User talk:TonyTheTiger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| “ | Have nunchucks. Will travel. - Antonio "Tony The Tiger" Vernon | ” |
WP:CHICAGO – WP:CHIFTD – WP:LOTD – WP:LOTM
|
List of the Day/List of the Month
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
List of the day archive
LOTMs
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
 Archives |
| 1-(20May06-03Oct06) 2-(09Oct06-05Nov06) 3-(07Nov06-26Nov06) 4-(24Nov06-12Dec06) 5-(12Dec06-31Dec06) 2007-JFMAMJJASOND 2008-JFMAM |
[edit] Medium-high quality article needs a nudge
I've kept Calvin Johnson (American football) in a reasonably good state of repair, but I don't have the time to give it that last push to FA (or WP:BIO A-class, for that matter). I noticed that you pushed Tyrone Wheatley through FAC, so you're not a stranger to sports-related articles. Any suggestions/writing (I really, really hate lead-writing, for example)/etc you provide would be appreciated. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TUSC token 96d772302ba220a942767018248c727e
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
[edit] Peer review limits
Hi Tony, since you have several peer review requests currently open, I wanted to let you know about the new guidelines at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy which places the following limits on peer review requests: "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review, FAC, GAN, or A-class review. For more information on these limits see here." This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits.
The current requests you have made can stay open (they are grandfathered in), but I wanted to make you aware of the new limits for future requests. Thanks for all your work here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I checked at wp:pr/d and you still have four requests open - Jack Kemp was closed by the bot on June 1. To open a new PR, please archive one of the four (or ask me and I will archive). Barry Bonds is the current oldest request. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, even if you would have had five PR requests open, they could have remained open. You only have to close one if you want to open a new one. My original proposal was to have a 14 day limit after a PR closed, this was extended to all reviews in the discussion (link above). The idea is that any review has suggestions made and time is needed to respond to these suggestions. FYI, I asked every person listed at WP:PRV for feedback on this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry for any confusion, but you seem to have misunderstood the idea of the limits on Peer Review. There is no change in FAC or GAN or any other process except for PR. If an article fails FAC or fails GAN, it cannot be listed at peer review for 14 days. If a PR closes, the article cannot be relisted at PR for 14 days. The idea is to make sure that the issues raised in the FAC or GAN or previous PR are addressed before opening a new PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I added an example to the Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy to hopefully make it clearer. Thanks for pointing this out, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry for any confusion, but you seem to have misunderstood the idea of the limits on Peer Review. There is no change in FAC or GAN or any other process except for PR. If an article fails FAC or fails GAN, it cannot be listed at peer review for 14 days. If a PR closes, the article cannot be relisted at PR for 14 days. The idea is to make sure that the issues raised in the FAC or GAN or previous PR are addressed before opening a new PR. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, even if you would have had five PR requests open, they could have remained open. You only have to close one if you want to open a new one. My original proposal was to have a 14 day limit after a PR closed, this was extended to all reviews in the discussion (link above). The idea is that any review has suggestions made and time is needed to respond to these suggestions. FYI, I asked every person listed at WP:PRV for feedback on this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: BP Pedestrian Bridge
I saw you rearanged it slightly, and it looks slightly better, but the credits section is still especially squeezed. I'm sure it's not that big of a deal. Good luck with the GA, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm using full screen. I hope to not sound like an idiot, but I actually don't know my screen resolution. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if you caught my response on my talk page, also you probably should look over my tweaks to make sure I haven't changed the meaning unintentionally. I'm thinking in particular of the bit about the boardwalk in Lurie Garden-I'm still unclear as to the layout of the park, and thus may have given the wrong impression with my tweaks. If you ever want me to read over these (or other) articles again, feel free to drop me a line. Loggie (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:LOTD
I have no date preference for List of Puerto Rican birds. Joelito (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Buffalo Sabres head coaches
Sorry - forgot about that. Fixed the dashes. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Top Importance Chicago Articles
Oops. I saw the message, and intended to check it out, but it just slipped my mind. Can I still vote? Zagalejo^^^ 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox nrhp3
Hi, Tony, as you are already aware, Infobox nrhp3 is up and running. I didn't go far enough back in your contribution history to see what you've been doing with it, so this may be an unnecessary post. While we are working on converting all the articles that currently have local designations on them through nrhp2 over to nrhp3, we're not planning on making nrhp3 permanent. When we're finished and no more locally designated articles use nrhp2, we're just gonna copy the code from nrhp3 over to nrhp2 and change all the infoboxes on the articles back to nrhp2. During this time (not to say you have), please don't create any new articles with nrhp3. We're gonna hold off until we get them all back to nrhp2 and then begin creating new articles. Like I said before, I didn't go back far enough to see if you've created any articles with the box, but I left this comment just as a precaution. Thanks! :) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mmk thanks! By converted, I assume you mean from nrhp2 to nrhp3. If there are any more Chicago Landmark articles that use nrhp2 to display the local designation, I would appreciate it if you could change them over to nrhp3 too. I just asked user:doncram to aid in changing all the articles on user:doncram/Sandbox4 over to nrhp3 and then copy/paste the code. Thanks for your help, and we hope to have all this worked out very soon! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, I mean I can, but I would rather just have one infobox. Since there aren't too many articles to change (30 or so?), it shouldn't be that hard just to manually change them over. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The code from nrhp3 has now been copied to nrhp2. You can now begin creating/editing articles to include the nrhp2 infobox with local designations. I haven't yet gotten around to changing all the nrhp3's to nrhp2's because I'm strained on time, but if you'd like to help, the articles are all located here. All that needs to be done is change the number 3 to 2 in the infobox as shown in this diff. Currently Chicago Board of Trade Building is the only article that uses nrhp2 to display a local designation. Thanks for your patience! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Roanoke Building
Sorry, I've been a way for a few days. You've done some good work on digging up info on the architecture. There should still be some more on current occupants; this information is on the Emporis page, so that should be easy. That website also says that Larson & McLaren were the architects, that should be included. Also, have you been able to find out anything about the etymology of the building's name? If not, I understand. Lampman Talk to me! 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. I'll just go ahead and promote it then. Lampman Talk to me! 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
 |
On 5 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BP Pedestrian Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GAR for Trump Tower
Hi Tony - I just wanted to leave a note to reassure you that, further to our discussion on the above GAR, it was never my intention to challenge the status of any existing building articles, or to turn it into a general call for a change in GA standards that would impact your articles. I've noticed that you've been notifying your project members of the debate, and I'm slightly concerned that you may be taking my comments more to heart than they deserve. I also don't want to see such a minor discussion degenerate into an unproductive argument; as you know, GAR bases its assessments on GA criteria alone, and editors unfamiliar with those criteria may find it difficult to make helpful contributions. More importantly, it's also all rather academic now, as I'm coming to the view that you are correct, and will be updating my comments very soon ;) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 13:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that interest might go further than this one GAR, in which case it's a useful subject to thrash out. Along with Gguy, I believe that this is one area where we can and should be more flexible than FA, and personally I think that failing to recognise articles such as the one under discussion, which is otherwise very good, would be doing both ourselves and the encyclopaedia as a whole a disservice. Now we seem to have pretty much established (barring further argument!) that under-construction buildings are perfectly acceptable at GA, we need to make this very clear so that articles like yours don't get quick-failed again. EyeSerenetalk 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think that type of statement might be best written into the criteria (perhaps as an explicit example of what sort of article isn't a quick-fail). It's more likely to head off trouble at the pass, and save having to go through more GARs. However, I don't think there's going to be much opposition to listing your article, the original reviewer hasn't commented, and I doubt that whichever of us closes would object to including something in the closing statement, if you feel it would help in the future (with, of course, the proviso that consensus can change!) EyeSerenetalk 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
Sorry, now that I reviewed that, it turned out I completely rolled back the wrong page. I use VandalProof, so it must be a bug with that program. It wasn't intentional. Arienh4(Talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re:List of tallest buildings in Chicago
It looks as though the information on List of tallest buildings in Chicago, and on the Masonic Temple (Chicago) article as well, is incorrect. The reference used to support the claim of world's tallest building is this, which states that the Masonic Temple "was shorter than New York's World Building with its lantern, but boasted the highest occupied floor". The title of tallest building in the world isn't determined by highest occupied floor, it is determined by highest architectural detail, which would include the New York World Building's lantern; otherwise, the Sears Tower would have always been considered taller than the Petronas Twin Towers. I will update the information on the Chicago list and the Masonic Temple page accordingly. Cheers, Rai•me 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think a column for community areas is needed. No other U.S. list has such a column, and there has been consensus at WT:SKY to avoid adding another column to any tallest buildings list, whether it be for architects, photo links, or street addresses, due in learge part to "column crunching" and lack of relevance to building height. Such information is best kept for individual building articles, in my opinion. Cheers, Rai•me 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your GA nomination of A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights
The article A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights you nominated as a good article has passed 
, see Talk:A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wrigley Square
|
On 6 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wrigley Square, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: What do you mean by the link?
Sorry, forget what I said. I hadn't seen a GA template who's article's status wasn't on hold in such a long time, I forgot what they looked like. I thought it was an incomplete nomination. Just forget about it. :) --haha169 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll clarify. Forget what I said - I ramble sometimes. As for the GA template issue, I made a mistake. You want me to strike it? I don't think its necessary, but I could do it. --haha169 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for your opinion
 |
Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article | |
Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language
|
- Update: The !voting shows 7 votes for no mention of Ayers, 4 for first-choice Option 3 and 6 !votes for the other options. If we're going to get a consensus to overcome those 7 votes (and it's still possible), all the other editors and some who haven't participated yet are going to have to get around one alternative option. I've changed my vote to Option 3, and I hope you will, too, because it's more important to give readers at least a link to the Bill Ayers article and Bill Ayers election controversy article than to allow the Option 1 editors to essentially veto all mention of Ayers. Please consider, and thanks for taking the time. (Incidentally, on June 4, that article got 250,000-plus page hits). Noroton (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I looked over WP:CANVASS before doing this, but it didn't occur to me that this could be a violation. I looked over it again just now and I can see how this could be considered vote stacking. I won't contact you again about this. I certainly don't want to violate WP:CANVASS, and I'll have to think about this more. I was going to ask for advice at the WP:CANVASS talk page, but I see that someone already did on May 20 and was ignored. Thanks for bringing it up. Noroton (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Walter
I will work on the article tonight, this afternoon I have to attend the Hungarian Festival here in New Jersey. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lurie Garden
|
On 7 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lurie Garden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| Board elections open | WikiWorld: "Facial Hair" |
| Wikipedia in the News | Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Obama FAR
I will try to provide some clarification on the Obama FAR closure. I was the person that closed the FAR. The main criteria concern for the FAR was stability. I closed the FAR as neither a keep nor a remove because the article had not undergone the standard review process. I believed that closing it as kept was inappropriate since it could be used as an argument that X version of the article was reviewed and deemed/endorsed as meeting the FA criteria. I think Judgesurreal777 made a good statement that summarizes my views on stability for this article: "And instability is when the definition of a planet is changed and the definition of a planet articles needs a massive rewrite. Day to day additions and copyediting for the political season doesn't need rewriting of the whole article but the paragraph in question."
During the process there were some POV concerns raised. However, it is normal to expect cries of POV on a political article and most of the POV pushing was done by a few people bent on edit warring.
As for the paper trail I propose to create a new category (called Incomplete or Inconclusive or something similar) to accommodate for these kinds of cases. Normally, a restart of the FAR could be perfomed and a situation such as the one we are discussing can be avoided but with this article. Joelito (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) restarting would not have achieved anything.
[edit] 6/9 DYK
|
On 9 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Bedford Pray 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Crown Fountain PR
Hi Tony, I consider peer review comments to be suggestions, so they are not really actionable the way GAN or FAC comments are. I do try to point out things that I think would be seen as problems at GAN or FAC. I also tend to try and give only one or two examples of problems in PR and leave it to the nominator to check for other examples. I will take another look at the Crown Fountain article in a day or two. Keep up the good work and congrats on all the recent DYKs! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Harris Theater (Chicago)
|
On 10 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harris Theater (Chicago), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Trump Chicago FAC
Sure, just give me a while, as I'm pretty busy. Should be done by tonight. Also, apologies if I began to sound uncivil there. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: 50 GAs in 50 States
Wow, this is sort of unexpected. Anyway, I'm not strong with states outside of Oklahoma and the ones near the East Coast. I can give it a shot if you want. I've heard of these and saw some kind of interest in them. I'll see what I can do, noting I've never done an article like this before.Mitch32contribs 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BP Pedestrian Bridge
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ErgoSum88 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 June 2008
