User talk:Bongomatic/Archive 5

On February 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan Scott (blacksmith), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Dravecky for the work on the DYK, and thanks to you, CoM, and Scapler for the very enjoyable collaboration. It helps to start with interesting material! Bongomatic 12:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good picture & congrats on making the front page! :)

I'm mostly a writer/copyeditor/sorter&organizer-of-things on here, i don't upload media very much, but i believe that there is a tag for "released into the public domain, or if not allowed then..., etc.". I know i've seen it; i'm just not sure if it's current or obsoleted/deprecated; if i can find it, i'll link you.

btw, 2 things:

1. you might need to lock down the rights release documentation; make it as solid as possible, in case the image gets challenged.

2. out of curiosity, what was cropped out, & is it possible to upload an uncropped version, for reference?

Lx 121 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lx 121

Thanks for the note. I'm very pleased with the article—the subject is inherently interesting, and despite being quirkily "off-the-run", there was ample documentation of notability and a rich assortment of verifiable (and interesting facts). And a number of people contributed to the article (in a very short time) in a very pleasant collaboration.

The uncropped photo is File:AlanScott.jpg—I just removed the matting.

I have an e-mail from the subject's daughter explicitly stating that (a) she owns the copyright; and (b) that she releases the photo into the public domain for all purposes. I shall keep it. If you think it would be helpful to add her text to the photo page, I will do that, but I intended simply to archive it.

Rgds, Bongomatic 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It would be best to have her go through the OTRS system to confirm the release of the copyright, just to be sure. - Dravecky (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was very pleasant collaborating with you guys, and you obviously picked a good subject if it interested me to expand it with only a stub. I really cannot remember a more pleasant article writing experience I've had, so once again, thanks for being so great to work with! Scapler (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to step on your toes here but a WP:CSD#G4 after 3 years seem to be a bit too far past the intent of G4, I therefore reopend it for discussion maybe I could have sent it to drv but in the end the outcome is whats important either venue in this case is sufficient. Gnangarra 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries, reasonable approach. Bongomatic 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good catch. Amazing how long some of these lie dormant. :-) Keep up the good work! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks . . . don't think it was that old, as I was patrolling new pages from the back of the queue--possible that I followed a link from one of the articles there. Any idea why the page logs don't include a creation date? Bongomatic 01:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was created January 28, and some bot made an edit 2 days ago. As to why logs don't have creation dates, dunno. Technical Wiki things challenge me - nothing shows in the log that it was newpage patrolled back in January either. Maybe it wasn't until now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On February 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Carpenter, 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.

-- Bongomatic 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that sounds tasty...and we're not the only ones to think so: [1], [2], [3]. And in GBooks: [4] and [5]. Whoa! check it out, all you members of the Bacon Squad: The Bacon Cookbook! Well, I'm sure you all have a copy already. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time right now, but two books look kind of interesting: [6] and [7]. How about it? Drmies (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peer Portner, 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.

Bongomatic 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you'd like, you can let me know if you create any stub bios. My first suggestion would be to create DYK-eligible articles using the sources that you are adding. If not, it would be my pleasure to work together to expand them to meet DYK standards. Just let me know if you have created an expandable stub, and I'll do my best. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Will do (or, realistically, will try to remember). Bongomatic 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you're right - I only looked at it quickly. What I felt was that the article itself needed to say more about why Nonnie Moore was notable. It seemed to me that there should be a lot more to say! Feel free to remove the tag, but I'm sure someone else would be asking the question if I wasn't. Deb (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please allow me some time to make changes to referencing his work experience. thanks Newdesignnow (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)newdesignnowReply

There are a few articles that I know that needs tweaking? Do you know of any wiki writers that can write articles, that is compliant and won't be deleted? If so, what will be the costs involved. Let me know and I can contact that person.

Newdesignnow (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)newdesignnowReply

new user here. i was referred here by some sort of bacon cabal. my edits on the ayn rand discussion page get deleted. not sure why. i would appreciate your input.Brushcherry (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherryReply

Yes, you are a troll. Over 100 edits with none to article space. Wikipedia is (nominally, anyway) an encyclopedia first, and a community second (or lower down the list). Your Ayn Rand talk page edits are pretty far removed from improvements to articles. There are plenty of "meta" tasks to be done (article sorting, assigning stuff to projects, writing templates, coding—heck I really don't even know all the different things that need doing) but there's a presumption that we're here to work on the project.

So, my input is: Find some topics that are not hotly contested, where you can make some uncontroversially useful improvements, and take it from there.

Sorry to be harsh, but you asked. Bongomatic 11:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

thanks for your harsh input. i kinda thought not editing article space was a good thing. hash it out on the dicussion page, reach consensus, etc. i admit i have bitten off more than i can chew with jumping in on the ayn rand page. i appreciate getting your perspective on things. having only been watching the ayn rand page, i think i have a skewed view of how wikipedia works. long-time wikipedia viewer, new editorBrushcherry (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherryReply

 

Maybe I was staring at them too long.... but how did I mess up the refs? And additional cites? I sourced just about every single sentence. Share. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you messed up any cites, but the article doesn't have any that demonstrate notability of the topic. All the references are extremely local and the editorial discretion used to select the topics of coverage—when so linked to their immediate environs—does not establish notability. Bongomatic 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, about the refwork. My thought is that Utah is not local to Ohio and its festival screening there resulting in an immediate distribution deal took the film out of its back yard. Decent wWidespread "local" notability is acceptable notability per WP:CSB, WP:GNG, and WP:NF. I suppose we'll be quibbling over how many sources is enough. Perhaps I should give each sentence 5 or 6 cites and then hear compaints of it being oversourced? And the film is a "first", per the GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Being screened in Utah is not the same as being covered in Utah. Inclusion in minor film festivals (regardless of location) has never been evidence of notability for the purposes of WP:NF.

And as for being a "first", as I pointed out in the talk page, it is not a first in any meaningful sense. Everything is a "first" in a trivial way (this is the first talk page comment I've written after 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)). Likewise, if this were the first film completed entirely by university students anywhere, or in the US, that might be notable. But if it's been done before at other schools, then why would it being "first" at another school be of any significance?

With respect to WP:CSB, I've never before now thought that Ohio, the seventh most populous of the 50 United States, was the recipient of systemic bias due to underreporting. If you feel that's the case, you may with to follow up on the talk page there.

Most of the references (the ones connected with the university) are in fact not independent for the purposes of WP:GNG. The coverage in those that are independent represent the least reliable sort of feature-type non-news stories, and focus on the "local interest" element.

I don't know where you get support for the idea that local coverage is sufficient for WP:NF in any way relevant to this article. For coverage occurring earlier than five years after release, it specifically refers to "nationally known critics".

Bongomatic 00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because there's nothing of value there to the main article. The research article indicates, in fact, that it might have nothing to do with Swedenborg (who lived in the 18th century) and rather originated in NY in 1859, and was extinct by 1934. It had no impact whatsoever on Freemasonry in a larger sense. Thus, I prodded it. MSJapan (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rhena Schweitzer Miller has been expanded. I will probably add a bit more and then move on to the others you've created. So far so good. Alansohn (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. Max Bond, Jr., 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.

Bongomatic 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

We just crossed paths at Mary Printz, which I mostly finished expanding. Take a look at the full article. Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Any chance of putting Belles logo and website info: You can get logo from actual website: www.bellescelebrity.com : under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscroger (talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I expanded the Alan Landers you had contributed to, and nominated the article for DYK, giving you appropriate credit for your efforts. We're making a dent on these bios. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just winning an emmy is a bit weak unless one can source from other than an obituary just what sort... regional or national, etc. You'll find Star Telegram[8] to be an exceptional source for expanding your stub and adding her Woman of the Year. I can't stay grumpy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

And you'll absolutely love the awards listed HERE for this superwoman. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the sources. The Emmy is nice, but, as you observe, not key—rather the obituary in the AP, and lots of other coverage (not for free as it's pretty old) demonstrate the N. I'll try to get some of the contemporaneous coverage from the NY Times, etc. when I get on Factiva next. Bongomatic 09:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

An observation: There are those even less forgiving than yorself (chuckle) when it comes to sourcing notability. And yes, a (paid?) obit in the times is nice. But more stringent editors would slap a "one-source" on the article and quickly question the notability of just a statement in an obit that there was an emmy without there being expansion and further sourcing of numbers and types. Sure, in a few moments I found multiple emmys and much to confirm notability for may other acts.... but many editors, and you know this to be true, do not bother to look, and will tag based upon a visual appearance and not a potentiality, as its "not their job" to improve somebody else's article. Considering this woman's background, you could quite likely turn her article into an FA and have several DYKs as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the paid death notice was (a primary source) used to establish (the non-controversial) date of birth, which wasn't in the other stuff I'd seen at that point. Since the title of the article is "Paid death notice", I didn't expect anyone would think it was being offered as an "independent" source. Bongomatic 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I fully understand its use to WP:Verify something. Others might question is use and forget or not mention that it simply verified. No matter, though.... as there is a tremendous amount of material readily available about this person. I still think you could turn this into a FA and likley get a dozen DYK's for her along the way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here is something for you insteasad of cows, Eduardo Grimaldi. There are no articles on other Inter Wiki pages, (just a lot of text, probably means can’t find this page), the references, well I can’t read them but they don’t show any pictures, (they look the same all of them, some local newspaper?), can’t find anything on Google and , ... it might be a hoax – or not, but most likely not wery notable.

This guy is not a notable landscaper, maybe he is a landscape architect, or a landscape engineering guy but it may be some local worker, there are thousands of landscape architects all over the world, but not all of them are worth includind in an encyclopaedia, actually only very few. Would you write an article about your local doctor, baker or zookeeper? We better delete him as soon as possible.

Warrington (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No habla español? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

But why do you speak Spanish than? Warrington (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Poquito... En qué puedo ayudarte? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, Bongomatix, you can always delete Eduardo. I would do it myself but I don’t know how... And I don't want to learn either, I might start liking it...

Warrington (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bongo, the note on which you ended the AfD is a really important one and I'm glad you raised it. I don't want every single weatherman in the US to get a page, for instance--and it may well be that I'm inconsistent in wanting to keep the cow per WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, of course. I to hope that at some point someone looks into that matter and that a decision is reached. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Yes. It's a good question. Suppose there were an "Encyclopedia of Fairfield that had significant coverage in reliable sources as its notability requirements. Would we want every entry there to be included in WP? By the logic of the proponents of the Gladys article, the answer is "yes". I believe many people feel this way. For a similar but related topic, in this discussion, DGG argued that anything covered in any Jane's publication would be sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP (even if it's one of three thousand varieties of .22 caliber ammunition). Bongomatic 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I kind of agree with you on this one Bongo (although I haven't read what you said at the AfD so I'll have to go look). But it's not like that article really brings down the encyclopedia. I think the clearer cut cases are promotional articles and insubstantial articles that don't make any sense. And there is a case to be made that the coverage in this case amounts to substantial coverage over a sustained (years) time period. I would prefer we lean towards inclusion rather than exclusion anyway. As I said, I don't think it meets the inclusion criteria, but shit happens. Sometimes good articles get deleted. You can always try again in a few months if you're determined enough. :) What else is shaking? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

DGG has a good point in general, and you and ChildofMidnight need to think about this some more. Wikipedia is both a generalist and a specialist encyclopaedia. (This is one of our Five Pillars.) We don't exclude things because the size of the potential interest group is not the whole world. Were we to do that, we'd be excluding minor astronomy topics that were only of interest to a small number of people in the world, or esoteric subjects in theoretical physics, or obscure items in classical history, or individual railway stations of interest only to railway enthusiasts. We don't exclude subjects of limited interest by discipline, and we don't exclude subjects of limited interest by geographic area. The idea that we're here not to serve a small sub-set of our overall readership is wrong in both cases.

Before we hammered out the idea of notability that we now have, we had an endemic problem of conflicting specialist interest groups, all in their own WikiProjects and other groups, each thinking that the others' subjects were "unimportant", "insignificant", "not famous", "too minor", "uninteresting", and so forth. It was not good. Not only did it not serve the encyclopaedia at all well to have subjects decided upon by whatever band of editors happen to be around to "vote" at the time, it led to factionalism and conflict, sometimes with gangs of editors forming to explicitly battle other gangs of editors over certain subjects. Jimbo's "No" dates from around that period, and as you can see, many editors were opposed to the idea even then that we should exclude "small", "local", "minor" subjects on the basis that they weren't popular with a majority of the readership. We've come a long way since that time, but we should always be on our guard against heading backwards in that direction, as novice editors don't learn from history and end up repeating it.

We're here to provide a reference work, and we don't exclude any classes of readership from our target readership simply because those classes are small. It's not the size of the readership that matters, but the extent of the writing done on the subject, recording human knowledge. Every class of readership is small relative to the population of the planet as a whole, and every geographic area is "local" on some scale. Every article only serves a sub-set of our total readership, in most cases only a minority of the total. We're aiming to provide an encyclopaedia of everything, which means that we're targetting all readerships. Whatever the specialist discipline, and whatever the part of the world, readers should expect this encyclopaedia to be of service to them when they want to obtain knowledge, as long as the subject has been covered, in depth, in multiple independent published works by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Put another way: As both a generalist and a specialist encyclopaedia, for any given X we expect Wikipedia to cover a subject Y that would be found in a specialist "encyclopaedia of X" (that had our content policies on verifiability, original research, neutrality, and so forth — which not all encyclopaedias have.). Wikipedia is the union of all such enyclopaedias.

When that particular article came up at AFD the first time, as you can see I pushed the people who were in favour of its inclusion very strongly in the direction of citing independent sources that covered the subject in depth. If such published works can be shown to exist, then whatever our personal tastes, and whatever our personal areas of interest, we should be satisfied as encyclopaedists. To do otherwise is to head back to the gang wars of yesteryear. We wear different hats as editors than as readers. Whether we, ourselves, would read about a subject must not determine whether we, as editors, consider a subject worthy of an article, even if we ourselves have no personal interest in writing about it, either. Notability is not subjective. We aren't here to stop editors with other interests from working on valid subjects that we ourselves have no interest in working on, and we live with imperfection in the event that such editors aren't around right now. (The very best of us actually try to expand our horizons, and work on improving our coverage of subjects that we might never have heard of, or might actually find to be repugnant, or might be diametrically opposed to as philosophies/ideologies/religions/whatever.) Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Uncle G. Thanks for taking the time to write. There are at least two angles to this issue: local interest and trivia.
  • With respect to local interest, do you see any limitations whatsoever? Footnote 5 in WP:N ("Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large") is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it specifically mentions the "interest [of] the world at large." This implies that being of interest or potential interest to the world at large is relevant to the determination of whether a topic should be included, a proposition with which you seem to disagree. More central is the question of what is "a strong connection to" the subjects of articles. According to several discussions in WP:RSN, school newspapers are "reliable sources". When they cover events at their schools that would generally not be picked up by external news organizations, is that evidence of a sufficiently strong connection that footnote 5 is implicated? What about local newspapers in regions covered by regional newspapers (say, local papers in bedroom communities to New York that are covered by the NYT's Metro section)? I'm not being tendentious here . . . my point is that editorial discretion in what to cover at some point devolves into hopeless parochialism (something that anyone who has written for a high school or college paper knows)—so much so that it is indistinguishable from the COI issues cited at the end of that footnote.
  • With respect to trivia, DGG does have a good point:
    • "If it's a list of things that are essentially always notable, and the source provides significant information enough to write at least the stub of an article, the notability is demonstrated."
  • but he also has a bad one:
    • "I'd accept anything in a Jane's as notable."
  • Did you take up my suggestion to read sample pages from the ABC Aerospace Directory or the Ammunition Handbook? If not, please do—there is nothing "essentially always notable" about the contents of either. What is an "encyclopedia" for the purposes of the "union of all X"? Doesn't WP:NOTDIR limit what "encyclopedias" are encyclopedic (beyond whether they have similar policies on sourcing, as you mentioned above)? (Part of the problem here is that "encyclopedic" has two vernacular meanings that are, if not opposites of one another, not close, either—"suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" and "exhaustively comprehensive".)
  • While I might not qualify as the very best of us, I usually do attempt to follow consensus and policy wherever it may go—even when it's undesirable (see my argument for keep at WP:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman (2nd nomination). But consensus is permitted to change over time, and I also advocate positions that I think are more sensible than current consensus.
  • I would appreciate your thoughts on any of the above. Bongomatic 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • I picked up on a .22 at AfD (.22 Cheetah) and kind of played devil's advocate, fixing it up and playing the gun nut in that discussion. Honestly, I was a bit surprised at how easily it was kept. There are always those editors that say "well, this person is known only in Sweden" and vote for deletion. The bigger issue remains, how parochial is too parochial? Bongo's example of the high school and college papers is highly relevant. I'm inclined to vote (and I have voted that way) that such a source is not "general" enough, but I'll grant you immediately that that's a judgment call, my judgment. Maybe this is a decent rationalization: high school and college papers are not for sale, they are distributed freely. That's surely a difference, in regards to the Gladys-articles from Fairfield. PS, Bongo, I got my boobies back! Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to note that I agree with Uncle G that areas of specialized interest and unique pursuits that may not have more general coverage should be given deference. That's not the case with the cow artist. The art just isn't notable beyond it's locality. It's not a specialized art or a regional art or a localized art, it's painting and decorating cows and it hasn't been covered outside local media. Every town has decorated animals and art projects like these, just as every town has athletes who are covered locally. But for these professions that have broad interest, awards that indicate recognition, and coverage in lots of media, there's no need to make an exception or to suggest that this is a narrow field that deserves some kind of special consideration. People like the article and the cow art and its gone on for a while. So I'm okay with it being included, but I don't think is meets guidelines. 04:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Doctor, CoM for your comments. CoM, I think your analysis of the cow article is spot-on and wish I'd thought of it. See yas. Bongomatic 05:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I linked to User:Uncle G/On notability in the above, I suggest that you read it before telling me that I disagree with the idea that being noted is evidence of being notable. ☺ That's actually part of the point. It also explains why we shouldn't be reaching for blankets.

Footnote #5 is about independence. Independence is about three things. It's about preventing advertising and autobiography from being routes to encyclopaedia articles. No matter how many press releases people publish, or how many World Wide Web sites they set up about themselves, their organizations, their bands, their inventions, their products for sale, and so forth, notability is only demonstrated when someone independent of them decides to publish an in-depth work of their own. Independence is also about fact checking. As Wikipedia:Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies explains, there are well-known, and widely encountered, problems with taking people at their words about themselves. There are also well-known, and widely encountered, problems with accepting advertisements as truth. Independence is, thirdly, about showing that something actually is a part of the corpus of human knowledge in the first place. Knowledge isn't human knowledge if only one person knows it, and if it hasn't been subjected to peer review. Again, if only the subject/creator/inventor/author has ever written about something, and self-published what xe wrote without going through anyone else, there's not the evidence that anyone else knows it — that it has been reviewed by others, acknowledged, and entered the general corpus of human knowledge — that there is if someone independent of that subject/creator/inventor/author has written about it.

So it's not correct to address footnote #5 as having anything to do with the "locality" of the readership of a source. It's about independence, not locality, as the text that it is a footnote to clearly states. If a journalist and xyr editor(s) have documented a subject in depth, doing their own research and checking their facts, then it doesn't matter that they don't have a global readership, any more than it matters that a small and little-known specialist academic journal, with the normal peer review processes of such journals, only has a small readership. The processes of research, fact checking, and peer review, by identifiable people with a vested interest in keeping their good reputations for those things, have occurred. Conversely, if an article in a newspaper is just a straight re-print of a press release, then it doesn't matter that the newspaper is the The Hindu, The Age, or The Washington Post.

Size is not the issue. Readership is not the issue. Independence is the issue. Editorial discretion only devolves to parochialism if one forgets that and starts trying to mis-use independence as a proxy for a subjective judgement of one's own about fame and importance. Notability isn't fame and importance. Transferring the fame-and-importance argument from the subject to the sources, and trying to argue that the sources aren't famous and important, is just trying to bring a bad argument in through the back door when it has failed to enter via the front door. We evaluate sources on their depths and their provenances, not on how famous they are. (I linked to User:Uncle G/On sources and content above, too. Read that as well.) A few people desperately want Wikipedia to reflect their personal opinions of what is important and unimportant, and will take other arguments and attempt to deform and abuse them to that end. But we've had a brush with the kind of chaos that that (obviously, if one thinks about the world-wide nature of Wikipedia's editor community) causes. It's not the way to make an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nonnie Moore, 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.

Bongomatic 09:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for starting an article about Colleen Howe, the one and only "Mrs. Hockey" and now-late wife of Gordie Howe. Sure, there's a school in School District 34 Abbotsford named for her but up to now nothing on Wikipedia for this author, pioneering female sports agent, and member in her own right of the United States Hockey Hall of Fame? If you're interested in further expanding this article, it would make a fine addition to the encyclopedia and an easy DYK candidate. (I would, of course, have to recuse myself from approving or promoting any such hook.)

Here are a few sources of interest: Yahoo Sports obit, New York Times obit, USA Today obit, National Post article from 2008, 1974 NYT article by Howe, Corporate Detroit article from 1991, Globe and Mail article from 2003, Washington Post article about HOF induction, NYT article from 1993, [Sports Illustrated article from 1980], and, well, I think you get the idea. There are a jillion good sources out there. - Dravecky (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Indeed . . . don't know if you saw the talk page, but I've already cite news-ized a ton of sources for my or someone else's consumption. Bongomatic 00:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eric Blau, 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.

Bongomatic 00:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Printz, 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.

Bongomatic 00:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alansohn

I wasn't going to mention it, but you continue systematically not to cite me as the creator of articles you nominate for DKYs. While I may not expand the articles as much as you do, I spend time writing stubs, adding nicely formatted references, and frequently putting the germ of the sense of the person (when I don't actually write a full article, which I sometimes do). So, since there is a place for the creator, not just the expander, of an article in the DYK template, it would be appreciated if you would put my username there when you nominate an article I created, even if the creation has just slipped out of the five day window (I don't think the window applies to who is listed in the nomination, anyway).

Rgds, Bongomatic 00:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have no issue with listing you as article creator, but as I had read WP:DYK, there needs to be a larger contribution of content to be eligible for DYK credit. For example, Eric Blau was a 135-character stub before expansion to nearly 3,000. I will review and confirm eligibility for DYK credit for stubs like these. Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I replied on the Colleen Howe talk page in more detail regarding the Hall of Fame. I would go with the actual site you quoted and not the current newspapers. Do you have a site to investigate the Wayne Gretsky Award recipients? There seem to be more than one of these however, I am not sure which one the newspapers mean the... Wayne Gretzky International Award ... I dont think it could be the Wayne Gretzky 99 Award as that is for Ontario MVPs. SriMesh | talk 03:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you want to re-word the article?SriMesh | talk 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also I nominated the article (which you created) for DYK here, but mayhaps that should be re-worded now that that hockey game has come and gone.SriMesh | talk 03:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your great work on the article. It's amazing how much interest sprang up so quickly, and frankly I'm surprised the article didn't exist before her death, as it's obvious that this remarkable woman had received substantial coverage and was highly notable in her own right for many years.

I will investigate further the US Hockey Hall of Fame question (probably by sending an information request to the Hall of Fame directly), and will also take a look into the Gretzky award. Bongomatic 05:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, my goodness Hi...I didn't come back right away to see your intent. I wrote a letter myself, and copy and pasted the reply to the article talk page, sorry I didn't realize you were in the process as well. I agree with your comment that she should have had an article, her name wasn't even on her son's wikipedia articles and I had to pop it in. I wish her DYK would have gone through faster, but a well, as being on the main page does help the WWW find the info better on wikipedia. Her memorial is now online, I posted it to wikinews, I have never seen memorials and funerals on wikipedia before. Memorial SriMesh | talk 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great job—I confess that I hadn't gotten to it yet! Thanks for your diligent contributions. This article has obviously been a key source of information for many who have come to seek it. Bongomatic 23:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alansohn. I noticed you uncapitalized the "The"s from "The Associated Press" and "The New York Herald Tribune" in the article on William Jorden. Wikipedia's own manual of style is silent on this (I think), and this article (which uses a reasonable style guide itself—The New York Time's own) uses capital "The"s mid-sentence for both organizations. What is your reasoning? Bongomatic 00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

WP:THE addresses policy on use of the word "The" in titles. My simplest way to make these decisions on titles is to use the titles of the Wikipedia article as the link, which usually means that any issues regarding WP:THE have been addressed. In these cases, the "The" appears in The New York Times, but not the Associated Press or New York Herald Tribune. You can also see this in the articles for these media sources, with the "The" bolded and italicized for the Times, but not the other two. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation. I'll bear that in mind. Bongomatic 23:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I tried to add your name to the list of credits, but I'm afraid I can't figure out how to use the {{DYKmake}} template properly. Hopefully another admin will notice before it gets on the main page. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Looks like Dravecky did it. Bongomatic 04:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan Landers, 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) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've proposed deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A bit of WP:Canvassing? Anyways...it appears to be a scam...I found some references...it should be notable now.=P If you still have a concern, feel free to open an AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hardly. I was the one who originally tagged it for notability. Please check your facts and AGF. Bongomatic 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've added references, and since it appears to be a scam, it is gaining notability.Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rhena Schweitzer Miller, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let me know if you think this person meets notability guidelines. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I feel like the Mikey of deletion. Bongomatic 00:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you like it you delete it? Hmmmm... Or you like to Deleat it? I value your opinion on gurus, what can I say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I commented above before I realized you took it to AfD. We'll see how it fares. I think it's borderline. Certainly needs work, and I enjoyed the wording of your nom... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I figured out later that you meant Mikey in the sense that they have him try stuff to see if he likes it. I was focused just on the fact they say "He likes it!" part, so I didn't quite get it. Sometimes these things take time for me, I'm a little slow. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's the beginning part where they say something like "he doesn't like anything" "he won't eat it, he hates everything". Bongomatic 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Love that special Bongo-flavor! Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! "Tastes just like baby dolphin!" Bongomatic 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congrats on the barnstar Bongo. Have you gentlemen noticed the numerous media citations added to Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri? Thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and yes. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colleen Howe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

		The Bacon Barnstar
		Bongomatic, for bringing the bacon explosion to Wikipedia I belatedly award you the coveted Bacon Barstar. Thanks to your efforts in bringing bacon to the forefront of Wikipedia, I have had a new topic of interest in all my food-related conversations for the past month. When I actually get around to preparing it, I will be sure to let you know how it turned out. Welcome again to the Bacon cabal.--kelapstick (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Foot-related conversations? Does he mean Football or does he have a foot fetish? Weird. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately spell check doesn't pick up typos where the word is wrong...doh!--kelapstick (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That makes more sense. Congrats Bongo. Keep up the good work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Cole (writer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sir, I just wanted to seek further clarification on the opinion you cited in the AfD discussion for The Motley Moose. You said: "Since there is no non-trival coverage of it in reliable third-party sources, this blog fails to meet any notability guidelines on its own"- and I was wondering which sources, in particular, didn't lead to third-party reliability. Was it Prospect Magazine? DailyKos? TalkingPointsMemo? The Cavalier Daily? Just wanted to seek your advice so I could better improve the article. Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is not only the reliability of the source, but also the degree of coverage. I reviewed the sources cited in the article (except the Cavalier Daily, where there was no link to the actual reference) and none of them constitutes "non-trival" coverage. Bongomatic 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... okay. I guess I am still confused. For instance, could you explain specifically the problem with the Prospect Magazine source? Or why it matters if a print publication doesn't archive their files on the internet- does that make them less able to be cited? And as for the DailyKos, I notice that source was frontpaged by that site's editors and that particular article got something in the range of several million pageviews- is that not acceptable? I'm just trying to understand other people's perspectives; obviously, this is all on the level to me, but other people are seeing it from different angles. Blogs are certainly coming into the forefront of the media, but there still seems to be some hesitation towards them, much in the way Wikipedia has a bad reputation for being unreliable. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The issue is how significant the coverage of the topic is in the cited work, not how widely distributed or popular the cited work is. Can I recommend you read the notability guidelines? There is nothing "wrong" with publications that don't publish their archives online. But they are less persuasive at demonstrating "significant coverage", especially when those claiming notability are simultaneously and repeatedly citing other articles that clearly don't constitute "significant coverage". Bongomatic 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Inre this diff, how did you know I had not meant impruned?? (chuckle) Thanks though. And do you also think our user might benefit from a little mentorship? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No probl. Which one? There are so many who need induction into the secret deletionist brotherhood . . . Bongomatic 02:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello! What are the reasons of issuing Elfonia article with notability and verification templates? Kurtelacić (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I added the notability template because it doesn't appear to me that the article claims that the subject meets either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for bands.

I added the {{refimprove}} template because the article doesn't cite reliable sources independent of the subject.

Hope that clarifies. Regards, Bongomatic 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with you about its notability (check this and this page for example). However, I agree the article needs more independent sources and will be looking for them. Kurtelacić (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I mean notability in the Wikipedia sense. Coverage in Wikipedia can never be used to establish notability. Also, see WP:ATA generally, and WP:GHITS about other specious arguments often used to attempt to establish (or deny) notability. Bongomatic 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid i don't have to establish Elfonia's notability, my friend. Only because you've never heard of it doesn't mean people around the globe don't enjoy its music. There is also an article about Marcela Bovio (vocal) written quite a while ago which proves the band's notability. Kurtelacić (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, per 'Notability for bands': 6. The bend is notable if it: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable (Ayreon); note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. Kurtelacić (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned before, and as you can check for yourself at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles are not considered "reliable sources", and hence cannot be used to establish notability. Bongomatic 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is notable per #6 of aforementioned criteria. Kurtelacić (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

I have nominated Marvin Sutton, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Sutton. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doris Abrahams, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the article tips and the links to support an article for "epicness". I was away for much of the weekend, which kept me away from catching up on obits and stubs. I appreciate the notifications, as always. A reminder that I would be elated to see you expanding these articles beyond stubs, especially given the research you've done on many of these articles. Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alansohn. I invariably cite them properly with sufficient references for expansion, and frequently (though by no means always or even a majority of the time) identify additional sources and key facts for inclusion in an expansion. I create these stubs for the benefit of the project, not to get credit for them. But is credit is being given, I don't see why I shouldn't be mentioned. As a matter of policy, citing the creator in the DYK nomination is not merely permitted, but encouraged. As it costs you nothing to do so, I have no comprehension for why you would elect not do so if you are acting in good faith.

If you are unsure as to the right thing, why don't you check with a DYK master such as Dravecky? Bongomatic 03:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I raised the question on WT:DYK a week or two ago (it's rolled off to archive) and the consensus there was that a bare stub was not sufficient to justify DYK credit. One of the reasons that I've been pushing you to add content to the stubs is to ensure that you've contributed enough content to merit inclusion as article creator. The most recent stubs you've created are probably in the ballpark for DYK credit. Alansohn (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

no no, NYC JD is not my prior identity. that's in the name change logs - no big secret there. the content of that revision contains my username before I was NYC JD. -- Y not? 04:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gotcha. Bongomatic 04:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the AfD tag and entry in today's log as you did not complete the deletion rationale. I42 (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've had some trouble with AfD through Twinkle, but I don't think that is grounds to remove the tag?--kelapstick (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did some cleanup there too, the references need citation templates if anyone feels up to it, but I am going to bed.--kelapstick (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

There was no AfD tag in the article, nor was there an AfD page‐I'd deleted those items and forgot to delist it. Bongomatic 06:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorothea Holt Redmond, 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) 07:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. Pity he recently died, as he has lead an interesting career. I'll see what I can do to expand it. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On March 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glenn Sundby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

ChildofMidnight has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as ChildofMidnight's day! For DYKs on the most artery-clogging foods on the planet, enjoy the Star of the day, ChildofMidnight! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

This was posted on my talk page. But I didn't want you to miss a moment of knowing that today is my day, so I've been kind enough to repost the good news here. You're welcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Made my weekend—no, my week, month, and (to date, and other than the birth of a son) year. Thanks for letting me know! Bongomatic 00:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. I've filed a report for you at WP:AN3. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

For someone who claims to wish to reduce tendentious editing and disruption, your insistence on a sarcastic self-report of a 3RR violation that you disagree with is rather WP:POINTy. Bongomatic 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Depends upon if you AGF or not I guess. --Ronz (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how. As is obvious by my not reporting it there, I don't intend to pursue the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎. Since you defended your actions as not constituting a violation (presumably believing your arguments to be valid, per AGF), your reporting the matter can only be expected to waste admin time. Bongomatic 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hope not. I honestly would like to see an explanation for how those edits could be seen to violate WP:3RR or WP:EW. I also used the opportunity to make it clear that I would abide by both anyways by giving up any further editing related to this particular dispute. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your recasting of the question strikes me as a good way to get editor feedback without commandeering an inapplicable process. Nicely done. Bongomatic 04:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I moved it to the talk page, given your concerns. Hopefully, I'll still get the feedback without anyone thinking I might be using the noticeboard inappropriately. I also reverted my last addition of a subsection. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

My approach (which is neither statistically valid nor kind to the few editors I know and whose opinions I value highly) is to ask this sort of question to specific editors (or sometimes to users)—often ones whose opinions are uncorrelated or negatively correlated to mine. But as mentioned above, simply removing the machinery seemed to me sufficient to not draw unnecessary attention away from active disputes. Bongomatic 04:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd rather go straight for the best answer I can get. On Wikipedia, you can waste a lot of time otherwise. AGF works great for interacting with other people, but often fails when looking for guidance. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I had intended, you are now creating (almost) full-fledged articles. I would suggest adding additional sources and looking out for a hook while editing. While I would be more than happy to expand these articles that you've created (I've just been preoccupied the past few days), there is absolutely no reason that you shouldn't be expanding these articles and nominating them yourself at DYK, as I had been doing in the past. I'm not sure where you're located, but your schedule seems to better match the release times of obituaries at the websites of the major newspapers, a great source for missing articles. I'm happy to be your editing partner, if that's what you prefer, but there's no reason you shouldn't be running with this one on your own. Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

"No reason" . . . other than the rest of life. A number of things spurred me in this direction, including your views on the matter. But having the article for Marvin Sutton nominated for deletion—despite 24-carat sourcing—was another. Bongomatic 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will be happy which ever path you prefer. Let me know, as always, if I can help round out articles and make them DYK ready. Do however much the rest of your life allows and I will try to fill in what you can't. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for updating the article on Kosuke Koyama to reflect his recent death, aged 79, on March 25, 2009. As the person who created this article, I am pleased to see that other Wikipedians are working on it. I did not know Koyama had died until I read of his death in Wikipedia; one of the things I do like about Wikipedia is that it is very up-to-date. However, one of its main negatives is it does tend to be rather culturally biassed; I bet that had this article been one on a politician in the United States, it would have had a lot more edits by now. So, it is good to see that there are actually other Wikipedians working on an article on a Japanese theologian! Good for you, and again,thank you for your help, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note—but I have no such broad interests. Rather, an obituary of Koyama was published in The New York Times. When I see good references (in the sense of obviously notable) for existing or potential articles, I try to add citations or create a stub article. Bongomatic 01:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this message, and for leaving a note at my userpage. Just out of interest, how did you know that there was an article on Kosuke Koyama in Wikipedia? I take it that you may have seen the New York Times obituary first, and then checked to see whether there was an entry for Koyama in Wikipedia. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's right. Had there not been one, I would probably have created a short (2-3 paragraph) stub, with the obituary cited. Bongomatic 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just reviewing the material you sent, I think I am going to spin off a Batu Hijau mine article, the section I added to Newmont is kind of buried in the rest of the corporate info, and Indonesia is such a minor part of their operation as a whole. Thanks!--kelapstick (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That would be great. I can probably find some more useful citations and will let you know. While Indonesia is a small part of their operations, Batu Hijau is definitaely of international significance, and it's such an interesgting story. Bongomatic

I assume you know about InfoMine. Bongomatic 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's how I found most of my jobs! (took a couple courses through them too) Actually that is where I got the reference from earlier. I am working on the mine article right now, should be up in a few minutes.--kelapstick (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also see newly created P.T. Newmont Nusa Tenggara‎.--kelapstick (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I search for the title of the article, I am linked to the site with no subscription required, interesting, anyway it is in the refs now, I am done for now, might revisit tomorrow.--kelapstick (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, as I read further into this, the Newmont/Suumitomo joint venture was always supposed to divest 51% of PT Newmont by 2010 to Indonesian investors/government, but the Indonesian government didn't have the money and they didn't want to sell locally because they weren't sure of who was backing them (private investors). This ruling is huge for Newmont, since they don't have to walk away empty handed like the government wanted them to, they get to sell it and continue to operate the mine until 2030 like they originally agreed.--kelapstick (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I deliberately do not link most references to WP policy on my own talk page, to increase the readability. There are just too many of them. . DGG (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry 'bout that—since you'd linked one of them (with a typo), I thought you'd want them both linked, and edited per your stated typo policy. Rgds, Bongomatic 05:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perfect!! Thanks! :) Daniel Santos (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Appreciate the comment (and it was a minor improvement to an already excellent essay). Wondered if anyone was going to notice the change ever. Bongomatic 08:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tweak Bongo. By the way I think you and Kelapstick would make great Admins. I'd like to nominate you, but I think my doing so might hurt your chances, unfortunately. :( I'm willing to try it anyway for fun, but I think your chances for success would be best with a stronger nominator. Anyway, I hope all's well with you and that you're enjoying your editing. Take care and thanks for your help. Do you get depressed reading the obits? Or is it inspirational? As far as spotting those new articles, I have Alansohn's page watched. He does good work too. I have eyes and ears everywhere... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the compliment. Kelapstick maybe. Me, I have enough of recent (and certainly older) speedy and prod noms that others may take umbrage at. The only thing I do which is "good-admin" like is not hold grudges and try to keep the interest of the project, rather than follow my own sense of "who's naughty and who's nice".

The obituaries provide a random selection of notable stories from the past—people who were covered before I started reading newspapers regularly, or who worked in fields that I might have skimmed over. So it's really like a grab bag stocked with good prizes—you don't know what you might find, but you're almost sure to be well-rewarded. Depressing? Sometimes if the death is early and tragic. Inspiring? Often—these are generally accomplished people whose contributions make me consider my own choice of how to spend time.

One thing I've started to do recently is to add references to newspaper articles on topics other than the recently deceased. Part of my view that the worst thing about Wikipedia's current state the reliance in most articles on "what the editor knows" rather than sources of any variety (even primary would be better).

Dang. I kinda liked the idea of being stalked.

Hope all is well with you too. I chimed in at the Bacon cabal (or whatever it's called) article's AfD, by the way. Bongomatic 06:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. I haven't really followed the RfA procedure closely, although I always think it's weird when people I've never seen pop up there in noms. I guess there are lots of parts of the encyclopedia that I'm not familiar with, but still. The normal procedure seems to be to avoid anything controversial and to keep a low profile in order to pass (ie. don't get in any disagreements). I think people who are reasonable and have the encyclopedia's interests at heart are preferrable to those who are more cunning and politically savvy and go about the process by avoiding disputes. Handling disputes is a critical part of being an admin, although mopping is most of it as best I can tell, and people with good judgement seem to me to be more likely to know when they aren't neutral enough to get involved in something and to seek consensus and fairness for controversial fair. As I've found you to be open to criticism (good and bad) and considerate, I've come to respect how you handle disagreements. So that's why I think you'd be a good Admin. I don't think voting for or against people based on philosophies is the end all be all. Our approach differs a lot (only a merge, maybe keep on the critical subject of bacon mania??? :) but as long as people follow the rules and are accountable I'm cool with it. I think the social organization aspect of Wikipedia is fascinating. For this rugged individualist it's an interesting experience to do something communitarian (communistic?). There are certainly areas where the majority rule, pack mentality falls down, but I'm fairly awed by how well it usually seems to work (which reflects that most people here are good faith editors trying to build a better encyclopedia by adding content and collaborating with others). Anyway, those are my ponderings for now. Do you read the papers online or hard copies/subscriptions at the Bongomatic estate? Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Totally agree with your observations on WP: it's amazing it works as well as it does, and it shows that some people (particularly those who stay around here long enough) are often willing to put their own "best" solution aside for something they like less, but that is more likely to survive more than six seconds.

I read the papers online, and at work and home. If your question is intended to hint that there's a little bit less paging through the entire thing online (and hence less catching the "off-the-run" articles), I entirely agree, which is why for the WSJ my preferred view is the headlines plus one-to-two sentence blurbs of each article in a day's print edition. I hate the feel of newspaper ink on my hands. Have a good (what's left of your) weekend. Bongomatic 07:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

hey Bongo, how ya doin? Hey, you wanna see a user name that will likely get comments - check this one out. I got dollars to donuts it'll get some one going. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow, s/he's still at it! Thanks for keeping an eye open and checking in on your boobies every now and then! I saw one the other day on TV, on a program on the Galapagos Islands, and could identify it immediately--my daughter was very proud of me. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. Did you even notice the redlink category I added to your page? It always gives me a smile. Bongomatic 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Haha, yes I did notice that, a long time ago already--and I guess I always wondered why it was red. Maybe I should get to work on that! Later, Drmies (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, better not . . . look what just happened to CoM's talk page for having active category pages. Bongomatic 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

For this diff and the chuckle it brought, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

And as you've no doubt noticed, I try to make an article as strong as possible before setting it loose. There is a consideration being discussed that will make it an option that all fresh editors {those accounts with less than some certain number of edits) to automatically create new articles in a userspace... with a "switch" that established editors can turn off once they "know" what they're doing. Might prevent a lot of angst. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey bongo, just a quick thanks for those refs, I have been adding some content to El Salvador mine (actually trying to get a time line for all the "labour disruptions", I have seen some refs back to the 60s, and it looks like they went on strike in in 1989, but all I can find free is the "possibility of a strike"). Also I think it used to be owned by Anaconda Copper before the Chilean nationalization of copper...still looking for sources for that though. I am a little tied up today, hopefully I can get a little more done on it this afternoon, than put it up for DYK. Otra vez, Muchos Gracias.--kelapstick (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought we deleted that thing already. Now even Bongo has gone soft? What is Wikipedia coming to??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I had created the article when category sorting, Category:Mines in Chile was in El Salvador, Chile which is a town, so I stubbed off the article and walked away (had about a couple hundred articles left to go through), I guess I forgot to say why it was important...--kelapstick (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

These noobs always have an excuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Up for DYK, feel free to add an ALT hook.--kelapstick (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made it a double DYK with El Teniente, and my Spanish is getting better too.--kelapstick (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand what you did and why... but for goodness sake, I was in the middle of a whole lot of work. The original article (check the history) was atrocious. I do agree that the incedibly long lists were detrimental to the article and was in the processes of doing some sandblasting, as some should remain to show context to the article, but indeed not all. I will be doing more tomorrow. Thank you for showing some patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Replied on article talk page. Bongomatic 12:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, this MDhoogheM, I have been away a while and now suddenly noticed that the article I was working on "Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling" has been deleted because it seems to be a promotion. This has not been my purpose, I think he is a remarceble man, worthed to have his own article in your encyclopedia. Since your media is new to me, it might happen that I didn't do everything correctly, but please give me another chance. Could you please help me to get the work I did until now back? This would be wonderfull. Meanwhile I did find another book about him and would love to renew the page with more profound information about his live, and will be happy to overview all content so it doesn't seems to be promotiom. Thanks!!!!

Thanks for your answer, I will try your proposal.

I just noticed the gate in the image serving to illustrate "irony" on my user page appears to have a patina on it. This indicates the presence of copper. Please explain. Is this ironic? Or just a grotesque innacuracy at my expense? Should I add a ^{[citation needed]} tag? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good question. I did a commons search for wrought iron, and that showed up—but that doesn't prove anything. It's hard to imagine a gate built from copper or bronze (they're relatively soft), and wrought iron (as opposed to stainless steel) is subject to oxidation. But worth investigating further. Looks like you're going to Italy. Bongomatic 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The gate is painted, is what is giving it the greenish colour (the colour that copper oxidizes), the bottom right section looks like the paint has pealed and left a rusty red colour (a la iron). Looks like I saved you a plane ticket.--kelapstick (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Iron makes more sense. I've never heard of a copper gate.

So people paint their iron gates to look patina? Is there copper in the paint? Is there some connection to copper or do people just want their iron to look the color of patina copper? I guess this is a way of antiquing. I've always noticed rust shows more with white, so I guess that is a good color to use. I trust Kelapstick will thoroughly investigate and report back. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your perspective. I will consider this when making future edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments on Gladys. I see you withdrew the AFD, and while I don't agree, I do understand the viewpoint that caused you to raise it in the first place. Enjoy your day.James.lebinski (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was a case of WP:SNOW, not a case of an article I think should be kept. I firmly believe that local news only doesn't make something notable in any meaningful sense, which proved to be the main issue. However—fortunately or unfortunately—this place runs on consensus, not my view of what is right. Bongomatic 23:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Bongo. I'm sorry you got involved in the "discussions" on my talk page. I appreciate your help and support, but I also don't like to see anyone I like and respect get caught up in any of that type of nastiness. Truth be told if I could keep my collegial friends out of that sort of discussion, I would be okay with that, even though I might take a few more lumps. I just don't want to see any of the editors I like get any of the mud on them. I can handle the smears, and I usually bounce back. :) It comes with the territory. Cheers. Have fun and take care. Sorry it took me so long to thank you. I didn't quite know how to say it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate your words, but no thanks necessary. To me, what's worse than provocative comments or a manageable amount of conflict in desired content is the unnecessary escalation of these episodes into warnings, and useless referrals. I try to stay out of these for the most part, but sometimes the silliness and attempted or actual waste of administrative resources compels me to open my trap. Happy editing! Bongomatic 00:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we should open up a talk page for CoM's talk page. I wasted half an hour today on the talk page for the RfA that still isn't. But I managed to not insert a single joke, double-entendre, or POV remark in that entire discussion, and to reward myself I'm going to have a beer. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Try this: User talk:ChildofMidnight/Talk. Bongomatic 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No offense, but I think it should be User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk. I'm offering a barnstar to anyone who can get the Kronos Chronology article speedy deleted. Where are Bali, Red Pen and Stifle when I need them??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan if you do that I am going to die. I must have spent three hours tonight changing those tables--and I don't like how they look, and I don't know if the cats over at FL-discography like the 'contributions' section this way. Do you two have any thoughts? We'll see tomorrow, or next week. Hey, Cannibaloki is a great help there. Someone should give him a slab of bacon to reward his kindness--I'm hitting the hay. Tomorrow I'll tell you about my grrreat new breakfast cereal, discovered in Minneapolis. Toodle pips! BTW, I just fouled up your talk page and thought I could do the same for Bongo's. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

What the hell do you think you're doing, with your fancy templates? That's MY job! It's all I got! Drmies (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Be my guest—I hate doing it, but I hate it even more if it's not done. Bongomatic 05:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ever use the cite tool in the gadgets section of preferences? it works well (not with Internet explorer) kelapstick (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, that's cool. But I don't mind typing them in from scratch—it would be great if that tool parsed existing, non templated references. Bongomatic 05:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

When consensus changes to favor my method you guys are going to look awfully silly! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm offended and will take this to AN/I. What makes you think I don't already look awfully silly? Bongomatic 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pff, don't worry about it. Even CoM is trying to be more inclusive in his rudimentary references; he's now including other information besides merely the link. Secretly he wants to be a geek, no doubt. Bongo, that parsing--one can only imagine the kind of crap such a tool would have to recognize. Oh, what I hate most: "Bot-generated title." Drmies (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you know...that steamed clams is nominated for did you know?--kelapstick (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand that Timothy Holst is a new article that can use expansion, but what is the quote you've added for? I will look at the article and the obits and see if I can expand it properly. I'm not sure if you saw, but I expanded the Benjamin Edwards (stockbroker) article, nominating it for DYK with both us listed as authors. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's a quote that's referred to in the NYT Obit—not sure it's suitable for inclusion in the article, but I assume you edit these articles not only to expand the encyclopedia, but also because you're interested in the topics. Thanks for the nomination. Bongomatic 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

like the new name, but why no more rescue? (i wouldn't have found it, and been motivated to write enough to vindicate your comments.) pohick (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to put it back—I thought that {{rescue}} was for articles that were in danger of deletion, which this one clearly is not. Bongomatic 16:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I see you moved the dablink on this article to below the infobox. To be honest that seems a bit strange to me, since the infobox is effectively part of the article proper, whereas hatnotes of various sorts aren't. For that reason, I've always put all hatnotes above the infobox: is there a convention to do otherwise that I've missed? Loganberry (Talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added the dablink to the top of the article first, but I thought it looked bad there, so I moved it. I don't know what MOS says on this. While I understand that when editing it appears "below" the infobox, but when viewing the article it appears at the same vertical distance from the top of the window. I have no strong views on this, and the only dablinks I moved in this manner were ones that I had added myself (I'm not on a campaign to move hatnotes!). Bongomatic 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't say it's at the core of any personal crusade on my own account either, since as you say the hatnote appears in the same place when viewing the article whichever you do. However, given that therefore it's equally useful to the reader whichever method you choose, the secondary question - which is more useful to the editor? - comes into play, and personally I find it more useful to have all hatnotes above the infobox. Mind you, I'm not sure whether that article needs such a hatnote anyway: I can't see anyone going to such a specifically-named article as John William King (cricketer) by mistake when looking for another John King. I don't feel strongly on that either, though! Loganberry (Talk) 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wish infoboxes knew how to float all the way to the top regardless of placement—they don't actually look the same if they're before or after the hatnotes. I agree it's better for editors for stuff that's supposed to be at the top of the main column to be at the top of the edit page.

A couple of things to think about on the utility of dablinks on articles with fully qualified names, though.

• People often use Google to search for WP articles, and frequently it gets someone of the same name with a different profession. I breathe easy knowing that there will be a dablink for readers to click to quickly navigate to the right person.
• Sometimes readers are searching for someone without full context (i.e., name and some facts, but no profession). In this case, if a reader comes across an article which is quickly eliminated as the person he's looking for, he can quickly navigate to other candidates.

But honestly, no biggie either way. Bongomatic 00:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not have any problem with someone stoping by and offering their advice to folks who ask me questions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Actually, moved the comment to the other talk page as that's where you had responded. Bongomatic 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is sad about all of that is that is the entire history of the band. No one has bothered to write this down on another page. I was wondering if you had looked at the other pages for marching bands as this page is actually a lot like the other high school pages and better in other ways than some of the college bands. I won't delete things yet as I have to add more, but I'll start taking some of the stuff out this weekend. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think there's lots of unencyclopedic stuff in the project, including the material you refer to. People differ on this, but I do not think that Wikipedia is supposed to be an exhaustive source of all knowledge. It should provide sufficient information to satisfy the interest of most readers, and indicate where to get more information. And the more of that information that is available online, the less inconvenient it is for readers to follow up on their own. Bongomatic 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply