User talk:Derek.cashman

This is my user talk page. Please add any messages for me here.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Walmart page grammar issue

On the Walmart page, the following sentence is ungrammatical:

"A Loyola University Chicago study which suggested that impact a Wal-Mart store has on a local business is correlated to its distance from that store."

It's semi-protected so I'm posting this here, hope that's okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.116.42 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Mentor

I saw your name on the list of GA Mentors, with experience in Natural Sciences. As a first-time GA reviewer, may I ask you to look over my review of Squatina squatina at Talk:Squatina squatina/GA1 if you have time, please? I was impressed with the article and the few comments I made have been mostly addressed by the nominator. I am therefore about ready to pass the article. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate your experience in checking over my review, if you were able, and I'd doubly appreciate any constructive advice you could offer to me on my reviewing. Thanks. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag

I have removed the speedy tag you placed on the article Rodney Scott Webb. I have done this under guidelines provided in WP:Notability (people), which states "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards... People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great power

Thanks for your note. I have had interchanges with the two key editors on this article. I had agreed with one of them that this would be determined at the end of August when they are back from summer leave. I expect that to be about 10-14 days from now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main editor has been pinged. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry about it. I was hoping I would be able to get it to GA level with the extended time, but there's no way that's possible now. Thanks for reminding me. Deavenger (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles

For the rest of this month we are looking for more candidates to be promoted to Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. We are hoping to bring the list of category members to a total of 50. Either you have participated in past votes and discussions or you have recently signed up to be a part of WP:CHICAGO. In either case, please come visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment where we are determining who to add to the September 1st ballot. Some candidate debates have lingered, but there are many new ones from the project's top 50 according to the Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. Help us determine which pages to add to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines)

I think we need the article under the original name. There are a number of things on the main Alpha Phi Omega page that should be copied over including the APO-Phil presidents template, the structure of the fraternity in the Philippines, the links to the APO-Phil chapters, the information on APO-Phil going co-ed and so on. The main Alpha Phi Omega article should deal only lightly with the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the majority of the text for the history of APO in the Philippines is a Copyvio from http://www.apo.org.ph/?mode=default&cmd=get&id=83 Naraht (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. We are separate Organizations, it is only with the creation of ICAPO that there is co-ordination. Legally there is no tie of the corporation, for example, Alpha Phi Omega of the USA is not liable for a lawsuit against a hazing institute at Far Eastern University any more than APO-Phil would be liable for one at University of Maryland. By that logic, it would seem that BSA and Scouts Nederlands should be in the same article.Naraht (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the relationship between the two organizations, see the ICAPO policies, particularly section II. The Wikipedia article is considerably more than just the Histories of the organization, for example there should be separate infoboxes for the National Organizations, for example, as far as I can tell, the Golden Eagle is *not* a symbol of APO-Phil (and I'm not sure about the oak tree). While the Publications have the same name, they certainly are not linked to the same place. The requirements of open membership section really needs to be changed to show that it is specific to the USA if the article remains together. NSW doesn't exist for the Philippines, etc. etc.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last page of Wikipedia

I was truly shocked to see that you were the author of that page. May I ask what the purpose was? If you are getting discouraged with the project, or anything like that, I'd be very happy to discuss it with you, either here or privately. Sincerely, decltype (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a sock of User:Gavin Henson? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Henson. I was kidding actually. I know the guy. It is a play on User:Gavin.collins who seems to have been giving Ser Amantio a bit of unwanted attention. Don't worry, though I have no idea why a veteran wikipedia would create an article like that though... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something of a comic break eh? Yes we all need them from time to time. Sometimes I feel like creating an essay on those at ANI who take this site too seriously and just to take to mickey out of wannabe policemen. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know - but I have to do my WikiDuty and tag such things as I see fit, you know. To be honest, once I saw who it was behind it I got just a teensy bit worried myself. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Nitrogen narcosis

Just a quick ping to see if you've found time to address my responses at Talk:Nitrogen narcosis/GA1? Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I swear...

I have to admit that I fully expected this, but still... you deletionists just grate on my nerves. I've promised myself that I won't become angry over this, though. And, like I said, I've had time to prepare... Based on your original "numb-nut" comment, I think that you were just waiting to AfD this article anyway, I just wish that you had actually taken a look at what was there before doing so.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I have to admit I expected a response from you to. Not that I really consider myself a true "deletionist"; I rarely take stuff to AFD. But in this case, there's really no reason for an article on this. And that's said even AS a huge fan of Colbert. The article itself is unlikely to even grow; it's a single event; it's done; build a bridge; get over it. Also, my "numbnuts" comment was not directed at you, or anyone, specifically; it's more "tongue-in-cheek" (that should be obvious, as I said it several months ago). Dr. Cash (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the article, though? The Colbert aspect to it, while famous, is only one aspect. It's only one section of the article (and a paragraph in the lead, but that's appropriate IAW WP:LEAD). That's partially why I'm kind of angry about the AfD, because this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to "some numb-nut actually created the page!!!". There was the naming event, but the article is primarily about the equipment and, by association, exercise and life in space. Why do you think NASA itself is continuing to talk about the naming story? It provides a platform to actually discuss science and space operations.
—

V = I * R

(talk) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked at it. And it's inaccurate to boot! The main image at the top isn't even of the actual named treadmill, but of an astronaut using the older one! The new one hasn't even been launched yet! This is misleading! For the love of God, you could of at least put the logo as the main image of the article! But I still don't see why you can't just be happy with a brief mention in the ISS article; that ought to suffice, IMHO. Sure, we'll probably get a few more news articles after the shuttle launches it; but those will eventually die down, and then this thing will be forgotten, and it'll disappear in a fiery ball of flame once the ISS disintegrates upon re-entry in the next decade,... Seriously. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to address your personal opinions on the appropriateness of any articles. I know that you think there should be fewer, for some reason, and you have a right to that opinion, but... well, whatever. As for the article content, that's an editorial issue. You're obviously welcome to edit the article yourself, or at least start a discussion on the talk page. Do you really view AfD as some sort of tool to correct content and editorial issues? Anyway, you answered my question about reading it. Obviously you have, but you're not understanding what is being said. Se la vie
—

V = I * R

(talk) 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how somebody that keeps calling me a deletionist keeps deleting my comments from their user page,... Anyway, as I've stated before, I rarely use AFD. I would've tagged this with a 'speedy delete', since I think it's fruitless, trivial, and meaningless, and better covered in the main articles. But given the recent editing history, I figured the deletion might be more controversial. So I went to AFD. I'm really not a true "deletionist", per se; I just wish Wikipedia overall would get over it's addiction with useless pop culture articles and cover some more important things. But whatever. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you're not even willing to respect my desire not to have talk page conversations fractured across two user pages (which is plastered in that big red with white text notice on my user page), then I'm not sure what else there is for you and I to continue to talk about.
—

V = I * R

(talk) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to respond on YOUR talk page because if I respond on my talk page, you don't see that I've responded to what you wrote. It's not me. It's how Wikipedia works. I don't read special instructions on user pages for users that want to buck the system. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has this wonderful tool called "watchlists". You should try them out sometime! If you so egocentric that you really need to ping me immediately every time you reply, there's always {{Talkback}} and similar templated to use, as well. You're being un-civil currently, just so you know. There's some policy about this...
—

V = I * R

(talk) 20:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, who really cares. You do your thing, I'll do mine. I don't think I'm being uncivil, so please don't accuse me of violating WP:CIVILITY. I just don't feel like watchlisting everybody's talk page every time -- most editors I deal with, write their responses back on my talk page -- that's the way I'm accustomed to. You do things your way, but I'm doing things my way out of habit. Habits are hard to break.

Anyway, at this point, we'll see what the community has to say about the AFD. I still think it's useless and should be deleted, and the community at large may or may not agree with me. If the article does stay, you can bet your sweet ass that I'll be taking a few sweeps of it to insure that it meets certain standards and is accurately represented. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, look at the bright side. One of us may get a "tip of the hat", while the other gets a "wag of the finger",... Wonder who will get what? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more or less agreeing with the idea of breaking off somewhat. I didn't intend for this to become some confrontational pissing contest; we disagree is all. We talked about it some, and it's clear that we're not really going to see eye to eye. We'll see how the AfD goes. *shrug*
—

V = I * R

(talk) 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO voting for Top-importance Chicago articles

Your status has been changed to inactive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members since you did not respond to our confirmation of active status request. If this is an error please come update your status. Also feel free to come vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates for our next Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Voting continues until September 10 and nominations/discussions are ongoing for future ballot candidates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Boxmasters GA review

Hi, have you finished your comments here?--Canniba loki 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I passed the article, ok. Thanks for your comments.--Canniba loki 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit

Hi, I was wondering if you have time to do a copy edit on Davenport, Iowa. I'm almost ready to renominate it for FA, and need some good copy editing. Thank you! CTJF83Talk 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help with GAN reviews

Hi Derek,

I came across your profile via Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors. My reason for contact is that I've noticed a huge backlog in GAN's, and was wondering if anyone was permitted to help out in the reviewing process. I'm willing to offer my services, and see if I can get the backlog down a little bit more. Would I be doing the wrong thing if I were to help out with GAN's? I look forward to your reply. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Edit summaries

Please stop using abusive edit summaries like these [1], [2]. And FYI, "Bot Generated Title" is just that - generated by a bot, not an editor. Grsz¹¹ 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I understand it wasn't directed at anybody specific, just to everybody in general. We got each other's points, so all is well. :) Grsz¹¹ 14:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Meetup

2009

Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

Jonathunder (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_G-20_Pittsburgh_summit&curid=22334662&diff=316148116&oldid=316147561 , my objections was that from the article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/24/us.g.twenty.summit/ "Others chanted pro-marijuana slogans behind the riot police, and another group took up the stadium chant of "Let's go Steelers."" says nothing about it being a 'counter protest' but just a protest. rkmlai (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]