User talk:Bongomatic/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Erl[edit]

Hi, Just saw your comment on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Erl page. Thomas Erl has published 8 books and is a series editor from Prentice Hall. He can be considered as a creative person under the category of Authors who contributed to the field of SOA. Please check the Prentice Hall Page to see his list of books. Also because of his contribution to SOA field, Thomas Erl was covered regularly in SOA World Magazine. Both these links are not owned by the author and can be considered as independent sources. Please let me know your thought. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there any non-trivial third-party reviews in reliable sources? Bongomatic 13:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Apart from Prentice Hall and SOA World Magazine links provided, Thomas is also a keynote speaker at the SOA Symposium and Cloud Symposium events. A coverage of his book on SOA patterns can be found at EON Businesswire. Thomas is currently working with more than 20 authors on SOA and Cloud Computing books contributing towards the education of SOA. He is also the member of the committee drafting SOA Maturity Model. The article shall be updated in future with many more books coming from him. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Those seem mainly to be non-independent—talks by a person aren't coverage of the person. The Businesswire link is a press release, which is not independent, etc. You should make your points (succinctly and once, if you want to have maximum impact) at the AfD discussion. Bongomatic 22:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I updated the article in my user space User:Edited_by_Sanjay/Thomas_Erl with reliable sources and added links to those resources in the External Links section. I looked at various other authors page in the same field before making the changes to ensure that the content has right content & references. Let me know if there is anything else that need to be updated to move the article to main namespace. (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing that changes my previous opinion. Am I missing something? Bongomatic 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I looked at pages of other authors (for example Martin Fowler, Ivar Jacobson, Jeff Sutherland, etc) to understand their content in order to make this page as useful as possible. In the External Links section i have also provided links to major websites to show his work (not owned by authors or his organization). Earlier I was told that more link to external sources should be provided and I tried to do the same. I am unable to understand what else need to be added / edited to make it suitable for publishing on WP. Edited by Sanjay (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bongomatic 04:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Joys of "recent death" template usage[edit]

I appreciate that you're reviewing uses of {{recent death}}.
I suggest instead of your present edit summary:

rm recent death template--edit frequency no longer indicates inclusion (per Template:Recent death/doc)

...that instead, you cite the template's page Template:Recent death, where the documentation also appears. There's not much point in linking to the docs since they appear on the template page as a matter of course, and the advantage of linking to the template itself (besides the shorter link text) is that the visitor has easy, direct and obvious access to the template's talk page to talk about the template itself, its usage and the editors than monitor it.
Regards, -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point—thanks. Bongomatic 01:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
What are you now, Bongo, a deletionist of templates? To each their own, I guess! Good seeing you again. Did you see K-stick's Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council? Drmies (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd also post to here to let you know that I've used (stolen) the summary a few times; hope you don't mind. – Connormah (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. My summaries are public domain (not even CC). Bongomatic 06:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd just let you know. Best, – Connormah (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Two Days in April[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Two Days in April, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note . . . have nominated it for AfD. If you happen to feel like explaining your reason for deprodding I'd be interested. Bongomatic 05:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
As I explained in my edit summary, there was sufficient discussion about its standing in the History, with comments such as "I have added a little more information about the documentary and a link to IMDB. We should be placing additional effort into improving the documentary instead of deleting the article.", that I judged its deletion as not 'uncontroversial'. Since Prods involve deletion without consensus they should be reserved for the most clear-cut cases. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Days in April[edit]

While I have no doubt you were may have only been able to find "only the most cursory, passing mention of this film", I wish to point out that I was myself able to find a in-depth and significant coverage in Sports Illustrated[1] in a quite expansive article on the film... and have already been able to expand the article from one unsourced paragraph to something far better. More to do yes, and I'm already planning a nice DYK. Wanna help? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I both appreciate and respect the withdrawal. We bumped EC at the AFD. I have found a few more articles and will continue work. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bacon Challenge 2012[edit]


Hello! You have been invited to take part in the Bacon Challenge 2012. In case you don't know or need a refresher, the Bacon Challenge is an annual celebration of bacon on Wikipedia in which editors come together to help create, expand, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. The event lasts all the way through National Pig Day 2012, giving participants plenty of time to work at their pleasure. In addition to the Bacon Challenge is the Bacon WikiCup 2012, a side event to the Challenge in which all bacon-related contributions done by those participating in the Challenge are submitted and scored by the scorekeeper (me) based on the scoring chart. At the end of the Challenge, the user with the most points in the Bacon WikiCup will win a shiny trophy for their userpage. In addition, the users who score the highest in specific categories (not yet finalized, but the categories include most image uploads, most article creations, most DYK submissions, and more) will win barnstars. Finally, all participants will receive a medal. While the awards are nice, in the end, the important thing is to have fun and enjoy what we're all here for, which is improving Wikipedia.

If you decide to participate, great! You may add your name to the participants list at the main page of the Bacon Challenge 2012, and pick up the userbox for your userpage if you desire. Signing up for the Challenge will also automatically enter you into the Bacon WikiCup. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine too - maybe next year! In the meantime, if you know anyone who might also be interested in participating, feel free to invite them! The Challenge is open to anyone and accepts participants at any time, so feel free to let anyone who might be interested know.

Note that I, the scorekeeper of the Bacon WikiCup, will be on vacation starting on the 18th of June all the way up until the 5th of July. I will have limited access to the internet, so I may or may not be able to score users' contributions during this time. Sorry for any delay in scoring (but since the Challenge lasts for more than half a year, there's no rush, right? (= ).

I'm looking forward to another fun, successful year. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Al Perkins[edit]

Hi, I added a couple of paragraphs and references to Unfortunately I never edited Wikipedia before, so there were several errors in the foot notes. Could you help wit those, please? Thanks. Macousticboy (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed them in one revision and then removed them along with the other text you added as I don't believe the sources meet the criteria of WP:RS. The entire article is due for a rewrite and improved references (not blogs, etc.). Bongomatic 08:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointer on DDG talk page[edit]

Appreciate your enlightening on the bio page display. Thanks. --Daikang59 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)DK

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Finnegan (journalist)[edit]

Hey Bongo, you've worked on journalism articles before. Please have a look at this AfD; one editor proposes that he's a possibly notable LA Times reporter. Can you make that case? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry boss, was incommunicado . . . will try to take a look when I catch up on things. Hope you're having a good summer! Bongomatic 04:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You would be proud of me...[edit]

For this. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! Bongomatic 04:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the statute of limitations has passed on this one...--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
True 'nuff. Would you be interested in undoing some of the damage to International Cyanide Management Code‎ that was perpetrated since my creation of the article? Bongomatic 16:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, I will see what I can do next week. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines[edit]

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

The title says it all.--kelapstick(bainuu) 20:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Bongomatic 04:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Back.--kelapstick(bainuu) 10:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What have you done?[edit]

It shows an IP refractored, not me? Chesdovi (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I refactored nothing. I simply left a note on your talk page. Bongomatic 13:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Something has happened. I indeed reworded it, but it shows an IP did it. Something to do with padlock icon? It is important that this IP does not show. Chesdovi (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If you were inadvertently editing while logged out, and you don't want your IP known, you can revert the IP edit and redo it as logged in, and then send an e-mail to the oversight list to have them delete the edit info. Bongomatic 13:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right . . . by mistake I left a link to the secure Wikipedia and you were probably not logged into that site. Sorry. Bongomatic 13:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've suppressed the IP address. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh thank you so much. That is perfect. Chesdovi (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Berghahn Books: notability[edit]

Berghahn Books publishes in association with many international institutions, including: American Institute of Contemporary German Studies, British Centre for Durkheimian Studies, Leo Baeck Institute, London/New York, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, UNESCO. Also: review from 'African Affairs' (“… it is worth saluting Berghahn, the publisher that produces the Cameroon Studies series. This undertaking is a wonderful resource for English-speaking students of Cameroonian history. Not only are these books well produced with plentiful illustrations, but they are also reasonably priced. They will form some of the canonical texts for Camerooon studies for years to come, and Cameroonists are very lucky to have such a supportive publisher ... Cameroonists now have a whole group of newly available primary sources, elegantly set in context and ready for interpretation. “ on, 'New York Review of Books' ("Surveys such as those provided by the Istituto Cattaneo are absolutely essential for getting any kind of overview of the constantly shifting alliances that lie behind Italy's frequent if largely cosmetic changes of government ... Episodes ... of Byzantine complexity [are] all excellently covered in the Istituto Cattaneo's reviews." on I have been adding Scopus to the indexing services of several journals, which should automatically put the publisher in a notability position, according to Wikipedia rules.Last but not least, I have recently been looking for recent and older reviews Berghahn had in Choise and Times Literary supplement, which are both considerent significant. Please try to find e.g. 'Nazi Paris' - Choice Review Number: 46-7027. You could find many others. This might give Berghahn third-party citations and demonstrate that the house is taken seriously by the industry. I would also point out that other publishers (eg. Taylor and Francis or Berg Publishers) don't have any more outside citations than Berghahm. What do you think? Can we finally keep the article? Paoloxford (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed NPOV templates[edit]

Please explain the reason for adding a NPOV template on talk before readding it. Ex: at [2], you've added the template, but did not provide a reason on talk (or even in the edit summary). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at Talk:College_dating#POV. Feel free to review other student articles and comment on them if needed, such input is very appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, as the students request for clarification was not addressed in over 10 days. Feel free to restore it, if you can provide further clarification and suggestion as to what is not neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Replied there. Bongomatic 23:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Community Exchange System[edit]

I revamped it; hopefully it's better. Let me know if you have any concerns still or what you think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bongomatic. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Hey Bongo, how are things? I haven't seen you pop up on my watchlist lately, but see that you are so busy that your edit count is going into the negatives. Could you have a look at my comment at Talk:Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council/GA1? I'm not suggesting you comment on the GAN itself, rather my point about the references saying the mine stoped in 1928, but the Alaska DNR saying it stopped in 1938. I think the '28 was refering to an adjacent property, but I am not sure what should be in the article, the third party sources or the DNR statement...--kelapstick(bainuu) 09:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied there . . . hope that's useful. Bongomatic 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that putting that it was open some time ago, and then closed might be enough, without giving dates. I just have to consider the wording. Looks like the initial reviewer isn't a regular GA reviewer, but an Alaska topic editor who stumbled upon it and began the review.--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Bongomatic/Archive 9! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infant Jesus Higher Primary School[edit]

As the topic has been redirected, there is no longer an article for editors to review and discuss. With respects, time to close? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Auto Italia South East[edit]

Hi, thanks for your contribution to the Auto Italia South East page, I am interested in why you believe the organisation to be non-notable. Could you please explain. I am open to discussion. Best Chaosandvoid (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the organization is non-notable, nor do I think it's notable. I think, however, that notability is not demonstrated by the current sources which are, variously, not of wide enough interest and/or reliable enough to meet any of Wikipedia's articulated guidelines for notability. Bongomatic 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The current sources are all extremely notable organisations: The ICA, The Arts Council, This Is Tomorrow, Dazed & Confused Magazine, The Wire Magazine, Each one of these are either leaders in their field, or highly respected. They also display a wide range of sources, from fashion magazines to public institutions. Best Chaosandvoid (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Elisa Gabrielli[edit]

Hi. Elisa Gabrielli here. Hi. I need help. ...I have provided a long list of published sources as requested,Variety, etc as well as links to an HBO Special, along with dates of publication, paragraph, authors, on the Verifiabiliy Page and i guess someone copied it to a "talk page" as well yet all the comments on the topic, like yours, seem to indicate that no one has seen them. Are they in the wrong place? If this info needs to go elsewhere could you possibly help put it there. Thank you so much. I am not used to using the site and appreciate your help. I will put a copy here for you as well.:

Below are some of the Published Articles and other sources about the listing that I have been requested to provide. I hope this is .

  • HBO Special"THe Making of "Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa" Running on HBO prior and during the release of the Movie as well as when it was subsequently running on HBO and again later on Network television. An entire section was dedicated to me and the character, with interviews etc, Here's a link:
  • Published Book"The Art of Madagascar Escape 2 Africa" by Jerry Beck, Preface by Ben Stiller. Publisher- Insight Editions 2008. Section 1 "Run for Your Wildlife" Nana pg 52-53 "From scene stealing cameo in the first film, to chief adversary in the penguins Christmas short, Nana was clearly destined for bigger things in the Madagascar . "We picked Elisa Gabrielli out of the loop group in the first film to audition for the old lady, now known as Nana. We ended up using her there, in the penguins short and in an expanded role in Madagascar 2. Talk about a success story. She's wonderful"
  • Newsday, Nov7,2008 "Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa" witten by John Anderson 3rd and 4rth paragraphs. In this quote, "the mad jewish woman with the purse" refers to the character I voiced, but then he kindly mentions me again by name in the next paragraph. "...But all anyone wants to watch are the crazy penguins, the mad Jewish woman with the purse and King Julien the Meerkat (Sacha Baron Cohen), all of whom inject this Eric Darnell/Tom McGrath-directed comedy with crazy energy and real laughs.

It's no secret in Hollywood that big-name stars are cast in these animated epics so studios will have talk-show-acceptable celebrities plugging the movies on TV. But "Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" - in which the animals of the original film crash-land in their species' homeland - shows what really works in these things (and augments the state-of-the-art animation): As Skipper, the mad lead penguin, director McGrath is comically possessed; as Nana, the animals' nemesis, 'Elisa Gabrielli is incongruous and hysterical, and Cohen is a scream. So put up with the life lessons, and wait for the laughs."

  • Variety Nov. 3, 2008 Madagascar:Escape 2 Africa written by Todd McCarthy 6th paragraph "... The four-leggeds have occasional run-ins with hunters and tourists, and none among the latter is as mirth-inducing as a take-no-prisoners old granny (Elisa Gabrielli) who takes it upon herself to singlehandedly uphold the combative reputation of New Yorkers with some fearsome martial-arts turns.

Among the other ace newcomers are Baldwin's scheming Scar equivalent, out to thwart Alex, and a two-ton Lothario out to romance Gloria, drolly endowed with basso profundo intonations by songmeister,..."

  • San Jose Mercury News Nov 7, 2008 "Madcap Madagascar" by Robert W Butler (Wriiten for Kansas City Star as well, but don't have that date. End of 4rth/5th paragraphs "It's hard not to love...Or the little old lady (Elisa Gabrielli) who had just one scene in the first film but who emerges as Alex's nemesis, a a safari taking grandma who organizes a band of strafed tourists into a feral tribe right out of "Lord of the Flies"
  • Mecury Nov 5, 2008 Review:" Madagacar sequel is a decent diversion, but no great escape" by Glenn Whips 2nd paragraph "The resulting animal pileup isn't as chaotic as you might expect, thanks to a streamlined screenplay from co-directors Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath and series newcomer Etan Cohen. The addition of Cohen ("Tropic Thunder") gives this sequel extra bite, particularly noticeable in the expansion of the ninja-nanny character (Elisa Gabrielli) from a subway station cameo to a full-fledged character".

(Also Glenn Whips at the same time article in on Nov 7th, and others)

  • "" Nov 7, 2008 "Madagascar 2, Second Verse as Same as the First" by Steve 4rth and 5th paragraphs "...That’s 17 characters Darnell and McGrath have to juggle. The good news is most of these characters had some kind of introduction in the first film, so the directors don’t waste time on them. Probably the best of the new though are Nana (Elisa Gabrielli), the little old lady, and that darn sexy hippo Moto Moto, who somehow manages to cross Barry White with Prince and makes it work.
  • "The Gazette" ( Colorado Springs ) Nov 6, 2008 "Lions Share of Laughs go to Supporting Cast in Madagascar" by Brandon Fibbs "...Supporting characters should never be more interesting than the mains (manes?). Yet that is the case with "Madagascar 2." Sacha Baron Cohen returns as Julian, the nutty king of the partying lemurs with a hilariously enlarged role culminating in an attempt to appease the water gods by tossing one of the main characters into a boiling volcano.The old granny (Elisa Gabrielli), who so efficiently dispatched with Alex in the first film, returns as a vacationing New Yorker now single-handedly keeping the jungle at bay with her formidable martial-arts moves.
  • "The Baltimore Sun" Nov 7, 2008 "The menagerie in Madagascar 2 is a hoot" by Michael Sragow 4rth paragraph "Even the human characters, usually a drag on creature cartoons, add to the spirited anarchy. In her take-charge attitude, Nana (Elisa Gabrielli) represents the best and worst of New York rolled into one feisty package. She wields a handbag like a mace."
  • Cafe The Stir Blog Dec 3, 2008 " Madagascar Character Inspired by Love" file:///Users/elisagabrielli/Desktop/Documents/Madagascar%202:%20Nana%20Character%20Inspired%20by%20Love%20%7C%20The%20Stir.webarchive
  • "Animated Views- State of the Art" Feb 27, 2009 "Nana's Back. Elisa Gabrielli on Madagascar Escape 2 Africa by Jeremie Noyer (also published in France) file:///Users/elisagabrielli/Desktop/Current%20Projects/Madagascar%202%20Reviews:Press%20etc./Animated%20Views%20»%20Nana’s%20back!%20Elisa%20Gabrielli%20on%20Madagascar:%20Escape%202%20Africa.webarchive
  • Toon Zone News Feb 24, 2009 'Toon Zone Interviews Elisa Gabrielli..." by Ed Lui file:///Users/elisagabrielli/Desktop/Current%20Projects/Madagascar%202%20Reviews:Press%20etc./Toon%20Zone%20-Interview...on%20being%20'Nana'!.webarchive

There were also other reviews and Radio Interviews, guest appearances at Cartoon Conventions for work done on Gargoyles, Batman, Ironman etc as well as a few "local girl made good' news coverage on Television stations back east when I did 'The Brady Bunch Movie"...but I don't have all of that compiled with dates and links and such. OK, hope this is in the right format Thanks. Juniper99 (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Juniper99My talkMy preferencesMy watchlistMy contributionsLog outArticleDiscussionReadEditNew sectionView historyUnwatch Juniper99 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Toolbox Print/export This page was last modified on 8 November 2011 at 18:17. Text is available under the Cr

Juniper99 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks so much.Juniper99 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Juniper99. May I suggest you read WP:N, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:BASIC? The coverage you cite above doesn't rise to the level of "significant" or "in-depth", and I don't see how any of the other criteria are met. Thank you, Bongomatic 16:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Iwan Baan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iwan Baan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iwan Baan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Turqoise127 20:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bongomatic. Interesting to hear your opinion on this. The one caveat I would present is that in the world of the Actor, apart from the major stars and those on current hit series...increasingly one and the same... and the paparazzi followed celebs, such coverage is exceptionally significant, notable and meaningful, and as in depth as that sort of coverage gets.Truly. Published independent sources, being singled out by reviewers ,inclusion in a Television Doc in a significant the acting world, especially in the world of a character actor, that is the form significant coverage takes. I'm just throwing it out there that the different professions have their own forms of significant coverage...and that that should be taken into consideration. Just in general, not even personally...because I feel it is completely up to you individually to view me or my work in any way that you see fit, of course. I get it. And I appreciate your time. Juniper99 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

put this under the wrong discussion prior:[edit]

Hi Bongomatic. Interesting to hear your opinion on this. The one caveat I would present is that in the world of the Actor, apart from the major stars and those on current hit series...increasingly one and the same... and the paparazzi followed celebs, such coverage is exceptionally significant, notable and meaningful, and as in depth as that sort of coverage gets.Truly. Published independent sources, being singled out by reviewers ,inclusion in a Television Doc in a significant the acting world, especially in the world of a character actor, that is the form significant coverage takes. I'm just throwing it out there that the different professions have their own forms of significant coverage...and that that should be taken into consideration. Just in general, not even personally...because I feel it is completely up to you individually to view me or my work in any way that you see fit, of course. I get it. And I appreciate your time. Juniper99 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Juniper99 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is not offered on the quality your oeuvre, but on the coverage in reliable sources that it has garnered and / or whether your work qualifies under WP:ENTERTAINER, which I have yet to see demonstrated (including by the long listing of sources you provided, which by and large consist of passing mentions). Bongomatic 04:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK...just for the record, those are not "passing mentions"., they are significant reviews by significant reviewers.... as is the HBO doc significant is having two pages in a published book. As for passing mentions, there are plenty of those in other reviews I didn't list...LA Times, NY Times etc... for that very reason. Anyway, that's that. Again, I'd refer you to my past message as to the ways in which coverage is granted, but clearly you didn't find it to be "significant" to your way of thinking. Juniper99 (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

On the Chancellorpink SPAs:[edit]

If you really feel the need to "SPA" every "keep" in the joint, I guess I can't keep stopping you. But please know that I happen to know who vandalized the Chancellorpink page, and I know that SHE knows Mark of the Beast who nominated the page for deletion. So the paying field is already tilted in favor of delete. If you think I am such a dick or the page is so unworthy, then go ahead and tilt it further. Doesn't seem fair to me, but what do I know. Bubblegumcrunch (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't opine one way or the other on deletion. I did, however, identify certain participants in the discussion as spas. If you think I have identified any of them in error—or failed to identify other spas participating in the discussion—please make any appropriate corrections (provided they can be backed up by reference to such users' contribution histories). Bongomatic 04:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


Whatever the end result, I wish to thank you for one of the best discussions I have had in a long time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. While I haven't considered these matters in detail for a while, I think you should consider refining your thinking on notability of individuals. To my understanding, there are fundamentally two ways of establishing notability:
  1. GNG—reference to significance of coverage in reliable sources. Per my comments on the discussion page (and as agreed by DGG, someone whose views frequently differ from mine) whether a source helps establish notability is different from whether it can be trusted to be factually accurate. There may not be adequate support for this in the guidelines but there is ample support for it in AfD discussion results and in logic.
  2. Subject-specific—reference to criteria that, if proven establish notability, regardless of the significance of coverage or the factors relating to the source mentioned under the GNG.
However, this second way to establish notability needs to be broken down further:
  1. Bright line distinctions—reference to objective facts that either are or aren't true (such as "politicians and who have held international, national or sub-national").
  2. Judgement calls—reference to subjective criteria such as "has had significant roles in multiple notable films".
What is "significant" in this context? Does "notable" in this context mean precisely the same thing as it does for inclusion in the encyclopedia (e.g., if a film is notable for something like being the subject of a lawsuit, rather than for its directing, acting, reviews, revenues, viewership, etc. does that help establish the notability of an actor in it?).
Your comments at the AfD seem to conflate these different issues, although it's possible that it's me who's confused. Hope all is well. Bongomatic 05:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
In the AfD you state
  • reliability of a source is dependent upon it being third-party, published, and having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • reliability of a source also has to do with whether or not the source can be considered suitable in context to what is being sourced.
  • if a source is properly reliable in context to what is being sourced, it may be used via the GNG if signiciant in coverage, OR used through the SNGs if not.
As applied to the GNG this doesn't reflect practice at AfD as described be me both above in the AfD, and by DGG. It is my opinion that the normal practice of considering the quality of the source beyond factual reliability is key to any sensible application of the GNG, and this is how it is used in practice. Bongomatic 07:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Well... the questions posed and anwered on DGG's page and by him at the AFD dealt with the GNG, significant coverage, and RS. You and I are not in disagreement over the usefullness of the GNG when significant coverage is available, nor are we in disagreement over the requirement that sources be both suitable and reliable. I also think you and I are not in disagreement about the usefullness of the SNGs when sigcov is lacking, nor are we in disagreement over the requirement for verifiability in suitable reliable sources for any SNG assertion. And despite DGG not at first offering input inre SNG and verifiability of assertions (as those were not the questions you posed on his talk page), I think you and I are in "general" agreement that we have two related keys that might open the same door. In his later responding to my referencing those two keys on his talk page, DGG offered an "in general, yes, but..." response that speaks toward instances where an SNG is problematic, how in some instances it could be, and summarized by offering a view on how the current system might be changed. I think you and are are standing a whole lot closer together in the room than might be thought. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we disagree on the sourcing required for GNG, and, based on your stress on V, I don't think we're close to eye-to-eye on the way to establish the subjective criteria in various subject-specific guidelines (though we are probably not as far away as we were years ago). Bongomatic 08:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The most basic of policies is V. No small wonder I stress it when trying to speak about SNGs. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a small (but only small) wonder that you stress it to the exclusion of consideration of how to demonstrate compliance with subject-specific guidelines that are subjective / opinion-based in nature. V (as well as other key policies) gives little to no guidance on that. Bongomatic 09:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


A quickie, for the record--I was told that copyvios can't do with simple revert; they have to be scrapped from the record. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Check the recent TB on DGG's page and see the discussion. I have no views on this. Bongomatic 05:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe later. For now I go with MRG, haha. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I have not yet really found a reason not to delete those. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you[edit]

Thank you for your support and comment at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck MQS. Stay outta trouble. 22:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Quit tagging things because you are on a mission.[edit]

I am sick of seeing you tag articles because they don't meet YOUR criteria. You only tag things so you will look like you do a lot of work on Wikipedia. A perfect example was the tag you placed on Cherry Ripe (numbers station). You placed a tag on the article and then you get upset because someone dared to remove it. Then you do a Google book search and Google news archive search,(because you have never heard of a Numbers Station)and because nothing showed up there,you say the tag should remain. Well I am sorry to tell you that just because you have not heard or read about something does not mean it doesn't exist. You do realize that because something isn't on Google that it can still exist right? You are probably not old enough to know what over half the things you tag for deletion are. So quit doing your tag patrol,you come off as a Ignorant Fool,tagging things stating that they are not notable because YOU have not heard of them.-- (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject![edit]

View of Hoover Tower from Main Quad.

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Odyssey School - establishing notability[edit]

Hi Bongomatic:

The Odyssey School page now includes two extra sources to help establish notability for the school. One is a commercially published book listing private schools in the region; the other is a local newspaper article. I hope that's sufficient, but if you need more, just let me know.

I'd like to call your attention to the Wikipedia entries for Nueva School, Crystal Springs Uplands School and other private schools in the San Francisco bay area. I believe the Odyssey entry establishes notability in at least as much detail as those other school pages do. To my layman's eye, all of them are well-executed and informative entries that should meet Wikipedia's standards.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GCA10 (talkcontribs) 04:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The sourcing for The Nueva School is inadequate certainly, as is that for Crystal Springs Uplands School. However, they are both high schools, which are all subject to inclusion (see WP:OUTCOMES). Moreover, they have significantly more news coverage. Bongomatic 13:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bongomatic:

Thanks for the reference to WP:OUTCOMES. It's a good standard, as long as it's applied thoughtfully and fairly. In a moment, I'll share an idea about how to do so. First, I do need to correct you about the Nueva School. It's an elementary/middle school only, providing K-8 education. This is quite clearly stated in the first sentence of its Wikipedia entry. Not sure how that got overlooked.

That leaves us with the question of how WP:OUTCOMES should be applied to elementary and middle schools. You suggest a "news coverage" test. That's surely part of the answer, but if it's applied without any metrics, it could become very capricious. For example, right now the Nueva Wikipedia entry does not cite any news coverage. (The Odyssey page cites three articles.) By the standards suggested in your note above, Nueva would be deleted, as it is not a high school and does not have any documented news coverage. That would be an appalling omission. Nueva is a renowned school that should be in Wikipedia, even if its current entry isn't optimally presented.

So let's ponder afresh the best way to interpret Section 5.1 of WP:OUTCOMES. I think this gets a lot easier if we take guidance from what schools get listed in commercially published guides to middle and elementary schools. Such guides exist for the top schools in New York, Washington DC and other U.S. communities where there is intense interest in pre-HS school choices. Examples include Manhattan Family Guide by Goldman and Housman (New York City); Georgia Irvin's Guide to Schools (Washington DC), and Beyond the Brochure by Simon & Dodson (Los Angeles)

Such guides provide an across-the-board way of identifying elementary and middle schools that are likely to pass a common-sense notability test. Equally important, applying this test, I believe, is consistent with Wikipedia's emphasis on reliable second-hand sources.

The immediate effect would be to deem Odyssey and Nueva worthy of inclusion. They both are featured in Ellen Lussier's book, Private Schools of the San Francisco Peninsula and Silicon Valley, which is now cited as a reference on the Odyssey page. I think keeping both schools -- and many others like them -- is the right call. The Nueva page has been viewed 1,404 times in the past 90 days; the Odyssey page has been viewed 687 times. Clearly such pages are useful to Wikipedia visitors.

Thanks for getting this dialogue started -- your comments I believe will help improve Wikipedia's handling of many school pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GCA10 (talkcontribs) 18:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops on Nueva being a primary and middle school. It nonetheless gets a lot more news coverage than Odyssey School.
I don't have access to Lussier's book but from what little is available in Google it isn't obvious that it meets the standards required (in particular, significant coverage). I don't see any support in OUTCOMES for your proposal that listing in a commercial guide establishes notability. In fact, generally. listings in guides or directories that don't provide significant coverage of an entity do not confer notability.
There is no basis for your appealing to a "common-sense" notability test, as (a) what is one person's common sense is another's nonsense, and (b) the guidelines on notability are the result of a consensus developed over years, and may or may not be sensible.
Also, hits to a Wikipedia page don't have any bearing on the notability of the topic per policy and guideline.
Instead of arguing with me, why don't you find some decent sources? Bongomatic 06:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bongomatic:

Everything's resolved. I took your advice to heart to "find some decent sources." You'll notice now that Odyssey's origins (reference note 10) are now attributed to Alan Deutschman's 2000 book "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs," rather than the Odyssey website. The Deutschman book should pass whatever decent-source hurdle you care to set. The book was reviewed by The Washington Post, USA Today, BusinessWeek, etc. It has already been deemed notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the Deutschman book explains that Apple founder Steve Jobs himself took an interest in the career of Odyssey founder Steve Smuin, who had helped educate Jobs's son. Those passages alone should suffice to establish Odyssey's notability. If necessary, I can add more detail about why Steve Jobs is notable, but I hope that isn't necessary.

I've taken down the "notability" flag, knowing that you would now do the same, too. I do appreciate your interest in helping this become a better documented entry. Thanks for taking time to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GCA10 (talkcontribs) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't have access to the book, but the citation relates to the founder of the school, not the foundation of the school. Establishing the notability of the founder (which I have no idea if the book does—it would need to provide in-depth coverage of him) does not establish the notability of the school. Bongomatic 12:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Irony, table for one?[edit]

I had to make a change to your ARS userbox, as Category:Articles_tagged for deletion and rescue had been, well, deleted... --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny! Thanks! Bongomatic 12:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It's all Part of the service! How've you been? Haven't seen you around much...--kelapstick(bainuu) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Been busy . . . how about you? Bongomatic 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Everyone is always busy so it seems. I was once told "you can keep up, but you can't catch up". Trying to find a house these days I am, and it is a more dificiult task than one might think...When (if) we find one, I will make sure you get your inaugural BBQ invitation. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Where are you these days and where are you looking for a house--buying your own yurt finally? Bongomatic 00:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You must truely be out of the loop. I have been living in Perth, Western Australia since early January. Nice place to spend a January. Have you been out skiing yet this year?--kelapstick(bainuu) 01:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't they have yurts out in the Margaret River? Yeah, was skiing in December—was nice. Thinking of the antipodes for "summer" skiing. Any experience with that? Bongomatic 02:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Not yet, although friends of mine live on the North Island (I think) and do quite a bit. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How's that for inappropriate use of recent deaths? Died 5 years ago, announced this week...--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and was going to do something about it but then something in the so-called real world caught my attention. Nice catch. Bongomatic 13:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Bongo, haven't seen you in forever. How's shakes? Drmies (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been too busy slacking in the real world to slack here lately. Too bad. There are lots of topics that, variously, need coverage and deletion. How about you? Just finished the last of my Noah's Mill, sadly without your assistance. Bongomatic 16:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Too bad. In retaliation, I'm going to nominate that brand for deletion. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

More irony...I am afraid that your userbox may have now outlived its usefulness...--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As much as I found the template annoying I am of two minds about the deletion of the template. Bongomatic 12:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder if you actually sleep...--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Sleeping is cheating. How's down under? Bongomatic 13:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Aus is great, I am enjoying it thus far, we are slooooowly getting out of summer, but the pool is still open, and warmer than the doctor's. The ocean is still quite warm too, if that's your fancy (my boy loves it). Kids went to the zoo yesterday, had to keep the younges in the stroller to keep her from attacking the kangaroos (they roam free in the Australia section), and the boy has gained an affinity for penguins. We will have to take him to Penguin Island. Sleeping may be cheering, but I have to be up for work at 4:30, talk soon. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I am so glad you turned me onto checking the recent death template, such as this one. I would think that at 93, the circumstances surrounding Mike Wallace's death, should be fairly obvious.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping the faith—I've been remiss of late. Bongomatic 06:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Three times!--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In case you are so inclined, I have started documenting removals, with basic details why the template is not required. Feel free to add to it if you remove any (I just did 4 today). I doubt it will make a difference, but it can demonstrate the unnecessary usage of the template. Maybe some people just don't understand that people die some times...especially when they are in their 90s.--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky jam cake[edit]

No problem. I review AlexNewArtBot (talk · contribs) suggestions for WikiProject Kentucky and correct little things like that all the time. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the hate?[edit]

Why do you dislike MyBB so much? It is obviously notable but you keep trying to delete it. ~Darth StabroPalantír 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


I really, really, really hated removing your speedy tag on MyBB, because I've seen you around enough to trust your judgement, but I think this article is substantially different enough from the last to warrant removing the speedy tag. I don't have access to the old one, however, so this is going from memory only. I will trust your judgement if you decide to add the tag back after reviewing and I won't remove again if you are confident it applies, no harm, no foul. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown. No problem. I don't have access to it either, so you may be right. I'll ask an admin to take a look. Otherwise, back to AfD as the article remains woefully sourced and, after another round of WP:BEFORE, it appears to be destined to remain so. Bongomatic 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tucumcari, New Mexico[edit]

I notice that you are removing sourced additions to Tucumcari, New Mexico regarding scepticism about a local legend marketed to tourists claiming "Tonopah and Tocom, not only were rivals and sworn enemies of one another, but were both vying for the hand of Kari, Chief Wantonomah's daughter" and then giving an implausible ending making the names of two natives, "Tocom! - Kari!" into the name of the town. The question of whether the local legend is fiction is already open on the talk page and it may be advisable to take this discussion there. I'm neither the first nor the only to find a WP:RS questioning this "legend" and that info does belong in the article. Lastly, leaving edit summaries like "Reverting a bunch of bad edits (overlinking, removal of material) with the possibility of removing a couple of legitimate ones too. ([[WP:TW...)" in response to an edit which removed no material at all is dishonest. Please do not do this again. (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary I reverted a number of obviously problematic edits (such as inappropriate linking and over-linking) and possibly a few legitimate ones. If you wish to add the sourced material please do so, but I'll revert you again (in the entirety) if you redo the problematic bits. Bongomatic 12:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've taken the matter here in an attempt to get a second opinion on the matter. (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Tucumcari, New Mexico". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a mediator/clerk from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I've closed the request there because the foregoing exchange does not constitute the kind of discussion required by DRN before dispute resolution can begin. I would, however, encourage Bongomatic to be a bit more forthcoming at the article talk page about which edits he considers to be appropriate and those which he does not, and to engage in the kind of collegial dialogue with 66 that is envisaged here at Wikipedia. If that does not come to pass, I'd suggest to 66 that he might ask for some editing help at Editor Assistance or even file a Request for Comments to seek consensus for the edits he/she would like to make. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no dispute to resolve. The anonymous editor is concerned about the allegedly sourced history of the name of the town. My revert was (as I explained above and in the edit summary) was not because of any objection to that change but to the overlinking. I haven't even investigated the validity / applicability of the source for the edit about place name change. Bongomatic 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If the concern were "wikification", wouldn't the appropriate response be merely to unlink the "[[wiki]]fication" → "wikification" without actual removal of the sourced content itself? Removing sourced content from articles to make a point is not helpful as the objective is to create an encyclopaedia and reprinting legend with deletion of any WP:RS indicating that legend to possibly be fictional results in a less factually-reliable finished product. (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to make constructive edits to the page in question. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. I will continue to revert edits or series of edits that are not constructive even if they include elements that are acceptable. Bongomatic 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Gotta spell everything out, Bongo--one cannot expect editors at Wikipedia to understand the rules of editing at Wikipedia. That's one of the reasons I got out for a little bit, and I see that nothing has improved while I was away. Thanks for trying to keep a clean house. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • DO NOT revert series of edits because one edit is problematic. Make a subsequent edit and fix the issue. Period. I will be watching your interactions with this IP very carefully. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, if you use rollback to do it again, I'll see to it that you have that right revoked. Rollback is strictly for vandalism, not good faith edits - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Drama theory[edit]

You added a conflict of interest tag to the article on Drama theory, which an editor has removed. Have you warned the editor who you think might have a conflict of interest with a COI template? Perhaps it would be best if you explained the possible conflict of interest concern you have on the talk page, because I cannot tell which editor you think might have this problem.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Just out of curiosity, why is the capitalization rule like that in the MOS? From what I've learned, you're supposed to capitalize titles unless there's a preposition (e.g.: The Lost Books of the Sand Dunes).

Anyway, thanks for the welcome back. I have to say, it's nice to see you again. =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No particular reason—style preferences boil down to matters of taste. Bongomatic 02:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


Hey, Bongo! Just wanted to wish you a happy Cinco de Mayo! - Zhou Yu (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And happy Vesak day too. Bongomatic 01:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bongomatic. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lego tires[edit]

That PDF is...very retro. I have inquired directly with Lego about getting a free picture of the tires from Set 400, unless you have some lying around in your basement? --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lots of contemporary stuff, but nothing like that. Awesome, isn't it? Bongomatic 01:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't make out the notification on the bottom, to tell if it is a copyright notice. If not it might be public domain as it was published in the US prior to 1977 without a notice. But I am not an expert on that sort of thing, and I can't read what it says. If it is copyright, and Lego is unresponsive to me, we may be able to snip a copy out as fair use to include in the article. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Also cool. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
They sent me this, I have asked them to OTRS it.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)