User talk:Tim1965/TalkArchives6

DYK for The Champ

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Champ, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Book Soup

On January 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Book Soup, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Nffe logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Nffe logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Baloney. It's used in the article National Federation of Federal Employees. I've followed the instructions on the BJBot Talk page to remove the bad tagging of this logo. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it....

Vandlism? I created that picture, I could take it off if I wanted to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgdog (talk • contribs) 06:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, you can't remove it. You released the photo into the public domain. Which means you don't own it any more. "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." People can now do whatever they want with that photo. If they decide to blow it up into giant-size posters and sell them for $10,000 each, you have no rights in the matter. If they want to deface it into pornography, you have no rights in the matter. If they want to post it to a Wikipedia article, you have no more rights in the matter. Sorry... - Tim1965 (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok now I understand. I had to create a new account though... On your page, I saw these boxes that shows what your part of... How do you get that on your page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgcat (talk • contribs) 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• You mean the user boxes. Most WikiProjects have designed user boxes for their members and supporters. Look under each Project's "Templates" section for its user box. You can lift the code from there. Or, if you see a box you like on someone's User page, click the "edit" tab and then copy the code and past it onto your own User page. You might also want to explore Category:Wikipedians, and see which user boxes appear there under various categories. There is a template to create your own user box, too, located at Template:User box. Images in user boxes should come from Wikipedia Commons, though. Hope this helps! - Tim1965 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That helped. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgcat (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Natan article

Tim,

Nice work in incorporating my source into the Bernard Natan article. I've been editing since 2006 and am still a bit mystified by the processes of properly including sources, references & citations. Thank you. I am currently researching the persons and numbers of artists lost in the holocaust. The amount of talent, and depth of creativity that was destroyed is stunning.

Be healthy,

Marc Riddell

(Michael David)

• I'm glad I could help! I had not seen that site when I was researching the article, and it has a lot of really useful material in it!! You know, the way I learned how to use Wikipedia was to just copy what other people were doing. That's how I learned how to use those reference tags (<ref>Smith, John. "Blah blah." XYZ Book. 2007.</ref>) And signing your name to posts is easy, too. Just use four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia does have this nice little Help guide, but it is very long and a little complex. I find that stealing code and adapting it to your own use works just as well for most stuff. And it's encourage by Wikipedia! - Tim1965 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Daisy Rooks

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Daisy Rooks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

new PhD (2007), holds visiting (non-tenure-track) position, minimal publications

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Daisy Rooks

I have nominated Daisy Rooks, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Rooks. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes a Great Notion (Battlestar Galactica)

Hi, I noticed in the page history of Sometimes a Great Notion (Battlestar Galactica), you added the section on the production. Well, I submitted it for GA after expanding on reception and trimmed plot and it recently passed. I would like to thank you for adding the rather lengthy production section (since I agreed with myself that I won't take all the credit if the article does pass). -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! I just took a look at the article, and you did a hell of a job contributing to and editing it! I'm keeping my fingers crossed. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Clement O. Miniger

On March 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clement O. Miniger, 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.

∗ \ / (⁂) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lightanddarkness re: John McBride

Hey there friend and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. We now have 3 articles on John McBride. We have your article on him, plus one for John McBride (Photographer) and John McBride (Footballer). Apparently the right thing to do is to notify you that we should make a disambiguation page, no? New at Wikipedia here. Please let me know! Thanks! --Darknessandlight (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management

May I suggest that you nominate this article for DYK? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. I've done so! - Tim1965 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hai Ying Wu

On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hai Ying Wu, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hunga Tonga

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hunga Tonga, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Paper local

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paper local, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Article nominations

Hi there. Some of your articles are of a remarkably high standard, both of prose, and of quality use of sources. Great work. It would be fabulous if some of these (eg your latest DYK nom - United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management - were put through the Good Article nomination process, and possible Feature Article process as well. They really deserve better than a B quality rating. Have you taken many/any articles through the GA process? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've had a few go through the process (Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894, Reel Affirmations, Sometimes a Great Notion (Battlestar Galactica)). My understanding is that the primary contributor(s) cannot nominate their own work for GA, so I've never done so. No one else has nominated my articles, but I would not be averse to having them go through GA or FA procedures. (It'd be nice, actually!) - Tim1965 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are welcome to nominate your own article, you just can't review something on which you been a main contributor. So go right ahead! I might end up reviewing one or more of them. They look interesting. How on earth did you get access to some many historical newspaper articles etc for these things?! It is great to see such detailed referencing as in your latest DYK. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'll see what I can nominate. As for historical newspaper access, it's easy! I buy a year's access to the archives of several major newspapers (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, etc.) It's expensive but totally worthwhile. Thankfully, a lot of archives are online. Some, sadly, are not and that creates real research obstacles. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management

On March 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

California Agricultural Labor Relations Act

Thanks for this! Always nice to see high-quality articles when patrolling new pages :). Ironholds (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! Writing that was like passing a Volkswagon, and I don't mean "rushing by..." - Tim1965 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

John Henning DYK

I'm certainly not here to turn anything into an argument, but I wonder if you could explain your position to me a bit more clearly on the supposed plagiarism issue on the John Henning DYK. I didn't want to clutter up T:TDYK with a lengthy discussion, but I find it really difficult to see your position and was wondering if you could clarify it for me. Thanks! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The hook reads: "...that while Under Secretary of Labor in the U.S. Department of Labor from 1962 to 1967, John F. Henning (pictured) was instrumental in preventing restaurants from counting tips as wages under minimum wage laws?"

In the primary source, the section reads: "In addition to his service with the California Labor Federation, Jack served the cause of organized labor from within the halls of government. From 1959-1962, he served as the Director of the California State Department of Industrial Relations. He then served in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as the U.S. Under Secretary of Labor. In these positions and afterward as an advocate, he worked consistently for justice and fair treatment of workers. He was instrumental, for example, in securing organizing rights for California’s farm workers, in preventing restaurants from counting tips as wages under minimum wage laws, and in encouraging the labor movement to take strong stands for civil rights." (See: "In Honor of John F. Henning." 2000 Congressional Record, Vol. 146, Page E1920.)

WP:Plagiarism says quite clearly: "Directly copying either copyrighted works or works in the public domain and failing to give the sources of material based on them indirectly or copied from them directly is plagiarism, whether or not the pilfered works feature copyright notices on them." Yet, I clearly provided the source of the material.

WP:Plagiarism#Definitions of plagiarism defines plagiarism this way: "Definitions of plagiarism differ. A very basic, plain-spoken definition is offered by Ann Lathrop and Kathleen Foss in their 2000 guide Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era: A Wake-up Call: 'If you didn't think of it and write it all on your own, and you didn't cite (or write down) the sources where you found the ideas or words, it's probably plagiarism.' It doesn't matter where you find the information; even if your source is free content, you should acknowledge it." (citation in orignal omitted) However, I clearly cited where the words came from.

At the beginning of the section WP:Plagiarism#Public domain text, there are two paragraphs on the reliability, neutrality, objectivity, relevance, etc. of primary source public domain text. This does not concern us here. It is the following paragraphs which are important. In part, they read: "Assuming that some type of public domain material is available and welcome, a good practice to use when copying free content verbatim is to indicate in the edit summary the source of the material. Further changes such as modernizing language and correcting errors should be done in separate edits after the original insertion of text. This allows later editors the ability to make a clear comparison between the original source text and the current version in the article." ... "If you do choose to use verbatim material from a public domain source, you should attribute it properly. For one thing, you may place a note to that effect in the references section." ... "You are free to rewrite material into your own words and remove part or all of a quoted passage, leaving just a reference footnote giving credit for the content but now no longer crediting the source for the wording." The material in the Henning article was rewritten from the original in that part of the quoted passage (see original) was removed, this was incorporated into a longer sentence, and the sentence cited.

I'm aware of the Signpost article coming up, which Matisse politely and generously points out, but that is not Wikipedia policy. One could argue that not enough of the original was edited or removed to justify the lack of quotations. Fair enough, but I'm not sure what constitutes "not enough" editing. (For example, I deleted 24 of the 38 words in the original sentence, or 63 percent of the original text. Removing two-thirds seems to meet the standard.) Definitions of plagiarism and WP:Plagiarism do mention the rhythm, pace, and vocabulary used. It is arguable that keeping the word "instrumental" maintains that writing rhthym in the phrase "instrumental in preventing restaurants from counting tips as wages under minimum wage laws". But I suggest that the alterations to the source material and addition of my own material change that. I may be wrong (and it would not be the first time). But plagiarism is a serious charge, and 13 words from a 38-word sentence seems a slender thread to hang that on. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The simplest definition of plagiarism is the one from the dictionary. The Random House Dictionary defines it thus: "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Copying text that you did not write (specifically, "was instrumental...in preventing restaurants from counting tips as wages under minimum wage laws" (ellipsis mine)) into the hook for DYK is still plagiarism. Whether the proposed policy is policy yet or not matters not; plagiarism is still plagiarism. A source has been cited in the article, yes. Has a source been cited in the DYK hook itself? No. Therefore, it becomes plagiarism because it's no longer attributed. In addition, because it's a direct quote in this case, it should be contained within quotation marks. I have no problem with the hook IF (and only if) quotes are added, formatted per MOS:QUOTE, to note that it is a direct quote. This is someone else's work, no matter how much text was removed, public domain or not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• The dictionary definition doesn't matter. What matters is Wikipedia's policy, which implements definitions. All DYK hooks must be cited, and yet no citations are included in the DYK hooks, so your reasoning about lack of citation on DYK is incorrect. - Tim1965 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• But my reasoning on this being a direct quote is sound, which is all I (and the user who raised the issue) was recommending for the sake of the original author and academic integrity. This is an encyclopedia, after all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Salad Bowl strike

On April 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salad Bowl strike, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for California Agricultural Labor Relations Act

On April 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John F. Henning

On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John F. Henning, 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.

Royalbroil 02:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Henry I. Harriman

On April 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry I. Harriman, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for National Industrial Recovery Act

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Industrial Recovery Act, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Economy Act

On April 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Economy Act, 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.

Victuallers (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Hoffa faces McClellan Comte 1957.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hoffa faces McClellan Comte 1957.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Donald Richberg

On April 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donald Richberg, 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.

Royalbroil 00:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Reorganization Act of 1939

On April 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reorganization Act of 1939, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Federal Works Agency

On May 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Federal Works Agency, 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.

Royalbroil 00:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Leo Wolman

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leo Wolman, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management

Hi there. Tweaks of this for GA are going well. Thought I'd make a quick comment re that section on criticisms. I think, in an ideal article, this would not be separate material, but would be integrated into discussion of the committee's effectiveness and political support (for example, links could be made between the concern over its impact on individuals' rights and the level of political support the committee garnered amongst democrats, the public, and some media outlets perhaps. In other words, did the criticisms you have identified in the references have effects on the committee's operational effectiveness etc?) It could also be integrated into discussion of the committee's legacy in terms of its effect on the careers of its key players, particularly Kennedy, to whom a considerable portion of the criticisms appear to relate.
I recognise that this integration may not be straightforward, as some of the above thoughts don't quite mesh with how the article is laid out. But there you are. I'm happy to negotiate! :-) And I don't want you passing any more Volkswagens. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim1965 - where are you up to with the Select Committee revisions? You left a note about doing some work offline, but I haven't seen any changes for the last couple of weeks. That's fine with me, but let me know what's happening. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• These changes are coming tonight. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done! YAY! - Tim1965 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fabulous. Have passed it. No volkswagens involved. See you next time! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for all your great suggestions and help! - Tim1965 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

McCardell

Good question, the reason I changed those 2 items is because when the person data or defaultsort is used it allows them to sort the articles more approriately. This is especially true when doing database queries using mysql. This is also true of articles with Van something or Hispanic or Arabic names that start with things like El, Al or Ali. Aside from those reasons the manual of style for sorting and catagorization of articles using templates states that articles that start with Mc something should be Mac, only the first letter of each name should be caps with all others as lowercase, no extra charachters such as colans, apostraphies or quotes and any cadencies such as jr, sr, II or III should be at the end of the name vice after the last name like this Smith, John Jr vice Smith Jr, John. I can't find the rule at the moment but as soon as I do I'll put it out here. I hope this helps and please let me know if you need anything else. Here is the link Sorting people--Kumioko (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Karluk

Thanks for the cleanup on Karluk (ship). I've been beefing this up piecemiel and not working much on the organization. Are you interested in the topic?Dankarl (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• A little. I just finished reading David Grann's new book The Lost City of Z. In it, he describes how Antarctic explorer James Murray explored the Amazon once with Percy Fawcett. Murray almost died horrifically, and Fawcett abandoned him. Murray made it out alive, and later joined another doomed expedition -- the Karluk expedition! The Karluk had drifted almost a thousand miles westward when Capt. Bartlett spotted land. It was Wrangel Island. He sent a group of men ahead to reach it and establish a camp (laying caches of supplies along the way). Not hearing from them, he sent a second support team out to Wrangel. Murray and three others mutinied against Capt. Bartlett, and took a sledge to follow the second team. Murray's team was lost and never heard from again. After three months on the ice, Capt. Bartlett took the remaining survivors and headed for Wrangel. They found the supply caches, and reached the island -- which turned out to be Herald Island. They kept going to Wrangel and met up with their two teams. AMAZING. The NY Times article by Bartlett doesn't mention mutiny, but Grann's book clearly calls it mutiny. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• One more for my reading list. Actually they only returned one team from the ice; the other was on Herald Island, maybe already dead from carbon monoxide.

Anyway, I am working (slowly) on a Canadian Arctic Expedition article. Even putting it out as a stub its a tall order, but I don't think I can get much further on Karluk without having the background established - otherwise the Karluk article needs too much on Stefansson and the expediton.

I had not come across the mutiny angle. It's pretty clear the parting was acrimonious. I think I've read that Bartlett demanded and got a written release. I'm not even sure where they were trying to go - Wrangell? Siberian mainland? one writer seemed to say Alaska.

The text and photo of the release are in Bartlett's 1916 book.

Anyway, I'd welcome a collaboration, or any incidental help.Dankarl (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

{{inuse}}

You might be interested in {{inuse}}, it tells people (and certain bots) that you are actively editing the page and they should hold off to avoid edit conflicts. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you!! I had no idea that existed. That's terrific! - Tim1965 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

National Industrial Recovery Act

I have finished this review. There's almost nothing to do, in my view. Check it out and I'll keep a watching brief. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I just addressed the outstanding issues. I can't believe this is nearly done! Thank you soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much for taking the time to review this article. GA reviewers often have a thankless job, and deal with a lot of egos. Your suggestions are very good. (That's not flattery, that's honest opinion.) - Tim1965 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No trouble. Reviewing your pieces so far has proven much easier than some others. I think this review took less time than any of the last half dozen I've done. I've passed it for GA. Best wishes. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Working America article

The Working America article you created needs some love. The information is pretty old. I updated only the membership info, and yes I cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.17.88 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Participant Media

On June 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Participant Media, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Abu Dhabi Media Company

On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abu Dhabi Media Company, 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.

Wizardman 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)