User talk:Holly Cheng/Archive14

I usually respond to messages on this page, but not always. If you don't get a "new message" notice, be sure to check here for my reply!

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

Thank you ...

for ignoring all rules in favor of common sense[1]. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

image oddity

Hey there...

wonder if you could have a look at somehting and see if you can tell what the issue is. I came across Image:John-Paul-Jones.jpg and noticed that there is a duplicate copy at Commons. As I have done countless times before, I was going to swap out the link in the articles to the commons version and then nominate the local copy for deletion. When I went to change the image in Charlottesville, Virginia article, when I saved it it came back as a broken link; I have checked the spelling and things and it is fine. I started playing around in my sandbox and when the images have no critera on displaying, ie thumb, right, size etc, both images appear, see User:Jordan 1972/sandbox1 but when I copy the context from the article and simply change the image name, it comes back with the broken image link, see User:Jordan 1972/sandbox. I can not figure out why and wonder if you can shed any light on it. Thanks very much.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, must be just your browser. I tried it in FF 3, IE 7, and Safari on Windows and I can see both images on both your sandbox pages. howcheng {chat} 23:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very weird; now its working fine on the sandboxes and article... I even tried the Ctrl+F5 on IE. Oh well, thanks.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est la vie

I guess I really should have done it myself by then, heh. Nothing personal I guess, somehow I knew that picture was a goner when I really couldn't think of anything to justify its presence.

By the way, I put an entry in the Barack Obama talk page FAQ (Q18) about the picture. There were some folks who were looking for it in the discussion and are quite eager to bring it back, hopefully this might raise their understanding on why it cannot be used in the Wikipedia.

Cheers.

--Aeon17x (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Ernest Peixotto

On 11 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ernest Peixotto, 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.

Cirt (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama Inauguration POTD

Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg has not been on the main page yet. How do you feel about scheduling this for the day of the inauguration on January 20th?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to wait until after the election, for one thing, since we didn't have a comparable McCain photo. Inauguration day would work. There's only one problem, which is that the photo sits in Political positions of Barack Obama where its encyclopedic value is pretty low, so writing a blurb about it may prove difficult. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a rule that the photo has to be included in the article to be a POTD. Can we use the Barack Obama FP and discuss the main article even if the photo is only in an offshoot article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines (disclosure: I wrote the rules so I suppose I can break them if I want to, but there are no examples of when the POTD was not included in the corresponding article). howcheng {chat} 20:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we sort of mention his political positions and then discuss him?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal discussion moved from AfD discussion so as not to confuse the issues and comments

I have moved your superb Proposal discussion from the AfD page to the "talk page for that AfD. No slight is intended... only a wish to keep the issues seperated. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guadalajara México Temple

Hi, I've got the images for this article sitting in OTRS. Did you want to upload them or shall I? If you'd rather do it, the OTRS ticket is 2008111710014605. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've uploaded and tagged them. I just noticed Commons:Template:OTRS pending, so in the future I'll use this template and upload photos as soon as I know that the confirmation of permission has been sent. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Huneker photo

Wow! What a stunning image! Thanks for adding that photo to James Huneker! --Larrybob (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Love the new photo-

Image:Aerial photo of the Andes.jpg is quite good... but not quite FP material... ;( my condolences. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mae West Needs More Admin. Help!

Thank you very much again for your help with the Southerly Clubs images (see link on my user page)!

Please, if you'd like to help with another problem, see my recent note in Discussion on the Mae West page re references. An editor named Wildhartlivie watches this article along with some friends like User:Pinkadelica. They insist on having the unsightly reference template at the top of the article no matter how many references that are put in. It seems to me that there is some sort of personal policing of this article going on and that certain editors are hell-bent on controlling the content 100%. Reading correspondence between Wildhartlivie and Pinkadelica on their talk pages supports that suspicion (not very nice reading either, by the way). Is this allowed? I thought I made a reasonable point in Discussion there today, but it only took 4 minutes for Wilhardlivie to intercede again. We need another objective administrator's help here. Would you please help or forward this to someone who can?

I am now accused of "personal attacks" in my stating what anyone can safely surmise by reading the talk pages of these cooperating editors about Mae West (Pinkadelica's has just now been archived) which have been read by me and several of my office colleagues with amazement. How do you feel as one of Wikipedia's experienced administrators, about the current look of the Mae West article as adjusted since admin Kingturtle wrote on the Discussion page there? The editor Wilhardlivie has just added no less that 78 "citation needed" notes throughout the text, if my quick count is correct. What does this tell a newcomer about English Wikipedia (compare e. g. sv:Mae West) when looking for information about one of America's best known entertainers? When Wildhartlivie just now changed my "Through her world famous sense of humor, Mae West has become one of the most legendary of all American entertainment personalities" to remove the sense of humor, she removed the whole point of that author's book (the one the reference goes to). And why is "References" OK as a heading for every other article I've seen, but W won't have it here, insisting on "Notes" alone? If I am wrong about some negative personal editing and exaggerated policing of this article, I sincerely apologize. We cannot help continung to react naturally to what the evidence strongly suggests. Don't 78 "citation needed" tags constitute some form of graffiti? I would certainly never dare do such a thing, even if I got such a wild idea. EmilEikS (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)