This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I picked you out for this question because of your extensive GA experience. I have an article I've done quite a bit of work on, George Crabbe, which I think might be GA quality. My main concern has to do with the old, pd refs I've used for the bio. One is from 1888, and the other 1903. Both are based on the bio done by the subject's son. There's a new 2004 bio available, but I have no access to it, nor will I in the forseeable future, if ever. I've used modern sources for the critical sections of the article. Can you give me your opinion on whether this article would have a shot at passing GAN with these old refs? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 00:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the push. I've nominated old George. I don't know what I'm so worried about. The worst thing that can happen is that it doesn't pass. I tend to over-think things a bit... INeverCry 07:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page. Message added 15:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for including me in the DYK nomination. That was very thoughtful of you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 22:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.
A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the
You are awarded this mighty Great American Wiknic Barnstar for your valorous efforts in helping to organize the 2012 Great American Wiknic in the great city of Chicago. -—Pharos (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for commenting at my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 05:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Barry Cook
Hello Tony, as a Martial Arts and Sports enthusiast, I urge you to look at my article because I am about to delete it. I have one wiki helper trying to discredit and purposfully ruin it, and she just will not leave it alone. Unless I can get some possitive support I see no option that to stop banging my head against the wall and remove both my articles Barry Cook and Cheongye Kwan.Hjc2012 (talk)hjc2012 —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Aaron Rodgers/GA2's talk page.→TSUtp* 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
KFC
Hi, I have affected all of your proposed changes for the KFC article now. Do you think it's ready to be passed through? Farrtj (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Lillian Vernon
I see you created an article about the Lillian Vernon Corporation in 2006 under article title
Lillian Vernon, and gave the corporation name a redirect to that. I am currently working on the list of women inducted into the Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame, and Lillian Vernon was inducted in 1998. She was inducted under that name, not under Lillian Hochberg. Here's the official bio write up: Lillian Vernon bio. Eventually, there will be a biographical article written about her. What do you suggest? Maile66 (talk
) 19:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Barack Obama on Twitter
I have responded on my talk page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I've now used this as my qpq, which I guess means I should take more responsibility for following up on it; there's a query on the template from a week ago; having not heard otherwise I'm assuming you're in agreement that it's time to let it go (and to concentrate on bringing the master celebrities/politicians page up to scratch?); please could you give your thoughts soonish on the template if this isn't the case; otherwise I guess the sorry task of pressing the button may fall to me, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at Hjc2012's talk page. Message added 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cheers,
talk
No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Foo on Twitter
I find this situation pretty tricky. As i commented long time ago (i hope you remember), community is getting hands on this. Thank you for writing on my TP. I've been following the AfD's but I found myself unable to make any !vote. This is weird, i feel impotent. I prefer to stay as an uninvolved user and document this whole situation. I know LauraHale and you made some good efforts on improving those articles, as well as the other users who did. Anyways, I just wanted to talk to you bout it. Cheers! —
21
06:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Source for Barack Obama on Twitter
I found a good source here that extensively discusses the overall importance of Obama's Twitter use and its effect on his 2008 campaign. I also think you should seriously consider doing the rename to Barack Obama on social media, it makes a lot more sense. SilverserenC 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Hello. You recently left a vandalism warning on my talk page, and I just wanted to clarify that my edit was not vandalism. It said on Quincy Miller's page that he was the 38th pick in the second round of the 2012 NBA Draft, so I chagned it to say that he was the eighth pick in the second round of the draft. I think the page should be reverted back to my edit, but I also didnt' want any more vandalism warnings left on my page.NBA Fan44 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Viacheslav Zhukov
I redlinked him because I got confused between him and Konstantin Puchkov. However, I do believe Zhukov deserves and article now, anyway. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you please have another look at it? I think Stone and I have fixed all your points now. Double sharp (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Konstantin Puchkov & Viacheslav Zhukov
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk
) 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The issue with the on Twitter articles
It would have been better if you had, instead of focusing on the stats and rankings and things, focused on the overall impact the accounts have had in the world, such as how Lady Gaga's twitter was used to defeat a bill to Congress because she informed her followers. If the articles were focusing on impact, it would be much easier to see their notability. SilverserenC 00:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:19810115 Daniel Travanti in Hill Street Station episode of Hill Street Blues.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Never mind this message; I've removed the orphaned tag. --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at J Greb's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I proposed that notability of this episode be put aside in favor of doing what's best for Wikipedia. Feel free to join. --George Ho (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, TonyTheTiger. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page. Message added 05:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Why do we fight over and over in Wikipedia? I mean, I was hoping for some civility, but we end up battling over what's right and wrong. Is friendship for both of us possible? --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
KFC-GA Review
I have provided some of the inputs in the review page. I have made some amends to the article. I wanted to let you know about it. Please take a call on GA candidacy of the article. 17:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The article is close to GA category. If you are facing any problem regarding the article, I would rather suggest you to go for a second opinion on the citations section and the article in general. The citations section needs to be worked upon, in general. The claims can't be verified easily. Take for example, the revenues mentioned in the infobox. A link to the website has been mentioned which does not contain the numbers. It itself contains a link to a thick PDF. I could not find the numbers in it. The article reference must contain the page numbers which must be referred to for verifying the same claim. A second opinion might help you to take the final call.Regards,
theTigerKing
20:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You have posted on the page. I am sorry, but I could not understand what you want to say.Regards,
You don't have to discuss moves, you can just move an article at will. It's being BOLD. RM is for when the target page is not available or there is a hold requiring admin intervention in order to permit it.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
No. I will follow consensus and edit at will.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
barrytwatter
I wont change it. I was being BOLD and you are wrong, there is information in the article about his use of YouTube and Facebook. The new titled more closely covers what is actually notable and furthermore I believe has unambiguous notability and actually has a place here as an encyclopedic topic. Go ahead and take it to AN waste a bunch of admins time and whine away.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Lucifer. What makes you high and mighty? After all months with you, especially the Woody Interruptus fiasco, I guess we'll never be friends for life. As for the Obama-Twitter, if you don't like the change, too bad. I want to be civil to you, but I guess I failed to you. Anyway, good luck with the battles. --George Ho (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
People eventually come around, this editor seems like he may just be defensive since he likes this article a lot and I just tried to ax it, but he could take notice that I am trying to save it with this move.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Capturing a sound
I notice you've done some work with sounds in the past, so I'm turning to you for advice on this. Recently, I did some work on the article about the Animal Planet series Call of the Wildman, which is way outside my usual scope (except for the fact that the star is from Kentucky and my 20-month-old daughter loves the show). I would like to include a sound file of star Ernie Brown, Jr.'s signature yell, which is virtually impossible to communicate textually. You can hear it a few times in this video. First, do you think the yell could be extracted from that video or one like it? Second, if it were possible, would it be a copyright violation? Part of me thinks it wouldn't meet the threshold of originality, since it is little more than unintelligible screeching. Even if it did and was copyrighted, it might pass under fair use, as the yell itself is discussed in some detail in the article and is the subject of the series' title. What do you think? Acdixon(talk·contribs) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Deletion review consideration
I see that you closed
WP:FOUR
) 16:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Tony, It seemed to me that all of those participating had viewed the image, read the rationale, read the parts of the debate before and looked at the related article. I did, as a matter of course, just to make sure that there was nothing egregious in the nature of the debate. By argument strength, based on the nomination criteria of the image not meeting NFCC#8, I see that there is no consensus the image passes the criteria but rather that image fails the criteria. Even by the nose count, were debates counted this way which thankfully they are not, it's 4-3 on the delete side. I think I closed the debate correctly but am happy for you to test this in deletion review to seek a wider viewpoint - Peripitus(Talk) 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Re:Templates
Tony, I appreciate your efforts and addition to such templates. However, not everyone knows the templates and remembers these templates. My mind got too tired because I spend too much time on computer. Look, be careful about what you are saying to others who either don't know, remember, care, or whatever about templates. Please? --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops.... I apologize. My mind got too tired to read anything. When I read your messages again, I realize my mistake. In fact, you were kind to me, as far as I know. Again, I apologize, so please disregard the message that I gave you. Please, for my sake? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Finished the review, so whenever you get a chance you can make the fixes. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 02:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Re:Seasons
Yeah, about awards-stuff.... Thanks to you, I realize that critical commentary or awards are not requirements for notability, although they are beneficial. Instead, look at
Friends (season 9); I don't see awards in them yet, although these seasons could have awards. The main aspect for readers is the plot coverage itself, which general readers want to learn about. Not all seasons require awards. In season three, Frasier Crane was introduced as a lover of Diane, while actor Nicholas Colasanto died, which makes this season notable enough. Awards are just bonuses. I'm still working on season one. In season four, Woody Harrelson fills in the spot, and Shelley Long wanted to quit the show at the end of the season. In season five, well, that is Long's last season. In season six, Kirstie Alley comes along. The rest... well, the final season is worth noting because... it's the final season... with Shelley Long's guest appearance in the finale. --George Ho (talk
) 02:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, wait... I realize I don't know if you inspired my changing beliefs about fiction. In fact, have you read old messages at WT:notability (fiction)? It has intriguing messages. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Since it has been more than the seven days to fix the issues and they have not all been addressed, I am forced to fail the article at this time. However, you are more than welcome to renominate the article when all issues have been addressed. Rp0211(talk2me) 17:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I am unaware of any unresolved issues. What gives?--
WP:FOUR
) 17:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The article was failed because you did not address the issues of expanding the article to include things like background information, lyrics, critical reception, etc (I believe I did state that on the review page if I am not mistaken). Most of the article has been addressed, but it needs to be expanded to include more information about the original song itself. Rp0211(talk2me) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the review it seemed that the only issue was the Daytona date and other things were issues that would not hold back the review. You said "All of the issues have been addressed above, except the Daytona 500 issue." Then you said "Beside this..."--
WP:FOUR
) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
My apologies with that issue; I ment to say that all of the above issues had been addressed and that the article needed to be expanded for more information on the original song itself. Rp0211(talk2me) 17:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
There was a clear miscommunication. Would you consider reopening the review so that I don't have to wait another 10 weeks for a new reviewer?--
WP:FOUR
) 17:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
If you believe you can fix the issue of expanding the article in the general seven days given, I will be happy to reopen the article. I also apologize for the miscommunication; I will be sure to ask reviewers before I do anything with articles in the future. Rp0211(talk2me) 19:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I will be able to address some of the remaining concerns, but I am not sure I can address them all, but I would appreciate 7 days to try.--
WP:FOUR
) 20:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have officially reopened the nomination page and will give you seven days to address the issues. Sorry for the inconvenience with this whole situation. Rp0211(talk2me) 00:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, there are people who spend their time writing this article but I think there are problems with the article. More problems than the trauma article. May I ask your expertise? I don't want to disappoint people by making too critical remarks until I have more tenure in Wikipedia. Auchansa (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
KFC/GA
Yeah sorry about that, but something's cropped up. I will get back to the references at some point in the future, but for now it would be best to close the review. Farrtj (talk) 06:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Having said that, GA articles don't need to have perfectly formatted references.
it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
Nothing about them being properly formatted there. Farrtj (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk
) 02:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Billboard Year-End Charts
The citation for the year-end chart of 1967 is "To Sir with Love" by Lulu, NOT "Hello Goodbye" by the Beatles. The citation is very clear on this. 50.96.27.166 (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Donald Cabral
Can you fix the fact tag on Donald Cabral? Source it or remove the unsourced bit? --LauraHale (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. Worth keeping an eye on any Olympic DYKs you have that have yet to go live as they are very unstable right now, with people adding unsourced information or information not supported by sources, or attempting to do radical rewrites. I'm going mildly neurotic with the idea this could lead to half the Olympic DYKs getting pulled. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tony, i was wondering if you are ready with this review. I'm checking your reviews and i cannot close it until you have reached a conclusion over this article. Regards. —
21
05:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast response. Have a nice day :) —
21
06:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination review request
If you get the chance, can you help review any of the following? They are my outstanding DYK nominations.
Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
They are all Paralympians, which should run ideally run in late August. Trying to get them done ahead of time. Nothing for July. Just the sheer volume of unreviewed ones of mine makes me squirm. : / (If you have anything I haven't reviewed yet, let me know. Trying to clear some unreviewed things. Not trying to be difficult with any of your reviews. Honestly.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Totally understand offline things. That is why I am doing a big push to get my Paralympian DYKs nommed as early as possible. I leave for London around 23 August and won't be consistently on Wikipedia until 12 September or so. --LauraHale (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Gregory Merson
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk
) 02:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Request for PR
Hello TonyTheTiger, as an active wikipedia contributor can you please provide some suggestions in this PR and help in achieving a FA status.Thank You.--Ayanosh (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The GA backlog drive is over, and my FAC on Derek Jeter closed as a pass. I'm ready to co-nominate Philip Humber whenever you are. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Great. I'll open the nomination on Thursday. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
