User talk:Art LaPella/Archive 5

DYK nom for Parc naturel régional d'Armorique

I left a note for User:Gatoclass as well, but I am not sure if he saw it. User:Mbz1 requested that the DYK for Parc naturel régional d'Armorique, which is now in Queue 3, be run in an image slot, even if that means its run gets delayed a bit, since the image is very important to the article. Is there anything gthat can be done about that? Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually make such decisions, but I'll report it to WT:DYK where it belongs. Art LaPella (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Art, there's an image in Queue 4 that was taken from Flickr and that is a very low resolution. It should have been uploaded to Commons and not to English Wikipedia. I believe it will be better to replace this with the image for this hook:... that the top of the Chapel of Saint-Michel at Parc naturel régional d'Armorique is the highest point in Brittany? File:Mont Saint-Michel de Brasparts1.jpg. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'll report this to WT:DYK where it belongs. I've never studied copyrights, protection and all that. Art LaPella (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Whoops, you already reported it there yourself. Art LaPella (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK Thanks

Although not my first DYK article, Austrått is my first self nomination. Appreciated your constructive comments here. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 01:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of the American Civil War

Noticed you have edited American Civil War articles before. Could you take a look at this article I wrote. I am working to improve it to G.A. status. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have done proofreading before; the subject doesn't matter. I proofread your article, except for 2 errors in a quote from Mosby: "evenful" and "Jno", because the source is from a book. They should either be corrected or marked with the [sic] template, depending on whether they occur in the original quote. Art LaPella (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for proofreading article. Those were great corrections you found and corrected. Corrected the other items you suggested. This will all help in my goal to get it to G.A. status. Noticed that you did some recent archiving when you came up in my watchlist that I had a temporary watch on. Interesting, in that I just had a conversation with Ottava Rima on this very thing - since he does not archive his talk page, just removes the items he no longer wants. It gives the impression that he is trying to hide certain things and conversations, which I gave him a hint on. Apparently he does not want to have archives - for whatever reasons. If I noticed he did that, others will notice also and think he is trying to cover up items. I don't generally notice when a person archives, only when a person does not and just removes the material. It would actually be to his advantage if he did archive because people will notice when he just removes the material and they don't know where it went. Apparently it is not manditory or a rule, but it does seem to be a custom that all people I know follow. Thanks again for the corrections you made on the article, appreciate it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know one other well-known Wikipedian who deletes everything periodically, and explicitly stated it's so Wikilawyers can't find evidence against him – although with a little more work I can find diffs from his talk page by going through its history. So archiving everything can't be a rule. But most people archive. I won't defend Ottava, with whom I have exchanged harsh words over bigger issues than that, except to say that he currently seems to be in a Dr. Jekyll phase. Art LaPella (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you are very familiar with these events related to the American Civil War, do you have any suggestions for an Alt hook for this article, that is at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 15?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really – the hook and its 4 ALT's seem to cover all the related discussion. And once again, I am not especially a Civil War expert; if I'm an expert on anything it would be preferred stock, and on Wikipedia I am a proofreader. A User:Art LaPella/Long hook FAQ explains why I usually avoid writing new hooks at all.

 Done It passed to GA status. Thanks for all your help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

John Ordronaux (doctor)

Hello. Thank you very much for your comment about the length of the first sentance (hook?). I have now changed it to something shorter. I am sorry for the many edits to achieve this. I am very new to Wiki and feel I keep making mistakes, then try to correct them! Hope it is OK now, regards, Wfm495 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that my version of the rules is easier to understand, especially for newcomers. Art LaPella (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note of appreciate

Got approval for my first self-nominated DYK today. Appreciate your review pointing out the need to adjust the hook length. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Borra Caves

Hi! Art LaPella

My DYK hook is pending clearnce. You have reviewed it. I have made some changes as suggested. Will you please tell me what more changes are to be made to accept the article? Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. I don't approve hooks, as I explained at the top of this talk page. The next step is explained by Additional Rule G1. Especially for beginners, I recommend my explanation of the rules, starting here. Art LaPella (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Joan Waste

It's probably best not to even bother responding to Ottava. I thought of saying the same thing (about how everyone at DYK exercises judgment, and yada yada) but I figured it's better off just to let it drop. Everyone knows that Ottava has it out for Dravecky for some reason or another, and therefore none of Ottava's fire-and-brimstone speeches about him will be taken seriously anyway, so I'd rather just not give him the satisfaction of a response. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention Ottava is the last person who has any right to complain about people "disrespecting DYK reviewers." Haha. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK Rules

Your rewrite is very organized and more efficently detailed then current rules- thank you! Since I assume you're looking for feedback, one thing that could be added would be a collection of essays on DYK. Sorry for the belated response; I've been busy and didn't want to respond until I'd finished reading. I especially like the lore section. ResMar 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I've added my 2 cents. ResMar 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it; everyone thought so. Cheers, ResMar 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's saying that it's a bit splayed out, so I created this onepage format, for better or for worse. Hope you don't mind. ResMar 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The format uses a few fancy colors that would waste a lot of ink, taking off the color formating would make it more printable. As for the headers, I'll fix those. ResMar 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Error in queue 1

In queue 1, I don't think Battleship was also nominated for DYK. It's tricky because "Nassau" should be italicized but the rest shouldn't be. Can you find a way around it? We could just link "Nassau". Shubinator (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I've got it! (Look at the source to see what I did)
Nassau-class battleships
Shubinator (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But that bolds battleships. Don't you want Nassau-class battleships? Art LaPella (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that works too. Heh, I guess my idea of using HTML wasn't that great :) Shubinator (talk)

Now I get it, you do want to bold "battleships" as part of the same link. OK. Art LaPella (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Elite Police

Improved check it now.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

DYK error on Main Page

Double "in" in Overland Trail hook. My bad; I think I assembled that one. From WP:ERRORS. Shubinator (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass got it. Shubinator (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ack, another error: extra (pictured) in the Charlie Chaplin hook. Shubinator (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by Anonymous Dissident. Shubinator (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK:John K. Tener

Seems I made a mistake in the hook. User talk:Jibco pointed out the mistake. Seems there was a loss in translation and the subject taught baseball to the wrong King of England. The reference stated that Tener taught baseball to the Prince of Wales. What it didn't say was who the prince of Wales was. In this case the PoW at the time was Edward VII of the United Kingdom rather than George V as I had stated when I proposed the DYK. George V's title at the time was Prince George of Wales which is apparently not the same thing. Is it possible to change the hook on the main page or delete it entirely given the mistake? TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 07:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

By the time I finally decided what to do about it, Gatoclass had just changed it. Art LaPella (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Take Care

Please don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you meant something more subtle than what you expressed. [1] Art LaPella (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia and the American Civil War

I realize you are not a Civil War buff, however we probably need a good proofreader for the article. In the GA review we recently received this comment from the person reviewing the article: The article could be improved by a copyedit, however, I don't make that a passing argument for GA.. IF you have time, could you look over the article for any possible copyediting. We are still working on it, however I believe we need an expert in that part. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, but there wasn't nearly as much to copyedit this time. This phrase is questionable: "Off the coast of Port Adelaide at 39°32'14"S and 122°16'52" E ... " You can find that location here. Today that location would be better described as off the coast of Esperance, Western Australia. During the Civil War, neither Esperance nor Western Australia formally existed, but Perth did, and it's closer to the location than Adelaide or Port Adelaide. Art LaPella (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! All the issues are handled and it will become a GA tomorrow. Handing off to Bedford the above coordinates, as he will understand this better than me. Really appreciate you looking over the article.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Discrete Mathematics (journal)

I am not sure what's a list. There is a quite a bit of interesting/useful material on the page, especially all the notable papers (with complete references). Igorpak (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everything should work now, even though I am unable to calculate the numbers. Please let me know if the article in its current form has insufficient material. Igorpak (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ndash and disambigs

Oh, I didn't know about the inserting thing; I guess I just have to look at it to see if it's a normal dash, endash, or emdash?

By the way, I found a method to quickly check disambiguation links in the queues. User:Splarka has already made a DAB finder. Like almost all other scripts, you can use this one too without installing or logging in; insert the line below into your URL on a specific page, hit enter, then click on the "Find disambiguations" link in your toolbox (it'll appear once you enter the URL).

javascript:importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js'); findDABs();

Even though the individual queues are transcluded onto the master queue page, the DAB finder will still find all the links that need to be fixed. It also works on the nominations page; right now though it keeps finding one that I can't see. It's pretty handy. Shubinator (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Very clever ideas...I'll try them out some time. Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's interesting. I guess Raul and the others don't check for DABs. Good thing you caught them! Shubinator (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A DAB in queue 5; second hook from the bottom, watchlist. I believe the intended one is the No Fly List. Shubinator (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Maybe someone should create a terrorism watchlist or FBI watchlist article... Shubinator (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Hook format

I added a bit on links to dab pages in this page; does that look ok? I remember this issue coming up sometimes, and I couldn't remember if you have it mentioned somewhere else in your pages or not. If it is already mentioned somewhere else, feel free to revert this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been using N11 for that purpose, if only because it was already there in its WP:DYK equivalent, but it should really be at WP:Did you know/Hook also. I moved it there rather than WP:Did you know/Hook format because the latter page groups items that are visually obvious. That way, it might be enough to read the summary H1: "The hook should be formatted like the hooks you see on the Main Page", without needing to read the lower level explanation WP:Did you know/Hook format. Art LaPella (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYKcheck explanation

I've made the changes. Now the error message says "Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (n days) DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations." I don't want to give people too many ideas though...I've recently seen both merged articles and copyvios nominated (unintentionally). The tougher part to explain is that DYKcheck finds one edit where the prose was below 1/5x before the edit, and above after it, but there might be multiple of these edits if the article length has fluctuated. It happens maybe 1 in 100 noms that the script finds the "wrong" solution. One example on the nom page now is Happy99 – it has been expanded 5x since March 26, but there is only one revision under 1/5x; before that the article was larger. The tool reports that the article has not been expanded 5x since creation. Shubinator (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the tool does include moves from userspace when it compares the dates. It also includes the date the article became a non-redirect (if the article started as a redirect), although I'd hope the article has been expanded 5x since then. Shubinator (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RE

I left two hooks at the DYK page. Here is a link [2]. Thanks for checking the hook, my last one lasted near 4 or 5 days before getting checked so I'm grateful this one was earlier.--WillC 03:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This one is also likely to last 4 or 5 days; my proofreading is preliminary, and I don't approve hooks as described at the top of this page. ALT1 and ALT2 obviously satisfy my complaint about mentioning wrestling, so thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, your welcome. Sorry, I tend to not finish statements at the top of a page. I have ADD and I procrastinate at the sametime. Weird combination for someone who expands articles on a site that demands straight attention. I guess it comes and goes, seeing as there is no way I could have got all of these without it coming and going. Nice meeting and talking to you!--WillC 10:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I answered your question regrading the List of PWG World Tag Team Champions at DYK.--WillC 07:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds plausible; I'll leave it there for others. Art LaPella (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Did You Know question

Hi, regarding this q., I answered on DYK nom page. Cya, M.K. (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thanks for fixing my ITN hyphen issue]. Curiosity brought me to your page, and just wanted to say that I liked the Devil's Dictionary, but even more, the avoid-PC attitude vs. truth, esp. "If we can't talk about racial differences honestly, we can't investigate what probably caused the current (2008) financial crisis for example, although the ACORN article hints at it."

Yep, the CRA and the push for everyone to own a home, regardless of whether they had the income, employment history, financial management skills (debt/income ratio and credit history) to afford one, was the First Cause of the crisis, from which all else grew/multiplied. But try saying that in the media... And as for the part about "civil disobedience" -- staying in the house you occupy regardless of the fact that you aren't paying for it -- I missed the part of the Declaration of Independence that declared the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and owning your own home at either the lender's or taxpayers' expense". I wish ACORN could point out this phrase I'm missing.

I log in only sporadically and unpredictably -- came here to look something up, not intending to login, but saw the glaring (to me, anyway) error on ITN, so if you have the urge to reply, probably better on my talk page than yours, so that I'll see it eventually. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in queue 6

Here's a first: the article title points to a disambiguation page! I didn't realize dab pages counted for DYKs :P It's the third hook from the bottom, Tully. I think it should point to Tully (film). Shubinator (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky got it. Shubinator (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Learned Hand

Thanks for your copyedit. We used a fine sieve when we wrote it, but it never ceases to amaze me how errors still stay in. Your finer sieve was appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually my sieve was automated, and I didn't read the entire article. For each Tomorrow's Featured Article, I use tools including User:Splarka/dabfinder.js and a spell check. Art LaPella (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nbsp

Whoops, I'll have to watch more carefully where I'm putting them. Do you think a nbsp is appropriate for the aortic arches nom? Shubinator (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, the guideline is...interesting. The part we're talking about is in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space. I would say that "17 kg" and "17 goats" should be treated the same here, because it's disruptive to the reader if 17 is on one line and the units are on the next. The overall idea for nbsp is to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line. The other examples in the guideline, like 7 World Trade Center, definitely wouldn't fall under the specific guideline, but do fall under the overall reason for nbsp. It makes sense to use a nbsp between a number and the units, whether the units are abbreviated or not. Shubinator (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I dug through some of the MoS archives, and there's a thread here that addresses almost the same issue. It seems like the editors agreed that a nbsp for something like "17 goats" clutters up the edit window. On the Main Page, though, no one's looking at the edit window. I'll think about this a bit more; maybe I'll add to the thread at Talk:Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like they weren't sure what the rules should be, so they tweaked as they saw appropriate, but built in some elasticity. I'll raise this issue on the Main Page thread and see if there's a consensus now to add nbsps more liberally on the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I opened another thread since the last one got archived: Talk:Main_Page#Non-breaking_spaces_on_the_Main_page. Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK rules question

Does DYK have an "article stability" rule like GAs and FAs against articles that are in an edit-war or dispute? I thought we had a similar rule, but I can't find it. Shubinator (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We have R2, but that isn't quite the same. I believe that is a precedent but not yet a rule. Art LaPella (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe we should think about adding such a rule. Shubinator (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask at WT:DYK#R2. Art LaPella (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help in my self nomination. I really appreciate it.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm want to nominate this page for a DYK, and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to add it to May 1, when I started expanding it, or May 5, right now. Since you obviously know a lot about DYKs, I thought I'd ask you. I asked Aboutmovies first, but he's not online right now... Thanks, LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It was expanded on May 1, so it fits the description of Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on May 1. That's where to add it. This is in the "Learning DYK" instructions at E2. Art LaPella (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that guideline. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 01:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of making my instructions more user-friendly, does that mean you didn't see E2 or you didn't see WP:Did you know/Learning DYK? Art LaPella (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't see either. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't see "Learning DYK" then you wouldn't see its subsections including E2. Not much I can do about that; the consensus is to keep the old rules, and I already have some links to the new ones. Art LaPella (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Duplicate period

Maybe? They're certainly not sourced, for one thing. Anyway, the problem I have with it is that using a single full stop/period creates ambiguity and misrepresents the game's name, i.e. people may interpret it as "Super Mario Bros", which is incorrect. I don't think the Manual of Style differentiates either way on the issue, though. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should that dictate what Wikipedia does, though? It is not written with regards to an encyclopedic context. Really, this is something that should be clarified in the MoS and not on an article-by-article basis. Perhaps we should discuss the issue elsewhere? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: My partial revert

Sure thing. Thanks.  GARDEN  08:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Government of Nepal

Talk:Government of Nepal, which refers questions to you, discusses Outline of Nepal. So why isn't that discussion at Talk:Outline of Nepal, so its editors will see it? Government of Nepal is a new redirect to Politics of Nepal, so I would think anything on its talk page should be about the redirect. Art LaPella (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I have a bunch of notices I need to post to the outline talk pages, and was planning to write and place them all at once to save time. The handful of people who edit that outline are busy editing 500+ outlines (and we're supposed to be creating 500+ more) and we're doing many other tasks, so we are spread pretty thin. We need as much help as we can get. The notice doesn't discuss anything, it's just an announcement. I don't have time to check back to 200+ talk pages, and so I've left my contact info for convenience. The notice doesn't preclude nor prevent discussion about the redirect, and is otherwise on topic (concerns "government of Nepal"), so it does no harm. It caught your attention, giving me the opportunity to ask you for help. Help! Would you please fix the problem on the government branches sections of the Outline of Nepal? It's part of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, which serves as the table of contents and site map of Wikipedia. I look foward to your reply on my talk page. Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Prep area" updating work

Hey, thanks for the updating work relating to the next update → prep area changes. :-) Jamie^☆S93 02:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I notice Shubinator did some too. Art LaPella (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

proof

Thanks for the proof read on Lingam Alatari (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

DYKAN

Is the diff given in A2 correct? It seems to be about something different than "older" noms (rather, it's about removing already-rejected ones)...I recall several discussions have happened about the issue of how old noms are not automatically removed, but this discussion was not one of them...did you mean to put this diff somewhere else and accidentally get it mixed in here? I didn't want to just remove it without checking. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A2 isn't about "already-rejected" noms. It says "If there is no response...", and an already-rejected nom would have had a response of rejection. It also says "we won't delete the hook unless someone has raised an objection". Already-rejected noms would have a rejection, which is an objection, and therefore "someone has raised an objection". So this again excludes already-rejected noms from what A2 discusses. Art LaPella (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that the diff was about already-rejected noms...I just noticed I phrased that a little awkwardly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider Template talk:Did you know#Aces and eights (blackjack) an already-rejected nom? The final comment was "That is fine although "and how the cards are played" may be superfluous." That is, Tony agreed to Hurricane Angel Saki's version, with or without "and how the cards are played". Art LaPella (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wasn't really commenting on the particular nom, I was just curious about the A2 explanation in general. I agree with how it's worded, I just didn't see how that comment ([3]) given in it was illustrative of how we hold noms even when they're past older; I thought it may have just been a mistake that came up when putting the DYK guide together. It's not a huge deal, though. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, THAT diff. The most relevant quote is "... remove hooks that are in the last day or two of Expiring Noms and haven't been responded to in days and still had pretty insurmountable problems... " Yes, it's about removing already-rejected noms, but by implication, you wouldn't emphasize "problems" and "haven't been responded to" if you meant to remove older hooks with no objections. The quote only refers to your own practice, but I don't know of a better quote. Art LaPella (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, Art LaPella. You have new messages at Giants27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops again

Thanks for your note. That's my second stuff up with DYK hooks in 24 hrs. No, I had not intended to promote the original hook for Lauritz Sand. My intention had been to use:

• ...that XU leader Lauritz Sand was turned in to the Gestapo by a female Norwegian Abwehr agent?

The hooks have now been uploaded to a queue. I'm not across how to correct things at this point. Are you able to assist? regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! hamiltonstone (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Libočany

Hi after so long time:) Can you please check my miserable English and the hook? Thank you. --Aloysius (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD

Um... I have heard things... and read them... or at least they sound a bit familiar... I saw him tear through Theleftorium's GAs in public last week... I believe that destroyed his RfA... ironically, I was again asked earlier this week why I'm not an admin... I find it interesting that Theleftorium was leading the WikiCup at the time... and that now I have just discovered that Ottava has drawn level on me with DYKs in the WikiCup... I suppose I should be grateful that my dressing down for contributing too much is not quite so public... I mean I don't want to assume bad faith so I'll say no more on that... I just find it a bit baffling... I don't even understand what I'm arguing for or against and when I try to explain in the most civil manner possible I am said to be taking it personally... is it all a test? Am I supposed to explode? I've never exploded before, not even when met with such difficult users. But anyway, ahem, hello - you do all the typos(!) :D, I'm babbling away (it's 04:30 am here) what exactly were you referring to? :D --candle•wicke 03:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a shameful way to treat you - anyone even - but you, considering all the hard work you do. Ottava seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point several times over there but I suspect he would offer some other policy as proof that he was correct then reply to this by somewhat ironically offering some other policy to put down anyone who dares suggest he was gaming the system... but then again they're only guidelines and, even though GAME is about policies and guidelines, this would probably not be good enough to satisfy him either. (On a side note, I see WP:GAME redirects one way and WP:Game redirects in another way? Not very good for those without a shift or capslock key who will find themselves stranded in a WikiProject.) Anyway, I can't think of anything else to say to Ottava on this matter and, quite frankly, there is more to life than this sort of childish bickering so I don't really mind if the pages are deleted at this stage (even though I don't understand how they would be). I wonder how much of the recent disruption and delay at DYK has been due to Ottava though? I don't wish to blame him for anything as I haven't looked into the matter. However, some of the others suggested that there were several editors experiencing difficulties (although I appear to have become the prime target of Ottava's wrath at this stage). I was thinking of reviewing some of the DYKs (indeed I was in the middle of trying to find an althook for someone else's yesterday when Ottava came-a-calling) but I think I would be better slipping into the background there, at least for now. --candle•wicke 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

He encouraged someone to remove a source earlier at the discussion and they did. I find this worrying... especially since he then attacked the same person as having said something "ridiculous". And since when has notability been based on being in the news? --candle•wicke 18:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, are you related? I agree though, I mean were I an admin I would find something more useful to do than babysit other experienced users like this. It's one thing to help someone but I wouldn't expect some of this behaviour from a vandal. A vandal would commit acts themselves, not encourage others to do so as well, surely? Yet it's frustrating because, as you say, there is another side to him... --candle•wicke 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to try and make attacks with my involvement at DYK, please try to hide them a bit better. All of my complaints have been upheld, especially with the lack of clear examination of articles. It is nice to see that you have such an expressed contempt for Wikipedia Policies and standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For those who haven't read, I have found debating Ottava to be counterproductive. Art LaPella (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too. We'll leave it at that as it is quite enough for me to be hosting the Ww2censor/Ottava bout without having Art hosting the Ottava/Candlewicke one as well on top of the deletion nomination added to the DYK discussion page. Thanks for your time Art. Keep up the good work! :D --candle•wicke 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arg

Sorry, I snuck an edit into Michael Jackson while {{inuse}} was up; I didn't see it. Just added spaces around the dash in his death date. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So did Graham87, but for some reason my edit went through anyway and didn't interfere. Art LaPella (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Red palm mite

Thanks for working on the article. What's Floridaorida? Lovely this time of yearorida. Must have happened during a search and replace. Cheers.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the hook is almost verbatim from [4]. I couldn't find a good way to reword it, plus it was a reported quote. I hope that's okay.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC

You copied the last half of the hook. I think that's OK but I let others rule on plagiarism, and they do watch for it. Art LaPella (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you lower-cased the word red. Should I create [[red palm mite], move it over, and dump a redirect on Red palm mite?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. You can't create red palm mite because it already exists (the first letter isn't case sensitive). I lower-cased the word "red" because you lower-cased it in the article. As I said, capitalizing the animal is controversial, but capitalizing "red" just because it's the name of your article isn't done for other hooks, hence the I6 rule. (Bedtime, any further answers tomorrow) Art LaPella (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you: ...that the red palm mite is the biggest explosion... is flawed, right? A mite cannot be an explosion of mites. How about ...that the SPREAD of the red palm mite is the biggest explosion...? Better? Any suggestions?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Either way it's a metaphor, but I think I prefer "spread" because someone might think the mites are exploding like popcorn...? Art LaPella (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking of the dreaded popcorn mite -- a big problem in movie theatres. Thank you kindly for taking the time. Good info and good advice.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Les Fetes Chinoises

I've reduced the characters in the hook. Thanks! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Others will give your nomination a more subjective review in a few days. Art LaPella (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for teaching me the ways of the comma at 2006 Westchester County tornado. Eventually I will learn all those annoying little punctuation rules. Cheers! -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Text communication can be tough. Thanks for getting things back on track. :) Durova²⁷⁹ 03:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

the dyslexia project articles

Hi Art LaPella thank you for what you have done already. The problems that I have is that I can find the research papers, I can eventually read them and understand them, but i can not write what I understand. I can talk about it, and bore others to death doing so, but i have real problems trying to find the words i need to use when writing or typing. We have some paragraphs on the talk pages which have been withdrawn due to copyright issues which need to be copy-edited. And eventually there will be more text from other research papers which will need to be copy-edited. I suppose the real problem is the complexity of the topic and the need for multi-discipline understanding of all the issues involved. It is not that the content is new but it is new to me and most other dyslexics, and we need to build an editing team around the project to help explain all of the multi-discilpine aspects of the new content, and new articles. dolfrog (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I leave that project to others, because my contribution to Wikipedia is copyediting; when I used to write prose, it was inevitably rewritten or deleted. The copyrighted text needs to be paraphrased, not copyedited; it was already copyedited when it was originally published, although the paraphrase might require a copyedit afterwards. As a non-dyslexia expert, I think you should have more confidence in your ability to express yourself in writing. Your statement above, for instance, is perfectly understandable; I wouldn't change anything except four capitalizations, which is great compared to this foreign article for instance. Art LaPella (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am new to many of the language technical terms. So it is paraphrasing that I have great difficulty in doing, or find almost impossible, not so much copy-editing. dolfrog (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

But could you please tell me how can i separate a complex DYK hook with four articles [5] into each specific article after i nominated it because i changed my mind and ant to make four separate hooks. Thanks! Mario1987 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That link isn't a complex DYK hook with four qualifying articles. It's a simple DYK hook with one qualifying article, and three supporting wikilinks (most DYK hooks have such unbolded wikilinks). The hook has four articles, but only Love Minus Zero/No Limit is a mostly new article. Fraction, Bob Dylan, and Sara Dylan don't qualify for DYK, because they aren't new. Only new (or mostly new) articles are nominated for DYK; see M2 for more details. Art LaPella (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but i gave you a wrong link. This is the correct one [6] it is about four colleges in Satu Mare, Romania. Mario1987 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do basic copyediting, and thus I don't normally write hooks (although I often rewrite them for authors, usually foreign authors, who are having a problem with English). You need to find an interesting fact about each article that can be supported with a citation, and write four separate hooks introducing each of the four articles as separate nominations – but you probably knew that. Art LaPella (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Mario1987 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

thank you

hey thanks for your help. I tell you when I need more help with this page.

RE:Hyphen

I have little time for some of the niceties and intricacies of the MOS introduced by individual editors, particularly while it is still full-protected. Do what you think is right with regards to the TFA, I won't be offended. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Note rephrased above note, I have also reverted myself and removed the hyphen after consulting a few style guides. Seems HYPHEN follows accepted practice. Thanks for alerting me to it, regards, Woody (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Larvae

Thanks for fixing that. I was thinking it might be more useful if larvae was to redirect to larva with a disambig link to a renamed larvae (Roman mythology). Would you agree? 212.20.228.226 (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Larvae has almost a thousand pages linking to it (click "What links here"), and about half of those links have the same problem; they're about insects, not mythology. I think WP:AWB can be used to clean up most if not all of them. Art LaPella (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait; Talk:Larvae suggests "Lemures". (I'm going back to work for now.) Art LaPella (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

After some Googling I conclude that "Lemures" is a more common name than "Larvae", and is also a simpler name than "Larvae (mythology)". So since we need to rename it anyway, I prefer "Lemures". Art LaPella (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done, if anyone is still reading this, with all the links pointing to the right articles. Art LaPella (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And a job well done by y'all (re: message on the ill-named Talk:Larvae). Haploidavey (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Queue 3

The set that's about to go on the main page in about twenty minutes is missing (pictured) from the lead hook.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you. But I was in Seattle. By the time I got back it was on the Main Page, so I would have tried WP:ERRORS. Art LaPella (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules

Shouldn't it be retained at least as a redirect, since it's linked so much in old discussions? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Art LaPella (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dab

In queue 2, "a treaty" goes to a dab page, which doesn't list the one described. Delink maybe?

There's another one in queue 3: pipeline. I think most readers know what a pipeline is, so maybe delink here too. Could also pipe to Pipeline transport no pun intended. Shubinator (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In queue 2, the linked article has been categorized as a disambiguation, but it still has a little information on what that phrase means. For queue 3 I went with pipeline transport, just in case somebody wants to read more about pipelines. Art LaPella (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Shubinator (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Censored

You wrote:

If we are required to pretend that Wikipedia is not censored, then I suppose that is the end of the argument, regardless of the extent to which we are destroying the purpose of the article's subject by describing it. Art LaPella (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed it, (easy to do) this is the same argument raised at this location: Talk:Rorschach_test/images/2009-06_Arguments_Con#.237_-_Such_vandalism_defeats_the_purpose_of_an_encyclopedia. P.S. I also live near Seattle, WA. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't seen that. I saw an invitation to this debate at the Village Pump. My knowledge of ink blots is limited to a memory of a test I took about 1962. Art LaPella (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I could also say there is a tendency for any kind of author, inside or outside of Wikipedia, to exaggerate their own importance, as if the rest of the world doesn't matter as long as their story gets out; and they seem to feel completely idealistic about it. Paparazzi for instance. Art LaPella (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a tendency to get sucked into an argument and play it for everything it's worth. Thanks for the reminder to maintain objectivity. However, the flip side of my argument is a policy that is incomplete. WP:NOTCENSORED describes more about what censorship is not than it does about what censorship is. In the case of Rorschach test, no one is suggesting that we withhold either praise or criticism: merely the questions and answers to a diagnostic test. I don't call that censorship. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my last paragraph was a criticism of your opponents, not you. Sometime I might write a criticism of WP:NOTCENSORED (not Rorschach tests; for all I know they could be pseudoscience, but I leave that debate to those who know more about it). WP:NOTCENSORED says anything goes if it doesn't violate any policies and is "appropriate to include in a given article", but that clearly isn't true; does that mean we can use racial epithets as long as we put them in an article about a member of the appropriate race? Does "appropriate" mean whatever we want it to mean? It must, otherwise any deletion in any edit history is forbidden, unless the deleted text violates a specific policy or would be more "appropriate" in another article. Art LaPella (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good choice to leave the debate to others. It is a difficult one and has not improved my quality of life. But I've learned a lot about how to focus on the arguments and not on the people. I feel more civilized for this, and have gained confidence about how to engage in the real issues of the world. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ken Major

Art, would you be kind enough to look over the comments for the DYK for Ken Major at T:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on August 5? I'd like this to either be approved or killed off once and for all. If the article is not going to be approved for DYK I will understand and not take offence. The reason I ask is that the next one of mine that appears will bring up the hundred (93 created/expanded and 7 nominated). I have another article that has been approved so will get the hundred one way or another. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how "I'd like this to either be approved or killed off once and for all" is consistent with the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this talk page. I have little experience in judging the quality of sources. However, I believe I have seen Materialscientist's extreme positions on sourcing, being overridden by others in the past. Art LaPella (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read that bit before I posted. I'll await another editor to make the decision. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources at DYK

Hi Art,

It's been more than two weeks since I've proposed "Multiple sources are generally preferred" to replace E3 at WT:DYK. What do you think about making it into a rule? Or should I ask again for more opinions? Shubinator (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a consensus, as Gatoclass and I forget who else haven't objected to that wording. If they do object, an alternative would be to use wherever you copied that rule from, and use that as an authority instead. I have avoided trying to evaluate sources, and thus I have no direct experience on the issue. It would be nice to have some kind of consensus, rather than have a single-source article depend on who reviews it. Art LaPella (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a firmer rule one way or the other would be nice, but the Wikipedia community is split. I've added the rule to Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules and Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation. I had to change the numbering a bit, but there's no clean way to avoid it (feel free to change the order/numbering). Shubinator (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good; I routinely renumber like that. Now let's see if anybody notices! Art LaPella (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsinkable Seven DYK

Any suggestion on how the hook and the article can be improved? Donnie Park (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the hook, and I'll get to the article later. Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

Your edit here broke the link to this article. Paul August ☎ 01:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that one. Sorry. Art LaPella (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are rude

In our communication over the Society for Human Rights issue I think I've been polite and respectful. You at every turn have felt the need to be belittling and insulting. Do you really think that pissy comments about for example counting "fat" and "skinny" letters differently are of any use at all in resolving the issue? I have no idea why you feel the need to express such hostility over something ultimately so unimportant but I expect that should you reply again in that discussion that your conduct shows marked improvement. Otto4711 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are generally well-intentioned, but you aren't considering what would happen if we made exceptions for everyone as you ask us to make for you. I hope fat and skinny letters have made that issue plain enough. Is there a better way I could have expressed that problem? Art LaPella (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for "an exception". I'm asking for common sense. Which is not the issue. The issue is that from the jump you've behaved like a condescending jerk in this discussion and I'm tired of being your target. Otto4711 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you ask for exceptions from our normal counting rules (there is a time for exceptions, but I don't think this is the time). If I'm being a jerk, is there a better way I could have expressed the opinion stated above? Art LaPella (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several. You're an adult, figure them out. I'm done here. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Otto, I think your're being unncessarily belligerent. There's really no need for such a harsh tone. However, I do agree that your treatment was not entirely fair.

Art, the line of reasoning you presented when encountered with an obvious technical error in the DYKCheck tool was overly bureaucratic. DYKCheck is a tool to make selection go smoother, but it does not constitute a guideline on its own, and especially not when it starts including stuff no one human editor would consider to be article prose. As far as I can tell Otto requested that the the technical snafu was fixed, not that he should be exempt from the rules.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to Shubinator's program change, but I think a system that has been followed methodically several times a day for months is better described as "the rules" than as "a technical snafu". Similar debates (he had 2 objections, not one) for every hook on the list would roughly double our entire DYK workload. I agree that my fascination with making the trains run on time is a bit unique. Art LaPella (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your hard work with DYK, but on this particular point, Otto was right and actually did us a favor by noticing out a technical error. There's no point in calling this anything other than a glitch, even if Otto wasted your time on other matters.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree Otto would have done us a favor if he had proposed that "citation needed" be changed on DYKcheck for everyone (I'm not sure if changing it for "Footnotes" would get a consensus or not), but calling it a glitch implies there is a clearcut definition of "prose" that everyone would agree on. There isn't. If we want to get away from debating such fine points and get back to work, some options are: 1. Eliminate the prose-only rule and adjust the 1,500 limit to compensate; it's more trouble than it's worth (Betcha didn't expect to hear a bureaucrat say that! See my WP:Did you know/Lore#Instruction creep), but there's no consensus for that. 2. Try to explain our Byzantine, mysterious precedents for approval and disapproval more clearly, so we don't keep re-arguing the same issues all the time. But there's no consensus for that either. 3. Accept DYKcheck as the arbiter. There is a consensus for that, and I didn't write the original version of the applicable sentence at WP:Did you know/DYKcheck. I don't mean it's the absolute arbiter; months ago it occasionally omitted hundreds of characters for a reason that would only make sense from a programmer's perspective. But I had it fixed, and it's been absolutely accepted since then. 4. Given that Wikipedia's organizational culture is based on a consensus of academics, who are very intelligent but have little experience in completing projects, we could resign ourselves to re-arguing the same issues all the time without accomplishing anything else, which is what much of Wikipedia is dedicated to. But at some point, you would do it without me. I have read others say that Did You Know is relatively free of this sort of eternal arguing, although I've also read it being called bureaucratic. So I think my influence is helping some, and I consider it a point in favor of bureaucracy. Art LaPella (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not jumping back into this morass, but I have opened a discussion on the issue of including footnotes as readable prose. Otto4711 (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

MoS question

I'm reviewing Icos and I came across the following:

• ...a Copenhagen, Denmark based provider of contract biomanufacturing services...

Should this have a hyphen, or a comma, after the Denmark? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would give it a hyphen. Both WP:HYPHEN and the "In geographical names" paragraph of the comma article apply (the HYPHEN language isn't as absolute as many Wikipedians insist, but a phrase like "Denmark-based" as an adjective is normally hyphenated [7]). The purpose of the comma is to make "Denmark" a "parenthetical", but if you attach another word (or other punctuation, such as a parenthesis) it isn't so parenthetical any more. So I would go with "Copenhagen, Denmark-based". Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey ...

Just wanted to say thanks for the DYK help. Looking at the time stamp, looks like I made it with a whole 13 minutes to spare ... LOL. I didn't mean to cut it that close, but got held up with work today. ;). Appreciate your time. — Ched :  ?  03:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. You probably don't know me, but I've see you around the Wiki all the time. I just want to thank you for the little things that you do, whether it be proofreading TFAs and DYKs, typo fixing, or all sorts of little things that many (most) people don't bother about. Every improvement counts, even making articles conform to the oft-maligned WP:DASH, and here's one pedant to another saying thanks a lot! Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Art LaPella (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you do more of an edit than you intended at Prep 1??

Not sure what's happening at Prep 1 - your edit summary mentioned a comma, but several hooks went missing, and a location I added went missing...? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered below. Art LaPella (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

T:DYK/P1

Hello Art, I hope that you are well this evening. Is there something that we need to be aware of in regards to the three hooks that you removed from the prep area here? Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant to change a comma. I can't explain why the three hooks disappeared without causing an edit conflict. Sorry. I put the hooks back in. Art LaPella (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was just wondering if there were issues with those hooks that needed to be addressed. I appreciate you taking the time to fix the situation. :) Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed major reforms to decade articles

Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s/Archives/2012#Suggested_reform_of_decade_articles, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No strong opinions on those issues. I'm a copyeditor. Art LaPella (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Guru Nanak Jayanti: 2 Nov, On this day...

Today is Guru Nanak Jayanti in the Sikhism (one of the biggest Sikh festivals, Indian national holiday) , Shouldn't it be included in On this day...- ReferenceReference--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do copyedits but I've never added a new holiday. The procedure for adding holidays is at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, but they are protected while on the Main Page, and can be added for next year. It's mainly User:Zzyzx11 who decides what goes on On This Day. Art LaPella (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Shanti Bhushan

Thanks for pointing out the silly mistake from my side, I have reduced the character count of the hook :) trakesht (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your "Reduced 64 characters" will alert the others that my objection is satisfied. Art LaPella (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Prep 1

Hi Art. I undid your last edit to the Prep 1 area because the edit summary said typo,; however, it reset 7 of the hooks and credits placed. Please feel free to correct any typos present or other issues you see and let me know f I misinterpreted anything. Thanks again. Kindly Calmer Waters 23:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ahh, I see what might have happened. you saw my misspelling of Britain from pulling up the page from your watchlist of the older edit and when you saved it, it saved the older version with the new change voiding the newer entries. Nice catch on Britain. Your proof reading skills are invaluable :) Kindly Calmer Waters 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's happened before. I probably didn't bother to preview a change as simple as Britian -> Britain, and then it undid someone else's change. I thought simultaneous edits would stop me with an edit conflict, but edit conflicts don't seem to stop me on that page. Art LaPella (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Styling of common names for plants (& other organisms)

Hi Art, I see you made an earlier attempt to start some discussion on this topic at MS:CAPS but were ignored. Heeding the Wikipedia exhortation to "Be Bold", I tried editing Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora) and stirred up a hornet's nest. But a reasoned consensus for consistency seems to be emerging. Would you care to join in (or at least cast an eye over what's been said so far)? SiGarb | (Talk) 12:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Great News!!!

Bacon Materializer

Thanks for the fixes.

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens in title bars

I noticed your recent change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style at 05:18, 6 December 2009. Each of those five pages uses a hyphen in its title bar.
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the title bar has a hyphen. ("Title bar" must mean the little tab above the page.) But the title of the page itself is "Wikiversity:Manual of Style" for instance. MOS:QUOTE says: "Although the requirement of minimal change is strict, a few purely typographical elements of quoted text should be conformed to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment. This practice of conforming typographical styling to a publication's own "house style" is universal. Allowable typographical alterations include these: Styling of dashes—use the style chosen for the article: unspaced em-dash or spaced en-dash." If you can change an em dash to an en dash, then it should be even more permissible to change a hyphen to a dash. And although a "title bar" is not a quotation, one would think it would be more important to follow a quotation exactly than to follow a title bar exactly, since only the software would consider naming a page by its title bar. But if the title bar is what counts, I will need to change my AWB edits throughout Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You understood title bar correctly. The passage which you quoted from the Manual of Style convinces me that your change is correct. Thank you for that information. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Land Titles Building – Victoria Armoury

Thanks much for help with spelling, hypens, etc. It is noted and appreciated. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK question update

Check my nomination. I addressed an issue that you brought up. ConCompS (Talk to me) 02:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your answer at your nomination should be enough to explain to others that the issue is resolved. Art LaPella (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Issue

Thanks for the heads up there. I wrote the article just before I moved back home from college, so I just got around to expanding it. Feel free to tear it apart right when you get the chance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be able to pass inspection now. I was calculating everything using the byte system, so sorry about the false alarm. Do you think an infobox is necessary for that page? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it's good to know that we have people with your backround here. I updated the class on the talk page as it is clearly not a stub anymore. Thanks for reviewing it though! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Singing Christmas Tree

Per request, I changed Singing Christmas tree to Singing Christmas Tree. Chris (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Vandal on the loose

User:Bobsleighstar has five contributions and all are vandalism. This user has been warned twice about their vandalism. Chris (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM

I just wanted to point out that changes you made to the NW Airlines article did not follow MOSNUM, though I see you were using AWB for guidance. In a series of numbers where the first is in the 200s, it is appropriate (as was the case) for the remaining numbers to be numerical, even if less than 11.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be referring to WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures ..." Going by those words alone, it's debatable exactly when quantities are "comparable", which is not to say you're wrong; it's just a gray area. I wasn't using AWB for "guidance" on that rule; I was using AWB to find Manual of Style issues, including single-digit numbers (certain categories automatically excluded) for me to evaluate manually. Art LaPella (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it goes on, saying in full "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." That clarifies what they mean. The situation at hand was one in which the quantities were about the same item, as I recall. I can't see what would be gray about that.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that rule. My thought was that passengers and crew aren't as comparable as cats and dogs, but whatever. I've been interpreting the cats and dogs rule more broadly because of you, for lack of any other guidance. Art LaPella (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tx. I guess I thought that if cats and dogs can be lumped together (as part of the set "animals"), passengers and crew could be lumped together (as part of the set "people on board" ... which is relevant when they are lumped together elsewhere in that article, as in people he is charged with attempting to murder). Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:comma

Just wanted to thank you and provide some feedback. My removal of comma after Oregon was entirely inadvertent; I know that geographical comma rule, but don't know many others. I do not hide that I am not a native speaker; I am keen to learn at any opportunity, and please do not hesitate to leave a message. I've noted while ago that when I'm assembling the sets, my copyediting part of the brain is dormant and it only wakes up when I read queues prepared by another editor.

As long as I'm here .. do I understand it right that the phrase ".. suggested that the President Bush learn English" is acceptable and more polite than ".. suggested that the President Bush learns English", but both are correct? Best regards. PS. If you reply, it is entirely up to you where, I'm watching pages where I posted. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. "The" before president is my common quick-typing mistake occurring when I start a sentence one way and then rewrite it (added Bush in this case); "that President Bush learn English" was a joke (sorry); the original, from the current Queue 4, reads "that President Bush learn Transcendental Meditation" :). Materialscientist (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Art, I wish you much luck in 2010. I have written a new article after a long time so I am here again to ask you if you can correct my English. The article is about Josef Hora. Thank you a lot! --Aloysius (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done, except for these questions:
• "deflection and disillusionment work" I think "disillusionment work" means Hora's work that shows he was disillusioned with Communism, but what is "deflection"?
• The vitalism article is about the belief that life either has a soul, or at least has something that can't be explained by organic chemistry. I don't think that's what you meant, because that thought sounds more like philosophy than a "literary trend". "Civilism" isn't explained at all, although we can guess it's related to "civilization", "civility" or "cities".
• "set at variance with ten other left-wing authors". "variance" has several meanings, and the most relevant meaning is "disagreement". But did you really mean the expelled authors disagreed with the ten left-wing authors, even though almost everyone on both lists was in trouble with the Communist government?
• "above the coffin with Karel Čapek". I changed it to "above the coffin of Karel Čapek". I think you meant Čapek was dead and in his coffin, not that he stood above the coffin with the others. Is that right? Art LaPella (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
  • by "deflection" I meant his apostasy from KSČ... better to say "apostatic"?
  • vitalism and civilism - Yes, Czech poets liked to name their styles with original -isms, they even call their surrealist style poetism, I think for now (until anyone makes a precious article about that local speciality:) I would rather put both the terms away.
  • "set at variance" - this is right - the two groups were made enemies during this critical time but in some more years some of the rebels came back under wings of the party and some from the other side opened their eyes, but Nezval and Fučík were the strong-line Communists all the time.
  • "above the coffin of Karel Čapek" - yes, you are right, it was Czechism:)
  • a and the are my weak points:)
  • I am now trying to translate one of his poems into English so please be patient with me - I will call for help again;) --Aloysius (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I have put the poem on the page. Thanks for spending (hope not wasting) your time.--Aloysius (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Once again, I hesitate to rewrite your poetry in natural-sounding English in the same way I rewrite your prose, because one expects poetry to have the same unexpected word combinations one expects from a foreigner trying to write in English. But I think we should rewrite this line: "And I am hanging here in thorns to wait". My first thought was to imagine Jesus trapped in our local thorny blackberries, unable to move. My second thought was to remember that the Bible says Jesus wore a crown of thorns at His crucifixion. He was hanging from nails, not thorns. "And I am hanging in my crown of thorns to wait" would explain that better. I was going to suggest changing the intransitive verb "wait" to "see", but then I saw that it wouldn't rhyme. Art LaPella (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks a lot. Yes, I would like the poem to sound as poetry more than just a plain text - and even your first image was not wrong - in the original Jesus is in the shrubs of hawthorn so I would suggest to let "thorns" there. It is typical for Czech landscape to have crosses along the field paths and usually on their parting (hope the title evokes such "crossway" (or should I call it Christ at a Crossway or Christ of the Crossways similar to the novel by George Meredith)? Btw. I added two more (shorter) poems on the page. The last, I promise:) And thank you again.--Aloysius (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
          • None of those words would make me think of crosses by the roadside, although similar crosses have become common by our highways in the last 20 years where someone has died in a car accident. Nor did I recognize the novel or the author, although those who read poetry would be more likely to recognize other forms of literature. The word "crossroads" is often used figuratively, though not to mean crosses by the roads. It literally means a place where one road crosses another. But it is often used figuratively, especially by politicians as in "Our nation is at a crossroads", meaning there is a decision to be made. Art LaPella (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. I think you are using an old version of AWB. Please update to 4.9.0.3 by downloading the latest snashot from http://toolserver.org/%7Eawb/snapshots Version 4.9.0.1 has critical bugs. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Silly question, but

How do you calculate a 5x expansion? I understand how to get the correct number of characters using DYK check. However, something goes wrong with my calculations after than. For example, at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Bramble_Bay, my calculations say it is not a 5x expansion, but I don't think I am calculating correctly. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

F1. I got the same result you did, and I said so over there. Art LaPella (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Happy New Year! —mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS tweaks

Thanks for your tweaks. Never seem to find them all myself. You may be interested in the next edit, which concerns Alt text. You learn something every day? Colin°^Talk 22:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did learn something. Thanks for telling me. Art LaPella (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Colitis-X

Art, did we get Colitis-X straightened out? (I think consensus settled on Alt1 or my further minor tweak, Alt1-1) Is there anything else that needs to happen, or did all the intervening stuff delay it too long for it to be part of DYK now? Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's straightened out; no, nothing else is needed. Colitis-X is now at Template:Did you know/Queue/6. You can expect to see it on the Main Page around midnight between Jan. 17 and 18, UTC (which is London's time zone). Art LaPella (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and your assistance is much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB test message

I'm sending a message to myself 75.172.104.114 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another one. 75.172.104.114 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another 75.172.104.114 (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

T:TDYK

Hi, Art LaPella. Would you take a look at Template talk:Did you know#Martín Alonso Pinzón (Alonso Pinzón permalink). I know they exist but I can't find the rules that say that {{who}} and {{citation needed}} tags disqualify an article from being a DYK. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

R2. Art LaPella (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What should be done in this circumstance? Should the uncited information be removed? I sympathize with Jmabel's arguments about placing those maintenance tags himself because he wasn't able to locate the references for the information he translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I answered it at Template talk:Did you know#Martín Alonso Pinzón. I won't be back on Wikipedia until morning. Art LaPella (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ACN 2010 edits

I think I have inadvertently cancelled out one of your edits to this page while I was reverting someone else's changes. My apologies. Jlsa (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Already fixed. :) Art LaPella (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again from earlier. It is always appreciated Calmer Waters 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)