User talk:Lampman

User talk:Lampman/Archive 1
User:Lampman/DYK

Talkback

Hello, Lampman. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hi Lampman. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lampman. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward I

Do you have further information on Mary Plantagenet, a daughter of Edward I of England. I have asked the Reference Desk this question today and perhaps you could give some input there if you have more information on her as your name was brought up there. Maybe you could write an article on her. Can you find information on how close she was to her sisters and brothers, especially Margaret and Elizabeth. --97.83.106.45 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Mary you can start by looking at Prestwich's biography of Edward I, which is actually partly available online on Amazon (look especially at page 128.) This will also direct you to a couple of other sources; Green's Lives of the princesses of England (on Google books, page 405) and Fairbank's YAJ article on the earl of Warenne. These can be hard to come by though, if you don't have access to a good research library. If you can find these, I think you should have enough to create an article. For how close she was to her sisters and brothers we can only make assumptions, since we have very little personal documents from the period. Since she left the household at five to become a nun, I would guess not very close, though she did apparently return quite often. It should be said though, that both Margaret and Elizabeth left the country to marry, in 1290 and 1297 respectively, and probably did not return often after this. Lampman (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Pornography in Hungary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RMHED 00:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Windows 7

On 23 October 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Windows 7, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment

Hello, you began a GA reassessment in June at Talk:Johnny Appleseed/GA1. That review is still open, I was curious if you could review it and close it. Personally I agree the article does not currently meet the criteria in its present condition. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Boiled

Hi Lampman! I've updated the article from your GA review suggestions. The only stumbling block I think will be how to title Hard Boiled/Hard-Boiled. Thanks for taking the time to write a review (and do some copy-editing) on the article! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Appleseed

Thanks for delisting it and sorry not to have done more so far. Improving it is still on my to do list, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gabriel Scott

On November 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gabriel Scott, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your article...

That news story on the drunk in the recliner cracked me up when it came out. I moved the article to Motorized recliner incident without a redirect since "incidence" would have made it improbable. Thanks for the renewed chuckle. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! No prob, my friend. Glad to help! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Somme

I didn't catch the 'new' article part- I figured a new fact, sourced and written by myself, would be sufficient. My mistake! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 03:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Barnstar

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For your work on Motorized recliner incident, an article that definitely would not appear in a normal enyclopedia, and whose story is made even more entertaining by its being written in a dry, encyclopedic tone, I hereby award you this oddstar. Keep up the odd work. Geraldk (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First World

Hi Lampman, I just assumed that you had stuck the label there without reading the section. I fail to see why the section needs such as label when the first paragraph is about the United Nations, the fourth subsection is about the European Union and the fifth subsection is about multinational corporations and GATT and the final one is about outsourcing and specifically mentions the UK. Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blast coordinates

Where did you get those as the coordinates seemed to point to a neighborhood? I removed them for now as a Google Earth search indicated that the street was a few miles northeast. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Someone also confirmed what I thought were the coordinates of the bar. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment

Hi Lampman. I am Cargoking and you probably have seen me around ITN. I have identified you as an ITN regular, so I thought I would inform you of a discussion opened on 5 December 2009.

MSGJ suggested on Arsonal's (who's fairly new to ITN) talk page, that ITN suggestions made on the candidate's page would be put on separate pages, such as Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/2009-12-05. The past seven days of discussion would be automatically transcluded. "This would avoid the need for archiving and it would also leave the history of the page intact. It might also make it easier to create new days because we can use preload templates, etc." The only disadvantage to this proposal would be that each new comment would not show up on people's watchlists.

You are invited to take part in discussion here.
Thanks, Cargoking talk 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Grandmasterzel contris

No permission, informal or formal, justifies copy/pasting information from an external side to wikipedia, thus copyvio was good enough reason to delete those pages, but. I did see the COI argument and your comment on that, thus the reasoning for deletion and blocking is manyfold (notability is also dubious). The editor may well be unblocked, as they did not intend any harm, but the created article content, at least in its form, may not stay. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:In Excelsis Deo.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:In Excelsis Deo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bartlet book shop.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bartlet book shop.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi, I've added a couple of articles on the 'Christmas Day' section at DYK. As no one seems to have looked at this section for some days I thought I'd better notify some one. Hope you don't mind. Jack1956 (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Your article on the Obama Doctrine is an accomplishment, and I congratulate you on getting it in the DYK with a picture. I have also made a few comments on the User talk:Gavia immer page that are relevant. All best, JEN9841 (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Community)

Just to let you know I reviewed your GAN at Talk:Pilot (Community)/GA1 a couple of days ago. I guess you haven't seen yet, but there are still a few days left on the hold period. —97198 (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read this?

Hi Lampman. Have you read this article from Time Magazine? I found the lead interesting. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lol. God jul, btw. Manxruler (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "poor TFA" comment at Talk:Main Page

Hi there. I saw your comment here, posted on 31 December, and was trying to work out which "poor TFA" you were referring to. I think you mean Italian War of 1521–1526 and the 70-year-old source is the Hackett book. I was going to post at Talk:Italian War of 1521–1526, but came here first to suggest that you could post there suggesting that the Knecht source should have been used more. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Whitaker message

Thanks for the notice about the article's status. I contributed to it a couple of years ago, but don't have time to work on it now. --Vbd (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Lampman! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 698 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

~~Michael Hicks~~ - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
~~Nanna Lüders Jensen~~ - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
~~Ernst Höfner~~ - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lampman (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAR question

Hello, Lampman. Am I wrong that no notice was given when Jeannette Piccard was delisted? I don't want to start a reassessment unless it is necessary because that area has a huge backlog. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not give any notice on this particular article, because I found the problems to be too serious. If you are interested in revising it without going through GAR, however, I can deal with it directly. Lampman (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will reply on your talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Yes I am interested in revising it. I replied on the GA review page. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:ACTOR#Bizarre guidelines for responses to your post and extensive discussion about your post. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. Thank you so much for your review. I left you a note on Talk:Jeannette_Piccard/GA1, and tried to complete everything on your list in Talk:Jeannette_Piccard/GA2. Only about three questions for you there. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blason William d'Ufford

Bonjour Lampman, Je t'ai réalisé les armoiries de William d'Ufford

Savait-tu qu'un Thomas d'Ufford était nommé (commons:Folio 59r de l'Armorial de Gelre) dans l'Armorial de Gelre ?

Cordialement, Jimmy44. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.83.164.208 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Piccard

Hello, Lampman. Malleus and I have worked pretty hard on Jeannette Piccard. You did a great review. I wonder if you have time to revisit it? -SusanLesch (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 DYK Medal

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations for reaching (and surpassing) the milestone of 100 DYK creations and expansions. Excellent! Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo de Manila University article reassessment

Hi! Thanks for informing me about the good article sweeps project. I was going over the criteria, and would like to ask for your input about how best to edit the article along those lines. Perhaps you have concrete suggestions for things I can work on? Thanks! Rmcsamson (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment for Ateneo de Manila University

I would like to inform you that I have requested for a community GA reassessment for the article Ateneo de Manila University. Lambanog (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina University

Hello, I updated all of the dead links on this page. It is surprising how many their were. Let me know if anything else needs changing. PG Pirate 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Lennon

Hi, I noticed that you removed this article from the sweeps list, but there is no review page or evidence of a review? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeps update

Yeah, I have already planned to include the details of the passes/fails and other stats. I'll try to sum them all up soon after we get all of the reviews in and all of the holds are over. I also appreciate you taking the time to review, I'm so glad this is almost done. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Make-Up GA reassessment

Hey, thanks for taking the time to sweep through all the GAs, and find The Make-Up article, which was in pretty bad shape. I've done my best to fix things, and have replied on the page's talk page. Thanks again! Drewcifer (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Krydder

The article Krydder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable magazine, no assertion of notability, unreferenced for almost four years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhomb (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]