sense of Mantodea anatomy. While I think most would agree with me, this is ultimately a matter of opinion. BTW, I added the above-mentioned A. latistyla photo to the gallery as it's worthy of inclusion in the article. --Boston (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Boston, thank you for your comment. But I disagree with your statement articles with out reference should be cleaned up. Any person who is using Wikipedia can edit or delete the articles which they think it is not proper, I agree that I have started so many articles with only one sentence but most of such articles had grown up by other users who knew about the subjects better than me, ie what true Wikipedia is for and how it works. If all the articles must have reference, then the Wikipedia does not exist at all. Something is better than nothing (but of course we should make sure that the articles are not just from our imagination, it should always be true).Kjrajesh|talk
I didn't say that they should be deleted. I said that they should have WP:References. This is a separate matter from WP:Cleanup. Articles that need cleanup have relatively major problems. Making an article without references is one thing, making an article that needs cleanup and leaving it for other editors to do is another. Looking through the articles you've created I see three types: those that have been tagged for problems, those that need to be tagged for problems, and those that have been fixed by other editors. You also seem to have little interest in WP:copyright policies. At any rate, thanks for your response and best wishes. --Boston (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several references have been added to the Jill Foster Abbott article. Can we remove the reference tag now? Dmarex (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for making improvements. --Boston (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. While on the subject, did you add that other tag (plot) too? And what can be done to remove it? The synopsis has already been shortened by a few users in an attempt to remove the tag, but how much more can we cut down? She has been on the show since it's beginning in 1973. Dmarex (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks pretty plot-heavy too me. You might ask the opinion of User:TAnthony as that is the editor who placed the plot tag. --Boston (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Bridges TV
On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bridges TV, 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.
On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muzzammil Hassan, 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.
Would you please remove the deletion tag on P3M? While I've tried to clarify that it isn't hoax or something, it is well established technique in computational physics. Thanks a lot. --mcyp (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving the article and adding references! --Boston (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the spam tag from the article. Obviously a spurious claim. The article could be cleaned up but as you pointed out, it's a significant organization with a long history. Although, really, non-profits have been known to spam WP as well. I used to live down the street in JP from it and often passed it on my way to work on the T. Heh, I don't think that's a COI, is it? Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. At some point I'll try to find some Boston Globe articles about the place or something. It is a pretty illustrious institution, so I think maybe rather than greatly changing the tone of the article, the claims therein just need to be better substantiated. BTW, I lived in JP as well and you reminded me that 6 months ago I walked to MSPCA, took a pic for Wikipedia, and never uploaded it. Picture now added. Best wishes. - --Boston (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the speedy tag, with why in the edit summary and also a talk page topic. I have changed to reference format (there are three) and on the talk page there is a link to a gallery of covers of School Friend showing that this publication definately existed. Rather than deletion, merging into a School Friend article would make more sense. Currently that does not exist, so it should make sense to let Silent Three exist up until an adequate School Friend article exists to merge it into. If something exists I don't think it's right to delete it just because we don't have something to merge it into. If something is notable enough to be merged and remain on Wikipedia then it should be notable enough to stand on its own until that is possible. Tyciol (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worry, I won't drag it to AfD but please do, for the sake of Wikipedia, try to establish notability better if possible. Or create a new article and merge them -- whatever you think is best. Thanks for improving the article and/or reverting whatever had been done to make it look so bad when I found it. Best wishes. --Boston (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Gigantotomy
On March 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gigantotomy, 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.
Cool, thank you. --Boston (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciation
Thank you for your comments. You are correct - I was taunted, but it would have been wise of me to have held my reply for one day before sending (not) it. On the other note, if I am rescuing an article, I will almost always improve the article before removing the Prod. If I remove the article without improvements (which is rare) I do state my reasons. I have taken heart of your friendly communication, and I appreciate your helpful comments.Esasus (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Orthodera novaezealandiae.jpg
Hi Boston. There are a couple of problems with the file. Firstly, you didn't upload it at Commons, which isn't good, but it can always be moved there (as I just have). After looking at the source though, a much bigger problem appears: you haven't looked closely at the copyright notice. It says Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License - Version 2.0. If it's not obvious, we can't accept non-commercial images. Please make sure any material - images, text, whatever - allows commercial use and modification. It's a beautiful image, and apparently our only photo of the species (bloody apathetic photographers out there...), but it will have to be deleted, and quite soon. Richard001 (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at where they got the image (which is what should primarily be cited), it is a pretty recent upload at Flickr. I'll try asking this uploader if he's okay with removing the NC status, then we might be able to undelete it at the Commons and have it back again. If not, there are plenty more there that we can request. Richard001 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another mantis of the same genus seems to almost certainly have the wrong picture. Take a look at the Flickr file linked at File:Orthodera ministralis.jpg and see my comment. (I'm just stalking the mantis genus here, not you). Richard001 (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note and your attentive efforts. I agree that File:Orthodera ministralis.jpg is misidentified as even the males of this genus have an extended thorax unlike that of the mantis in the picture. I hope you're able to get another pic by the process you described. In regards to the File:Orthodera novaezealandiae, at the time of uploading it I wasn't savvy about observing that not all CC Licensed pics are okay here. I raised Orthodera novaezealandiae in captivity last year, but at only 1" long even the adults are were too small for me to get a worthwhile picture using the equipment at my disposal. --Boston (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen one since I've been taking photos. The camera I use would be able to get a fairly good photo if I could find one, though I'm not sure where to look. There are plenty on Flickr though, and I think I'll move towards insects rather than birds for a while, so I should have some up eventually. Richard001 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't so much write off poor old Ei-Q as I noted that the text and references at the time didn't establish WP:notability. Thanks for improving the article, you did a good job. BTW, you can remove a tag yourself if you feel you've addressed the problem. Happy editing. --Boston (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job!
Specifically at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 February 26. Thanks for your diligence. (With one of them, I think infringement was the other way around, but two have been cleaned, and I imagine the third one will be, though I'm waiting to hear back from the contributor in case the website is his or her own.) Just thought I'd stop by and give you some random peer approval. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. High kudos to you for following up on it. --Boston (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scapular
Hi, thanks for the photo. I used it in the article. Now, the state of the info on Scapular itself within Wikipedia is basically chaos, as you observed. As I did research I realized that the article on Scapular is short of references and as you noted the template I made is at the moment simplistic. There are 18 approved scapulars based on several sources. I think we need to:
Make a page for each one, "by name" because there are several "white scapulars" as you noted.
Change the scapular template to have say 9 entries after the 18 pages are in good shape.
Fix the Scapular page itself, for it needs help.
If you would like to cooperate in making the 18 pages correct, I will be glad to work with you. Cheers History2007 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will help. Fixing the scapular page itself might be a big challenge because there's so much original research we'll really need to be bold in paring it down and removing content, and that might meet with opposition. That should be top priority, however. I nominated rosary and scapular for DYK, so it will likely appear there next week. This means the scapular article itself will then get many clicks as a result. BTW, I do suggest using File:Rosary&scapular.jpg higher on the page in the rosary and scapular article. It should probably be the first picture. It's not a "pretty picture", but has high and very immediate information value for someone who arrives on the page without even knowing what the rosary is and what scapulars are. Remember our leadership is worldwide, including China, India, Japan, Indonesia, the Middle East, etc. I apologize for suggesting you put the photo where you want it and then turning around 12 hours later with such a specific idea of where it belongs! --Boston (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great. I made the suggestions on the talk page for scapular, to do it more smoothly. As for picture placement, I searched long and hard for that top picture because The Catholic Church learned long ago that "nice art sells". Just look at St. Peter's, or my page on Roman Catholic Marian art. So I feel that the top image needs to be as glamorous as one can get it because it somehow draws attention. So I started with the most beautiful art of St. Simon and ended with Caravaggio's St. Dominic for a specific purpose. I did, however, realize that some people may like to see what rosaries look like, so I added a gallery anyway. Now, regarding the 18 subpages, the text is in the Catholic encyclopedia and I have spent hour and hours and hours getting the page numbers for the references for the Rosary and scapular article. So it will be easier to get the material together. I think 30-60 days is really needed, but then teh scapular has been around since the 13th or thr 15th century, and a couple of months will not a big difference make. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a bit like I've been canvassed. I hope this isn't the case and that editors participating in previous discussion received a similar notice regardless of how they opined. --Boston (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On March 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article species group, 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.
I replied on my talk page. Cheers History2007 (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mantis in Lace
On March 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mantis in Lace, 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.
On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Nies, 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.
On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Friends of Gilda, 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.
On 13 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Camponotus vagus, 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.
Thanks for the nom! Royalbroil 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I actually wasn't going to nominate them. lol I didn't want to bother expanding Moonchildren enough to get it to pass so really that's all you. I wanted to nominate Cara Duff-MacCormick but I didn't because I couldn't find out if she's still alive or not. I guess that really doesn't matter but I like my DYK suggestions to be my best work. So really you weren't stepping on my toes at all. Feel free to nominate any of my rejects in future. You're contributing to the articles in a positive way so its a good thing. :-)Nrswanson (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but here is another one of my creations which would make a great DYK with a little extra work. I would do it myself but I am busy with other projects at the moment.Nrswanson (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks long enough so I might drag it to DYK without expanding at all unless I need to better reference the hook. --Boston (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for doing that DYK. I did not even know what a DYK was when you did it. Look at the results here: [4] and [5] . Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you're pleased. It's cool knowing that a few thousand people have looked at your article, isn't it? --Boston (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boston, we've only a few hours left and I've just completed all my submissions. But shouldn't they be in queues by now? I don't know if you know anything about it but perhaps you could alert someone to this or tell me if you know who I ought to alert? --CandlewickeST# :) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tough question. If you go the edit history of the update you can see some people who have been active there. But at the same time, Wikipedians who feel that another Wikipedian is rushing them usually slow to a stop, so it's a tough call. It isn't St. Patrick's Day in the USA for almost 9 more hours, the Brits probably won't be any help, and with the extreme change in timezones March 17th in Australia dawns when the rest of us are cleaning up after Easter. As such, it might just be better to wait until an admin decides to do it on their own initiative. After all, if there's one thing we Irish are known for around the world it's our easy-going natures and our respect for authority. Lá Fhéile Pádraig sona duit. --Boston (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will follow that advice by sounding less urgent. I will be casual. Perhaps Europe will assist... hang on... shouldn't it be Saint Patrick's Day in Australia? Hmmm... the same to you... for someone named after an American city you know a lot about the Irish language... :) --CandlewickeST# :) 19:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot that the IDL is to to the east of Australia. Facts about Australia are, in general, forgettable. About myself, my granddad came from An Cheathrú Rua, and my cousin teaches Irish in Sligo, but I've never been able to master more than a few words. Mea cupla, mea culpa, mea maximum cúpla foca. --Boston (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which would mean that Australia will already be unwrapping its Easter eggs as America embraces snakes and shamrock... my, that's quite a few words already... ;) --CandlewickeST# :) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Any suggestions? Maybe change "Europe" to "Ireland"? Royalbroil 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did and do think that is the simplest solution. When readers click and find out where the episode takes place that can be an extra holiday treat. --Boston (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. On an unrelated topic, are you positive that the James Walters dab that you did for the World's Largest Cedar Bucket is the right guy? I assumed it was an average person when I heard the answer in the contest. This Walters was married in 2002 and he lives many states away. The bucket burned in 2005. I delinked, please provide a reference if it was him. Royalbroil 03:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. The article already linked to the URL of that person, I just changed it to a Wikilink. Doing some websearching, I don't think James Walters and Jaki Neubauer are notable. --Boston (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harp
Wow, thanks! That's most unexpected and I'm glad that I've inspired contributions to the area of television as I discovered it to be a severely neglected area when I began to work properly on it. And with the GAA being another area desperately in need of contributions (I hope to assist there during the summer) the Celebrity Bainisteoir article has helped enhance that greatly. Also the timing of your mentioning those two articles you began is uncanny, Baz was on yet anothertelevision show a matter of hours ago and CB series 2 begins on Sunday, replacing The All Ireland Talent Show, the winners of which will be on DYK soon! Here is a source from the Evening Herald for one of the new contestants! So many connections! So there's some further information for you on those two. Incidentally, you sorted out the second last red-linked contestant by creating Baz and I finished the lot with Gerald Kean, which subsequently made it to DYK a few months ago and was later subject to a rather bizarre attempt at deletion. This page could do with an archive. I love your talk page design! :)--CandlewickeST# :) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tá fáilte romhat. Would you have guessed I have never seen Celebrity Bainisteoir nor have I seen Baz except in photos? I had never even heard of either of them before reading your Fáilte Towers article and helping with the DYK hook. I did try to watch Celebrity Bainisteoir on RTE online but it's not available in North America. I guess it just goes to show what can be done with rigorous use of online sources. --mBoston (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need to be careful with the reference I provided in the discussion page. I didn't spend too much time in the search (being new and aimed for a younger audience, the web search is full of blog entries and the like, so I need to do a little research into each individual book), but intuitively, an author with that many hits is clearly notable - finding the killer WP:RS is the PITA. I doubt that any admin would delete any of the articles, but these days I'm not too sure about these things. I guess what I'm saying is, I will try to put something on each book's talk page, but it may take until tomorrow afternoon (approximately 1600 UTC).74.69.39.11 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meanwhile, go ahead and remove the prods. Just don't remove the reference tags until the issue is solved. Thanks and Happy St. Patrick's Day. - --Boston (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When I noticed that you had not blanked this article with the copyright problem template, it led me to wonder if your concern was actually with the image? If so, I share it, and have nominated the image for deletion at Commons. But I wanted to let you know that (a) we don't handle images issues at WP:CP; those are addressed at WP:PUI, generally (see WP:GID for more), and (b) we can't delete images on Wikipedia that are on Commons; those have to be addressed there. :) If you know all this, and I've misunderstood the purpose of the listing, then please excuse the note. On first blush, I didn't see any violation within the text, but I didn't do a close comparison because I'm moving forward under this assumption. Please let me know if I'm wrong so I can go back and more closely compare. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confess: after placing the notice, I figured out that I had placed it in the wrong place. I hoped that someone who knows how to get images deleted from commons might take up the task. Thanks for your valuable assistance! --Boston (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
,_mating.jpg)
