User talk:PedanticallySpeaking/Old1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Home - Articles - Pics - RD - My RD - Qt - Useful - COMPORT - Signpost - News -Stats - EC -Collab - Writing -Stars -Admin - RFA -Links -Arbcom- IP 1 - 2 -3 - 4 - 5 - 6 TALK - AB - Box

Today is Friday, November 22, 2019. It is now 02:44 (UTC). Wikipedia currently has 5,972,894 articles. You are currently looking at User talk:PedanticallySpeaking/Old1 on Wikipedia


This is my archive of messages before February 1, 2006. To leave me a message, please post it on User talk:PedanticallySpeaking. You may do so directly with the link in the blue box below. Thanks. PedanticallySpeaking 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You can click here to start a message at the bottom of my current page.

Contents

At the Bottom, Please[edit]

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.


Seven-twenty[edit]

Posted at User talk:Kingturtle:
Considering, firstly, that the work at July 20 I labored on for many weeks and which stood for months unremarked upon by any Wikipedian was largely removed by you without asking for the opinion of anyone else, and, secondly, that my attempts to address the issues regarding the file size raised on the talk page were summarily reverted by you within minutes, you will forgive me for failing to believe your invitation yesterday on Talk:July 20 to comment is a serious one. PedanticallySpeaking 16:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • I do respect how much work you've done on this article. Let's work together with others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year to figure out the best solution for the situation. There should be some limits as to what goes onto day pages. But what those limits are - are still up to debate. Kingturtle 23:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Township project[edit]

I see you are feeling crummy because disputes over articles. If it makes you feel any better, I've gotten a lot of good out of your Ohio Townships Project. I have now finished two articles based on your advice: Northampton Township, Summit County, Ohio and Bath Township, Summit County, Ohio

My RFA[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ohio counties- minor correction[edit]

On your (quite excellent!) writeup on county government in Ohio, which you presumably included on all Ohio county entries, you wrote: "Like eighty-six other counties (the exception is Summit)...". Problem is, there are 88 counties in Ohio. This means that either there is another exception besides Summit, or a minor correction to each county entry is necessary.

I took the liberty of presuming the latter, and fixed the entry at Logan County, Ohio. Could you please review, and let me know if I may assist in the other edits?

Thanks, SwissCelt 23:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, wait... never mind. I see what you were saying here: Summit + subject of the entry + 86 others = Ohio's 88 counties. Sorry about that; I feel a bit foolish now.

I may still try a revision at Logan County, Ohio to clarify; let me know what you think?

SwissCelt 23:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma[edit]

Hello. In the past, you've spoken in favor of the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, two or three users have been taking out all guidance on that in favor of a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:02, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Template:ISBN[edit]

Salve, Aranel!
This template has been listed at for deletion here. As you commented on the template's talk page I thought you might comment on the vote page, though it appears hopelessly in favor of deletion at this point. PedanticallySpeaking 17:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


DC[edit]

You've done quite a bit of commenting on the Talk:DC page...Would you mind reviewing my point and offering your thoughts? Thanks. Essjay 10:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment. I knew that you weren't responsible for the line, and I probably could have conveyed that more clearly. I appreciate you looking it over! Thanks again. Essjay

Playmates[edit]

"I noticed 10qwerty's wikilinks to all the Playmates on the List of people in Playboy 2000-Present. I had an article on Miss Novemer 2001, Stephanie Heinrich, that was put up for deletion the same day I composed it. (See the VfD discussion here.) Would you be willing to support a vote for undeletion if we are going to wikilink all the Playmates? PedanticallySpeaking 16:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)"

I'm sorry to say, but I agree that Ms. Heinrich isn't notable enough in my mind to warrant a page of her own. Until she acts in a few more movies like some Playmates or at the very least is arrested for assault, she doesn't seem to me to be notable enough.

As far as the comment, "I noticed 10qwerty's wikilinks to all the Playmates on the List of people in Playboy 2000-Present." is concerned... Just because he went through and linked all the names, doesn't mean they necessarily deserve articles right now. He just decided to link them all for whatever reason. See my talk page for his comment about the NHL seasons. He's fine with having a bunch of red links, apparently. I don't like the look of it but I do see where it's handy for when the Playmate actually does become notable.

I know Wikipedia isn't paper and we have all this room for the electrons to show us information, so I'm not worried if there are articles out there for women who have done nothing else other than become Playmate of the Month. (and yes, I know there are more)

And finally, I thought about this a bunch today as you can see (afterall, I did have the day off), look at it this way... A Playmate of the Month is only notable to those people who subscribe to Playboy. And how many do you think remember the name of the previous month's Playmate after they get the new issue the next month. Or even ten minutes after they set the magazine down. I know I don't (I've been a subscriber for years). So they have their name in a magazine for one month out of one year. Now think about all the people that listen to NPR. There is a show called The Thistle & Shamrock, perhaps you've heard of it, perhaps not. So take all the people who listen to NPR, then whittle that down to all the people who listen to The Thistle & Shamrock. I'm guessing it's less than the number of subscribers to Playboy but the host of the show, Fiona Ritchie, has her own article. But then she has a weekly radio program that is broadcast nationwide. One has a radio show, the other only has 15 minutes of fame, if that much.

Sorry this got so long, I can be long-winded at times. But your request also got me thinking about what I consider notable and non-notable. And typing this helped me flesh out my thoughts. I'd like to hear what you think, even if you want to tell me to go take a hike. Dismas 01:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ohio Schools[edit]

Posted on User talk:Tony Sidaway:
Salve, Tony Sidaway!
I did some work on the article Princeton City School District, Hamilton County, Ohio and saw you'd created a category, Category:Public education in Ohio. I checked the list of categories under Category:Ohio and see we already have a similar one, Category:Education in Ohio. PedanticallySpeaking 19:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The Category:Public education in Ohio category is redundant so I'll move anything there into Category:Education in Ohio to orphan it then I'll delete.. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

I'd like to thank you for supporting my nomination. It was appreciated!--Wiglaf 21:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Chat[edit]

Hi, how you doing? I believe I've never had the pleasure of writing to you before. When I joined Wiki, nobody welcomed me with the Wiki Policies and etc. I was totally clueless. I was so ignorant that I didn't even know about the exsistence of administrators, arbitrators and etc. In the beginging I had some skirmishes with other Wikipedians and when I started to realize how Wiki really worked, I also realized, and I'm not ashamed to say it, how stupid I had been acting. Some of the people with whom I had these skirmishes became my mentors and guided me along the way. I learned what the community is all about and deidicated myself to producing good quality articles for Wiki since then. Whenever I see a new guy I remind them that they're part of a community and not a one man show. I just wanted to share this with you. Take care Tony the Marine

Bob McEwen[edit]

Posted on User talk:Meelar:
I attributed the assertion re his politics in the lead to a named reporter. Any better? PedanticallySpeaking 18:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Heya, just made a note on Bob McEwen[edit]

It, uh, may look harsh. That is not my purpose, I'd like to personally say that you have done a lot of hard work on the article and it's interesting! If you could perhaps use Template:Note and Template:Ref or use inline citations - e.g. (Deimer, pg 194) I think this would satisfy the eligibility criteria. The article is very informative and actually pretty interesting (I'm not an American, this would normally not interest me)! Well done with the article. Let me know if you are able to resolve my objections and I'll recast my vote :-) Ta bu shi da yu 05:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Heya Thanks for the welcome I do have a printed source for the French derivation of Auglaize and that is the 2004 Official High way Map produced by County government. I'm not sure how to reference that on here (I'm new to this and trying to get it done in between my finals.) Any advice?

Re: Your thoughts on Wikipedia[edit]

Have you considered writing on LiveJournal? I keep a journal there (as SwissCelt, naturally). I find it a helpful avenue for venting my thoughts. (That's not to say that you shouldn't do that here, only that it's an additional, helpful resource.) SwissCelt 18:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

What a year! My first year in Wiki, a featured article and now administrator. Thank you for your support. Tony the Marine (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your vote in support of my admin nomination. Paul August 14:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh[edit]

Posted on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen:
Sigh. This is exactly what I was talking about, everyone so quick to criticize and never offering a kind word. I see not one positive remark by any of the commentators above.
As for the substance of the article . . . When I had the description of what Bob McEwen stood for in the lead, I was criticized. When I quoted an article saying that, I was criticized still. Shouldn't the lead tell us something about what the guy was about? I suppose the only way to avoid criticism is to stick to Bioguide profiles and write resumes of people. Elsewhere, someone spoke that some editors seemed intent on reducing writing to "grey goo", devoid of any color or substance.
As for the sourcing, every single quote is referenced. One only needs to look at my bibliography. Every article is annotated as to what came from it. This was how I referenced Julia Stiles, which is a featured article, and nobody objected then to my sourcing.
I like writing and researching, but these comments leave me shaking my head in frustration. PedanticallySpeaking 18:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Felt date error?[edit]

In your excellent additions to W. Mark Felt, you added "On 1 July 1972, Felt was promoted by Hoover to Deputy Associate Director." But Hoover was dead by then. Can you check the source? Thanks!

Did you know?[edit]

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

WikiProject Political Figures[edit]

You've got your name down on the list of members as being interested here - alas, not a whole lot has been happening. Are you still interested? I'd really like to make an effort at getting this going once and for all. Ambi 13:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Swingle Singers?[edit]

Replied to The Swingle Singers? - might lead to an answer for you. Do check it out. ¦ Reisio 18:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Footnoting[edit]

I'll give it a shot... however, footnoting is pretty easy. Example [1] {{ref|note1}}</note> - you can give "note1" any name. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 01:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===Notes=== # {{note|note1}} This is the first note!

WP:FLC / List of Ohio county name etymologies[edit]

Hi - sorry to push, but are you going to be able to move User:Docu'sTalk:List of Ohio county name etymologies/Test to List of Ohio county name etymologies? If so, let me know when you have done and I'll promote if from WP:FLC to WP:FL; if not, I'll archive the nomination as it is well past its 14 days. (I've left a similar message for User:Docu). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt[edit]

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I don't really buy into the "featured article" thing so I've nothing really to say. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh![edit]

No wonder I thought I had seen it before. Thanks for clearing that up.

W. Mark Felt x2[edit]

I have added the notes to that page. There are a few that still need to be filled in! See the bottom of W. Mark Felt#Notes. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the article is very good, and I wanted to thank you for giving me the areas to put in the footnotes! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Her Majesty's handbag[edit]

Doing that research was a pleasure. I only regret that I have made no time for the reference desk recently.—Theo (Talk) 18:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VERY AWESOME[edit]

I love you, you are cool and good at editing and shiz

W._Mark_Felt for FA status[edit]

I understand your take on it, but you asked me to lend my opinion. If what you wanted was for me to go and vote for it, you should have asked that. It wouldn't have changed my vote, but it would have been nice to know your intention. If what you wanted was my opinion, then you shouldn't have a problem with my vote.

I understand that the article does (for the most part) meet the requirements for consideration as outlined here. However, I don't believe that just because it fits that mold it should be approved as an FA. My vote in no way suggests this article isn't well done, I just feel the face time given to a FA would be better spent on something that has not received tons of visits in recent days.

I hope you can respect my opinions on this matter. Badammcqueen 22:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thank you for your supportive vote on the occasion of my RFA. It is greatly appreciated. Gratefully, Bratschetalk 5 pillars June 29, 2005 17:59 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Ok, I understand your vote reasoning. I was, infact, just noting Boothy443's voting patterns, and although reasons are very much not required he did appear to be undergoing an "Admins are evil" campaign at the time. I felt this needed to be noted, although if he has changed his voting pattern, the note can surely just be ignored. As far as a 'vocally opposed RfA' is concerned, my last RfA was withdrawn by me at 16/7/7, and ultimately may of been due to the dispute brought to the RfA page. I was infact initially not willing to have an adminship so soon - I told Jtkiefer to wait a while before nominating me on IRC, and as shown here I also responded to smoddy in the same way. After Jtkiefer nominated me, I knew refusing and self-nominating myself in two weeks would only burden my next RfA.

Regardless, thanks for your vote, and thanks for addressing concerns which I will take into consideration. Hedley 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

Starblind RfA[edit]

Hi! I noticed your objection, and I agree to a certain extent; I've previously noted article creation and expansion to be at the heart of Wikipedia. This user, though, has a list of articles he's worked on at User:Starblind, and has detailed some more in his answer to generic question 2. (I noted that you voted before he answered the questions; hence I thought you might like to review and possibly reconsider). Sorry if I'm bothering you, that isn't my intent. Best wishes, regardless. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 18:18 (UTC)

RfA Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA nomination. I appreciate the vote of confidence you have provided me. --Allen3 talk July 1, 2005 14:16 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

Hi PedanticallySpeaking, just wanted to let you know how grateful I am for your support of my RfA. Positive feedback is always encouraging, and I hope to be a responsible admin. --Spangineer (háblame) July 4, 2005 03:58 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi PedanticallySpeaking, I just wanted to say thanks for your support of my RfA :-) Craigy Flag of the United Kingdom.svg (talk) July 5, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Roman Blondes had less fun...[edit]

My pleasure. I didn't get much out of that relationship emotionally, but I sure learned a lot from her. I'm always happy when the world can get some good our of a bad event.

Perhaps a note can be made in blond, if you get around to confirming what I said, but I have no idea where to start veifying such a claim.--Joel 8 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

thanks for your thanks[edit]

From your notes here and people's responses, you seem to be doing more than your share of spreading cheer and encouragement around here. It's a good reminder to all of us and should be earning you some good karma. Our article interests don't overlap (though I used to live in western Ohio) but I've enjoyed imaging the novel that prompts your questions at the Ref Desk. Good luck. alteripse 9 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

Resignations[edit]

Hello, PedanticallySpeaking! I've left a response/comment at the reference desk. Hope it helps! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

P.S. I notice your WikiStress is relatively high. Why not try Mind Benders? The pre-round is an artistic competition, and round one (with ten mind boggling, fun questions) will open July 16. Hope to see you there!

geographic references[edit]

Hi - Thanks for the response about the geographic references. I'll look in our local library. If you happen to have a copy of either of them would you mind filling in the table at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states#units_in_the_infoboxes? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 9, 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Harry M. Rosenfeld[edit]

Would you mind having a look at this article? I know you have been doing some great work on Watergate, and this page clashes with what I remember reading about Deep Throat. - SimonP 22:04, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wheelchairs[edit]

You're very welcome; I'm always happy to help. If you'd like to help me, you can go vote in my RfA. (I know, it's shameless self-promotion, but I can't help it; I can barely keep myself from adding a "vote for me" link in my sig...)

Also, it looks like your WikiStress is getting up there; try the WikiSerenity Prayer. -- Essjay · Talk 17:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting for me! I think you're right, our interests don't overlap much, but they did awhile back; I made a note on the Dawson's Creek page and you replied. So see, you have run across me at least once! (And I think the question about criminal case styles in North Carolina that I answered at the Reference Desk was yours, too.) -- Essjay · Talk 17:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Et cum spiritu tu." ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 17:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Posted on Essjay's talk page: Thanks very much for your reply to my query at WP:RD. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking 17:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've just as shamelessly voted for you. I like your home page, it's an interesting read. It doesn't look like many of our interests overlap (see User:PedanticallySpeaking/Articles), but if I can be of help, please let me know. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
You're right! It was on the issue of Jack's homosexuality. I remember now. It's always interesting how diverse paths cross here. I've communicated with people with such diverse interests: 17th century drama, Australian towns, cricket, Watergate, railroads. You name it, there's someone here interested. (We even have a list somewhere where people list their subject areas though I don't think many know about it.) A pleasure doing business with you. PedanticallySpeaking 17:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wheelchair characters in TV shows[edit]

And I don't know whether the guy was already mentioned, but the big brother in Joan of Arcadia is also in a wheelchair. - Mgm|(talk) 17:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Court Cases[edit]

I must say, that I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. But of course, I'm always happy to help, and, in this case, take credit for other people's work. --CVaneg 18:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wheelchairs[edit]

You're welcome. I thought of another couple, I don't know if they got mentioned, but there's a sitcom called All About Me which has a boy called Raj who is in a wheelchair and suffers from cerebal palsy, and there was a female character in the second series of The Office, Brenda who was in a wheelchair, as well. The actress who played Brenda is Julie Fernandez and she also played Vanessa Lockhead in Eldorado, so that's another for your list. Anyway, thanks. Steve block 19:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Reference Desk[edit]

Hey there! Interesting questions on the reference desk. I'm just curious what you're up to that's producing them on such a variety of topics. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

==The busy bee on WP:RD==

A few of the questions I've posed lately, e.g. about the North Carolina courts, have to do with the novel I'm working on. Most, however, are just things that come to me when I'm reading or watching tv. From the variety of my questions you've answered, your interests seem to be equally catholic. I've a page of my RD questions and answers here, which I keep because its too hard to use the regular archive. We've been here about the same length of time, but I don't think I've seen you. Your work on physics doesn't seem to overlap much with my areas (see User:PedanticallySpeaking/Articles for my list of articles). If I can help in your work, let me know. PedanticallySpeaking 21:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


A novel, eh? Like many I'm an amateur/aspiring writer myself, although things like school and jobs really get in the way. My interests do tend to be all over the place, which is why I think wikipedia and I get along, but outside physics I usually edit on such arcane topics that I'm probably easy to not run into. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Article Support[edit]

I gave a good look at the article, and I think it could definitely go somewhere. There are just some weird things with links and Live Pages. Just give me the direct link to her nomination page and I'll say what I can.

--WizardOfTheCDrive 21:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Featured Article Medal[edit]

Wiki medal.jpg

I, Extraordinary Machine, hereby present The Featured Article Medal to PedanticallySpeaking, for his/her outstanding contributions to Featured Articles. Your work is of the highest quality and you are a model Wikipedian. This is long overdue! Extraordinary Machine 13:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Salve, Extraordinary!
I am delighted by your commendation. I've promoted several articles as FACs. I've won a few (e.g. Julia Stiles, Warren County Canal, Dawson's Creek), lost a few (e.g. Mark Felt, Katie Holmes). It's been my frustrations with FAC's that led to by irritated post on my home page ("Nihil nisi malum"). Your remarks lessen my stress, if just a little.
From your home page, I see you too work on pop culture topics. If I can help in your areas or you want me to look over an article, let me know. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 14:02, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


Reattributions[edit]

Posted on User talk:Tim Starling:
Salve, Tim!
I'm getting very close to 10,000 edits under my own name but I've several hundred more under the IP addresses User:66.213.119.98, User:66.213.10.5, and User:66.213.99.62. (The first under 10.5 is not mine, though.) Could you tell me what must be done to reattribute edits. Do you have to change each edit individually or can you do an entire address at a time? Thanks for your help. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Signpost suggestion[edit]

Posted on User talk:Michael Snow:
Salve, Michael!
I don't know if anyone besides me cares, but I did my 10,000th edit today by Kate's tools. (That doesn't count the entries under my IP addresses, which are several hundred in number.) I have a list of my milestones here. Please let me know if you think this newsworthy. PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but I probably won't use it. It is a pretty substantial number (not sure if I'm that high myself), but there are probably over 100 people that have reached it by now, and in terms of fairness I can't really manage to keep track of all the other people who will be approaching that milestone. Great work though. --Michael Snow 19:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Springboro Star Press, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Spike, wheelchairs, wikipedia[edit]

Posted on User talk:Mothperson:
Thanks very much for your reply to my query at WP:RD. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking 17:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I'm a BtVS fan too.) I apologize for not replying sooner - I'm on a semi-spur-of-the-moment wiki break, and I just looked at my talk page.

It was my privilege to add Spike to your list. In fact, I was quite frantic when I realized part-timers were eligible, and someone else might be submitting Spike as I typed. Yes, I am a Whedonite. I am taking this break in large part to work on a little 3-D BtVS project (yes, the codex mentioned at the ref. desk).

I must say that you pose some of the most fascinating questions at the reference desk. I've started wandering off into links that result from your queries, and now know where "juggernaut" came from. I look forward to more. I'm trying to imagine what you might be writing, but so far I have not come up with any sensible ideas. Still, it's fun to guess. regards, Mothperson cocoon 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Posted on User talk:Mothperson:
[[User:Laura Scudder], who has also answered some of my WP:RD questions, wondered too about what I'm writing. Only a few of my questions have directly been related to the novel. The wheelchair question because within the novel there's a television show and one of the characters is in a wheelchair. The North Carolina court question, because my hero lives in Wilmington. The gunshot question because he is wounded. Oh, the "R v. Doe" question. That's related. I'm sure a few others are. But mostly its just idle musings.
Have you done much with BtVS topics here? Last time I looked at the article on the show I was suprised it wasn't more comprehensive. But I suppose it takes a certain degree of fanaticism to get a show's article like this. Thanks for writing back and if I can be of help in your work, do let me know. PedanticallySpeaking 16:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly interesting. Your koran/qur'an queries did not have me thinking North Carolina. However, we do live in a global society, don't we?

Also interesting that you should ask about my involvement with BtVS here. Answer - nil. I realized pretty early on (even before seeing some of the godawful edit wars that take place here) that it would be in my best interest to avoid topics which gave rise to manic raving. The list of topics starts with religion, politics, history, architecture, historic preservation... and doesn't end up with Joss Whedon being god by any means. I am a certified whacko. So I try to stay in corners where I will not do too much harm to myself or others. I mean, how outraged can you really get over eggs Benedict? Some people can muster up a rant, but I can only do a feeble imitation of me at my maddest. best, Mothperson cocoon 21:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean about fanaticism. That injunction about never discussing politics or religion at the dinner table is really inadequate here. The strangest topics will give birth to the most titanic struggles. Look at the edit history on Julia Stiles for an example. I had a rather nasty run-in with a fellow who didn't seem to understand the rules of the road, an encounter which led to gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, etc. Oh, the Koran question was just one that occurred to me in reading. It doesn't have anything to do with the book, which is, not that you asked, coming along nicely. Though I should be working on it now, I'd say it's two-thirds written. I'm uncertain where I'm going to end up with the story. I know the Muses aren't coming down from Helicon and I have to go to them, but something will turn up. PedanticallySpeaking 15:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

The mop is mine!

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my sacred mop with care. If you ever need me for anything, you know where to find me. Thanks again! -- Essjay · Talk 15:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ago gratias[edit]

Salve, Essjay!
Thanks for your reply on the reference desk. I just wanted to see the Mass in Latin to plunder a few lines for the eulogy one of the characters in my novel is to deliver, he and the deceased both being ardent Latinists.. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 14:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Mike DeWine[edit]

Posted on User talk:Soltak:
I re-reverted the Mike DeWine article. For sourcing see the comment I posted last year on the talk page or do a Google search for "Richard Michael DeWine" such as this one. What "official" biography did you refer to? In both Bioguide and the bio on DeWine's senate site say nothing of "Richard". PedanticallySpeaking 15:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

WP:FAC[edit]

I'll have a read of Tom Brinkman to see if I can support it. Can I ask you to check two of my articles which are currently on FAC: Eric Heffer (a self-nom) and Winter of Discontent (not a self-nom)? David | Talk 19:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to inform you...[edit]

I plan to nominate many of the articles you've written about non-notable Ohio politicians for deletion. Most of them are non-notable outside the election, so in my opinion, they don't belong in Wikipedia. Since you wrote so many of them, I thought I'd tell you now, and ask if there were any that you believed should be kept. The following are all the articles I think should be deleted:

Again, if you think any of them should be kept for one reason or another, I'd appreciate knowing that. But most of these candidates did horribly in the election, and aren't notable in their own right. I won't nominate them for VfD for a couple days, awaiting a response from you. ral315 01:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I do object to deleting them. They go along with the article on the election itself. It doesn't matter that they did not get a huge number of votes. For that to be the criteria would be like the many televised debates, where the producers decide that everyone but the official Republican and Democratic candidates don't count and can be safely ignored. PedanticallySpeaking 14:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say that they could be safely ignored. Rather, I believe that running for a single seat in Congress does not establish encyclopedic notability. All those who got a significant amount of the vote (say, over 5 or 10 percent) show that they're notable enough in their own right. But if an article were to be made about every person who has ever run for Congress, the encyclopedia would be flooded with political pages.
I do appreciate your input, though, and I'll consider leaving a couple of the more notable ones off when I VfD them in a couple of days. ral315 15:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Wait a minute, what about this: List of candidates for the Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005, where you could merge most of the information already on the individual pages, and have individual articles for the notable ones? Just a thought, let me know what you think. ral315 16:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer to leave them alone as is. These folks threw their hats into the ring and ought to be remembered. I would argue that if "notability" were strongly enforced, we'd have to delete lots of people actually elected to Congress, not to mention nearly all local politicians. PedanticallySpeaking 16:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Length of time that Democrat last won OH-2 district[edit]

Just a slight technical issue but the OH-2 congressional district last elected a Democrat, John Gilligan, in 1964 and not 1966.

A late reply[edit]

I went off on a "wiki vacation" of sorts (except it had its own trials and tribulations), but I did want to come back and mention a few things to you. One idiotic one being I hope you're not adding to the forensic pathologist population of that part of the country with your novel. Not that I wouldn't read it if you were. I most certainly would. I'm just trying to break myself of the habit. I'm off Patricia Cornwell for good, at least. I think. Kathy Reisch, still a monkey on the back.

The wiki vacation had impact enough so that I could not bear to read through the Julia Stiles discussion. I happen to like Julia Stiles a lot - especially in 10 Things. But these insane people - this is why I stay away from all my real manias. I can only shove back effectively and with no bruising to my ego when it comes to food and food history.

What you say on your user page is most apt, I think. We're all crazy here. It's the people who don't know they're crazy who are scary.

Did you see the great Latin adjurations I got at the reference desk? Memorize them, and recite them silently when it seems appropriate. --Mothperson cocoon 22:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hackett article[edit]

I found a good article on the political implications of Hackett's recent loss for the 2006 elections. I'm not sure you'll be able to access it, since it requires a subscription, but if you're interested, I'll email it to you. Are you interested? Dave (talk) 20:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for calling my attention to this. I usually borrow The New Republic from the public library and I'll read in print when their copy comes in. Thanks again. PedanticallySpeaking 14:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please can you comment on a peer review?[edit]

After making substantial edits to the article Robert Clark (actor), I have submitted it for peer review here. I would be delighted if you were to comment and add suggestions on how I could improve the article, especially since your articles about actors and actresses are exemplary. Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Machine 02:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My reply, posted on the Clark peer review page:

  • I think it is a good article. I'd never heard of the gentleman, but I did see the Veronica Mars episode cited, so it turns out I am familiar with him. While I think it is good, you will have problems getting it through FAC on the grounds some people think it is too short. Never mind that a nineteen year old isn't going to have a huge article, people will say it is too short--trust me, I've heard this objection on my own articles, e.g. Julia Stiles and John Henninger Reagan. FAC commentators will also seize upon the photographs problem, which I don't see ought to be an impediment to getting FA status, but people will object. Now, as to the article itself . . . What happened to his father? Divorce? Something ought to be said because it looks odd mentioning only a mother. Second, I wonder if you could find some print articles about him? You might try accessing databases such as ProQuest or Ebsco through the public library. I'm hesistant about articles where all the sources are electronic. While I've used many links on articles such as Tom Brinkman and Paul Hackett, I also cited the print version so when the operators of those sites take down the electronic versions people will still be able to find the material. Third, I'd eliminate some of the red-links to movies and schools. Again, this will raise objections if you take it to FAC. Finally, most of the article is dedicated to his roles. Is there any more you could add about his personal life. Does he have any charities or causes? User:Niteowlneils helped get some of this color for my Julia Stiles article when it was up as a FAC. Again, I want to say I liked the article. PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Primary candidates VFD[edit]

Sorry, but I tend to agree with the view that simply standing in a relatively local (yeah, I know it's for Congress, but it looks like there were only about 50,000 voters in the district) election doesn't make a person notable enuf for their own article (unless the voting swings back the other way, I would encourage you to consolidate them, maybe as suggested above)--it's pretty easy to get your name on a primary ballot (this page[2] implies that at most they had to gather 25 signatures and pay less than $100 to file). I have a pretty long record of voting to delete articles like these, so I can't in good conscience vote to keep them. The best I can do for you is not vote to delete them. It's too bad they weren't nominated a couple months ago, so the question would have been resolved before you put so much work into them. Niteowlneils 03:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Brinkman[edit]

Congrats![3] Niteowlneils 03:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


User:PedanticallySpeaking - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.

If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

As John Sebastain Sang[edit]

Posted on User talk:Acsenray:
Salve, Acsenray!
Welcome back! I opened my watch list and who is on top but a familiar name that hasn't been seen in a while. In your absence, I've done several political articles, e.g. Jean Schmidt, Paul Hackett, Bob McEwen, Tom Brinkman, W. Mark Felt. Best wishes to you. PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Save the Date[edit]

Posted on User talk:Raul654:
Raul,
I've submitted my Jean Schmidt article as a FAC (the page is here. I hope to get it featured by September 6, the day she will be sworn in. I wonder if I could ask you to save the date so it might be the featured article of the day on the sixth should my nomination prove successful. Thanks for your consideration. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Done →Raul654 06:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulations on Schmidt making the featured article page. Great job. --JamesB3 12:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

We did it![edit]

Take a look at the featured article today! Woohoo! --WizardOfTheCDrive 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, congrats from me too! Hopefully the page will make it to the end of the day with minimal damage. Once again, nice work! Antandrus (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

VMI peer review[edit]

I appreciate your work on the Hackett and Schmidt pages. I have posted the article Virginia Military Institute at Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia Military Institute/archive1 and would appreciate your comments. Rillian 14:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed suggestions. Looks like you saw the page after a mass edit by anonymous user 153.26.176.34. Please take another look if you have a minute. Rillian 16:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured Articles[edit]

In response to your comment on my talk page thanking me for my vote on Jean Schmidt FAC page, I just wanted to say that I am glad to do it. Your work truly is worth Featured Article status, and I have been, am, and will always be glad to cast my vote on any FACs you have or fulfill any needs for other assistance you may have. Thank you very much, and keep up the great work! --Lan56 17:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Though your latest FAC is well-written as usual, I am going to hold off on opining in this case. I feel that the well-deserved Jean Schmidt article covered us on Ohio politicians for a while, so I will abstain. Keep up the great work, though! Jokestress 18:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: FAC review[edit]

Got your note, took a brief skim at it and checked the discussion. The only thing I notice right off is that the length of the lead seems a little short compared to the length of the article; there's probably more that can be put in the lead, but I haven't made as thorough a read as I really need to before I can suggest what to add (and that's also why this comment is here and not on the FAC discussion page). The other item I noticed was the large References list, but I guess I'm guilty of that myself the way the research on Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway is going. I'll try to make a more thorough review tonight after work.

Yeah, I haven't been reviewing as many FACs as in the past. Most of my edits lately have been to the news and anniversaries sections of WP:Trains. I keep meaning to get back to them, and I check in on the talk page discussions, just other things keep coming up. School's in again for my son (fifth grade), and that also means scouts (three meetings per month now) and swimming (once a week) for him. Now with all the doctor's appointments that I've been going to, I haven't been able to get back to FAC reviews. My sister has been diagnosed with celiac disease, and since there's a strong family connection in it, I'm going through a bunch of office visits now too; the latest is that with my own thyroid levels (autoimmune thyroiditis is the technical name for my own condition), there is a distinct possibility, but my doctor didn't think it was off far enough for any significant lifestyle changes. I'll know more when the latest blood tests come back in a couple weeks. slambo 19:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

My reply
Salve, Slambo!
I do hope you are doing better. I also apologize for being so tardy in replying. I've not been as active in the past month and most of the time I've been in a bit of a funk, just glancing at my messages. I am pleased my Mark Felt article got through the gantlet of FAC. I'm hoping to put James Aubrey up as a FAC article. I was just read AT&SF today so I could write John McPhee and tell him he has a mistake in his train article in The New Yorker. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 14:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

FAC[edit]

Hi, I supported your article with "some support" because of image copyright issues, but anyways it's a fairly good read. Next time you may also want to try writing something besides politics for a future FAC because it adds a little more variety to our featured articles. Thanks for another one of your excellent contributions to featured articles. Cheers, — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about my Mark Felt FAC. I'm doing something non-political right now, James Aubrey. I hope to put it up as a FAC in a week or so. PedanticallySpeaking 14:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

A few quick things[edit]

As a general editor: Thank you for taking the time to read through my RfA. Since you didn't mention anything there, is there something I need to work on so you may think about supporting me in the future? Thanks.

As an Esperanzian: I see that you are very frustrated right now. Is there anything we at Esperanza can immediately do to lower your stress level? We don't want that thermometer to explode. Just let us know. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 17:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

My reply The Unkindness of Strangers Salve, Lord Voldemort!
Thanks for your note about your RFA candidacy. I will admit it was not one of my better days when I voted and some of my votes were perhaps intemperate or unwise. I should not take out my irritation on innocent. I apologize. Please let me know if you are a candidate again or if you'd like me to look through work again. Again, I am sorry. PedanticallySpeaking 14:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Stress[edit]

Perfectly percolated Esperanza blend coffee just for you!

Your friends in Esperanza are worried about your high stress level; have a cup of coffee on us, and if there is anything I can do, or you need to talk, drop me a line. -- Essjay · Talk 17:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Salve, Essjay!
Thanks for your kind note. I've been in a bit of a funk lately after some bad experiences with my FAC debates. I'm a little surprised that anyone else noticed. Your good wishes are very much appreciated. As I recall, we met over my Dawson's Creek article. What have you been working on lately? I've been doing Ohio politics, e.g. Bruce Johnson, Jean Schmidt, and am diving into James Aubrey again. PedanticallySpeaking 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. Is "esperanza" the Spanish for "hope"?

Why yes, Esperanza is Spanish for "hope"! Wikipedia:Esperanza tells why we picked that. ;-)

I've been tied up doing admin work mostly; not a lot of article editing for me. Not to mention, keeping the Esperanzians in line! ;-)

Glad to hear you're back with us, and if there's anything we can do, let us know! -- Essjay · Talk 14:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bringing you good cheer...[edit]

PS, I hope that this peaceful panorama inspires a few deep cleansing breaths and helps to bring down your WikiStress!
-- Mamawrites, fellow Ohioan and a member of Wikipedia:EsperanzaEsperanza-short.PNGWalchensee Panorama.jpg

Posted on User talk:Mamawrites:
Salve, Mamawrites!
Thanks for your kind note. I've been in a bit of a funk lately after some bad experiences with my FAC debates. I'm surprised that anyone noticed. So your good wishes are appreciated. I've done a number of articles on our state. See my list at User:PedanticallySpeaking/Articles. Do let me know if I can help with something you're working on. PedanticallySpeaking 13:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. Is "esperanza" the Spanish for "hope"?

Your RFA votes[edit]

I note that you have recently voted in a number of requests for adminship. You have made 14 oppose votes, two neutral votes, and one support vote.

While you are of course entitled to vote and comment on adminship requests as you see fit, I do find your widespread opposition, some of which is to well-qualified candidates, rather puzzling. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't get frustrated[edit]

FYI - The objections to the Mark Felt nomination have been unusually poor, IMO. People like Nichalp should know better than to lodge obviously wrong objections like that. Insofar as I am concerned, almost all of the valid objections have been dealt with (the one exception being Carnildo's issues with Image:W_Mark_Felt_screenshot.jpg). Suffice it to say, unless a more substantive objection comes along, I intend to promote. →Raul654 19:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I voted, per your request. Though I opposed previously (and I know I did not back up my opposition with very good reasoning, but trust me, it made sense in my head) I voted in support this time. You have done a great job on the article; don't get bogged down with the negativity. Basically, I am just writing here to stroke your ego and encourage you to continue your good work. Badammcqueen 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting on my RfA[edit]

Dear PedanticallySpeaking: Even though you did not support my candidacy, I would like to thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA. In some respects, Oppose votes are as useful to me as Support votes, since they serve to highlight areas in which I can improve myself and become a better administrator. Since my RfA was successful, I would be exceptionally grateful if you might tell me how you would like to see me improve, and what areas you think I should work on to ensure that I am successful as an administrator - I am always looking for feedback. I am most grateful for your assistance, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 05:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Posted on User talk:NicholasTurnbull:
Salve, NicholasTurnbull! Thanks for your kind note about your RFA candidacy. My vote quite possibly was intemperate and I see your spirited note shows you are not holding grudges. Please note the vote had no personal animus in it. Welcome to the project and do let me know if I can help with your articles. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 13:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NicholasTurnbull[edit]

My sincere apologies for the 'sour grapes' comment - that was well out of line - David Gerard 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Posted on User talk:David Gerard:
Salve, David Gerard!
Thanks for your note about my RFA vote. It was perhaps an intemperate remark on my part. I've been in a bit of a snarky mood at times lately, getting frustrated with some of our fellow Wikipedians and I surely could have phrased my comment better. Do let me know if I can help with your articles. My interests can be seen here. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Dana Gioia[edit]

Posted on User talk:Iago Dali:
I noticed you deleted quite a bit of the information on the Dana Gioia article. Why was that? PedanticallySpeaking 17:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, look in the edits notes- mostly it was superfluous and POV. For example, there was a sentence like, "But Gioia is keen to do anything that can make the arts more available to the public.'- aside from being something a twelve year old girl would write in her diary- it's POV. I've cleaned up many articles- too often there are soap operatic toches, melodrama, and begats as in the bible. It is not germane that famous Artist X's grandaughter was friends with famous nuclear physicist Y. These are encyclopedia entries, not places for hero worship.

Also, folks like to puff up pieces with a dozen or more subsections that are confusing. Also, every little quote a person says it not needed- that's why there's wikiquote.

From the earlier version:

Gioia brought a new visibility to the agency and wooed Congressional Republicans, actually getting a sizable increase in his agency's budget. "Dana is a superb politician. He knows how to talk to Congress and to the arts community, and to state and federal agencies and to the complex, gigantic, fire-breathing beast called the White House," said David Gelernter of Yale University.

This is simply cheerleading. A Joe Friday, 'Just The Facts' approach is best. Thus why NPOV exists. My whole piece on his NEA work reads:

Gioia was President George W. Bush's second choice to lead the NEA, the first, composer Michael P. Hammond, having died only a week after taking office in January 2002. Gioia got a sizable increase in his agency's budget. Gioia created new programs such as Shakespeare in Communities, bringing the Bard to small towns, and NEA Jazz Masters, promoting jazz music. The NEA presents an annual award for jazz that Gioia would like to see become the jazz equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize.
Gioia is not without critics. Some Republicans in Congress, such as Colorado's Tom Tancredo believe the government has no business funding the arts and wants the NEA abolished. In the arts community, some fault the NEA for abandoning its grants to individual artists that were terminated after controversy over Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, and others. In July 2004, the NEA released a study showing how little time Americans were dedicating to literature. In 2005, he began what he called the "Big Read" program, seeking to get Americans to reading serious literature.

This is simply straight forward, Good or bad Gioia's work shd be told, not cheered. If a big name writer or artist makes a proclamation it may be notable, but not someone who prob has an interest in Gioia's parceling of money. Too many atrticles read like National Enquirer pieces, with innuendo, cheerleading, or damnation. NPOV is best, and I think my trimming of this piece made it much better, encyclopedia-like, and professional--as well unquestionably NPOV. Iago Dali 22:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Posted on User talk:Iago Dali:

  • Thanks for your reply. I think we have differing understandings of what is NPOV, something I've encountered before, e.g. with my work on the Julia Stiles article. NPOV does not mean an article devoid of sourced opinions on someone. I don't see the Gelertner quote as "cheerleading" but rather an observation by an interested party at how Gioia has done a lot of work to resurrect a badly battered agency. My sectioning was not meant to "puff up". There are many who like articles broken into sections. When I've had sectionless articles up at FAC, I've been criticized for it, even when they were shorter articles to begin with. Finally, I feel that your deletions drained a lot of life out of the article. Some Wikipedians talk of "gray goo" articles and I think this article has moved in that direction. I've tried to do good work here and I've had a number of articles made FA, so I am disappointed that you find my work unprofessional--that's not said with rancor, just with dismay. Again, thanks for replying to me. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ask and You Shall Receive[edit]

Posted on User talk:Jokestress:
Salve, Jokestress!
Hope this message finds you well. I didn't thank you for your kind words in your last message. I've been a bit snarky lately and I've ignored most people. That's my problem, not yours and I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner. Your note suggested I lay off the Buckeye politicians. I'm working on James Aubrey, head of CBS in the 60's, which I hope to soon put up as a FAC. I need a fresh set of eyes to run through my prose and would be most grateful if you could do it. I'm so familiar with it I fear I'm not seeing problems or areas that need work. Again, thank you for your kindnesses. PedanticallySpeaking 14:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Just looked it over-- well documented. Fixed a few typos. I guess I'd say the only thing is the article is a bit frothy in places. In the way the popular music articles often feel like they have writers from Rolling Stone, this feels a lot like Entertainment Weekly sometimes. I'd recommend trying to make it a little less dishy and informal and a little more dry and matter of fact. The quotes you have found are entertaining enough without spicing up the rest of it! Nice work as always! Jokestress 07:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK- Current Biography[edit]

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Current Biography, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Bounty Board[edit]

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Webster's Dictionary[edit]

Similar messages were posted on User talk:Gene Nygaard and User talk:Mark Foskey:
Salve, Gene Nygaard!
I noticed you've been changing redirects regarding Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Last year when I wrote the Webster's Dictionary article, there was a stub for the Third, and, I believe, the Second editions. I merged them all into the main Webster's Dictionary article. There was some discussion about these moves at the time and you probably were not aware of them. Unless major expansion is planned to the Webster's Third article, it is my intention to consolidate this material once again with the main article and put a redirect on that page. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 20:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Census I[edit]

This query and the one below were posted on October 27 to the WP:HD page and received the replies from Dismas and DES below. This day it was posted to Wikipedia:Bot requests PedanticallySpeaking 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC) On the site [4] there are historial census population figures for states and counties. Could a bot be used to add this data to the appropriate articles, as I have done by hand to Warren County, Ohio? PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As I recall there is a bot running (or it has run in the past at some point) that is adding articles about cities and towns. I don't recall the bot's name but you might want to ask over at Wikipedia:Bots for more info. They would know all the details. I know this doesn't specifically answer your question but I believe it would be a step in the right direction. Hope this helps. Dismas|(talk) 19:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that is Rambot. I don't know what info it adds or what sources it uses. DES (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Census II[edit]

Data exists from the Census on Ohio's townships here and here. Would it be possible to creat a bot to create articles on Ohio townships as was done to create basic county and municipality articles? I've created a number of these township articles by hand, as have SwissCelt and Beirne, and created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ohio_townships to provide guidance. But there are many townships to go—over a thousand—and I'd appreciate some help. I'd appreciate replies to my talk page. PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Empathy[edit]

Salve, Geogre!
Just wanted you to know that you're not the only one with an article severly cut by User:Iago Dali. See my Dana Gioia and the discussion here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Posted by User:Geogre

Tibbalt Bunuel

Actually, I had no hand in John Donne that I recall, but the user's edits have come to attention. He has, several places, made lawn mower styled edits to literature articles. They have invariably resulted in massive loss of information. While some users are interested in making sure that articles are comprehensible to the widest possible audience, complexity is not error, and detail is no crime. I pride myself on surpassing the quality of Britannica in spots (e.g. Ormulum). The easy-to-read section is up there in the header. The body is a place for detail and development. Several folks are now watching and challenging the user's edits. I want to be sure that we're not dealing with the reincarnation of one of the very early hard banned users (who did much the same -- cut big sections, so it wasn't "vandalism"). Geogre 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Posted on User talk:Geogre

I agree with you. Iago seems to think that shorter is better. I've just been reading the lengthy debates between him, Alabamaboy, Singing Badger, and Mandel on the Talk:William Shakespeare page, and I must say there are many others who feel as we do. I will say that the Dana Gioia article was not as detailed and as thoroughly researched as I would have liked, cf James Aubrey, but it was a start. The cuts didn't make a lot of sense to me on Gioia and I expect to go back and rescind most of them. I've just sent Iago a message cautioning him about deleting material from his talk page. It looks like inexperience to me, but others will surely see his deletions as having something to hide. PedanticallySpeaking 17:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Posted by Mandel

I see your comments. You're the sixth one I know (or was it seventh)! Mandel 17:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use - relax[edit]

I think all you have to do is insert a passage: "his wife the actress................., appeared in many films including................. where she played the part of .............. (pictured right?left)" . Its then relevant to the text. IMO. This copyvio is becoming a paranoia, it's so debatable no one is ever going to go to court on it. Giano | talk 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Mail[edit]

Check your mail box

M-W's 3NI[edit]

Actually, I think it's a good thing to have a brief entry just talking about the 3rd New International, that says enough to satisfy someone wanting just that, and also that points to a larger article. I think a lot of short articles are mis-marked as "stubs".

Also, I think it's a big mistake to have a major article on "Webster's Dictionary". There's really no such thing. Maybe it'd be better to have an article on Dictionaries in America, since there's only one that's not called "Webster's". Or maybe the detailed history of the series of unabridged dictionaries should be in the Merriam article.

But I haven't had the energy to try to make it right.

Anyhow, I'd consider leaving my article sort of as it was, but somehow making it better. But do whatever you think; thes things tend to converge. It's your call.

FAC reform[edit]

I looked over your failed FAC (which I did not vote on). A couple things jumped out at me:

  • Within those four votes, you received comments like "Looks good at first sight", "the article is well-referenced and comprehensive [...] kudos", and "Great article." If a negative tone is a problem in FAC, it doesn't show up here.
  • In the course of several days, you didn't make a single response to any of the objections, not even to question them. (For example, you are right, footnotes are not a requirement - but a more organized approach to references and citations would benefit this article, which has an enormous number of references listed. A dialog in the FAC could have brought some of that out. Similarly, nobody objects to one fair-use image of the subject in a biographical article.) When Raul654 looks at a FAC, one of the things he does is see if it has outstanding objections that appear to just be... sitting there... for a few days. If it does, that's when he tends to call it a failed FAC.
  • I think the truest point you make is that there is an inconsistency in FAC standards because different people attach themselves to different FACs. I'm not sure much can be done about this.

The notion that only administrators should vote on FACs is an ugly one. If someone has a bad objection, point it out! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Posted on User talk:Bunchofgrapes:

Salve, Bunchofgrapes!
I read your reaction to my comment on the FAC talk page. It was more than the Bob McEwen responses that has irritated me. But as you focus on it, I will note that I was unfortunately away from Wikipedia for several days and not able to respond. That said, one example of nothing but criticism is when Bob McEwen was a FAC in the past: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen old. Plenty of criticism, little praise.

The peer review process doesn't work. For example, I give you two articles that were praised or received no objections, but lost at FAC:

I believe the process is broken because there is no consistency, thus my suggestions. PedanticallySpeaking 19:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Posted by Bishonen on the WP:FAC talk page

Looking at the Bob McEwen vote, I don't agree with Johnleemk that the voters did anything wrong (if I'm reading you right and you are talking about those voters). What people complained about wasn't lack of footnotes, but the form of the inline notes, external HTML. Pedantically, you did not reply in any way to this reasonable concern, which is one often raised (and not normally ignored by the nominator). Your one support vote —Saravask's "Conditional support"—was withdrawn, explicitly because you didn't address any of the queries and objections.
Pedantically, I respect your frustration, and I don't mean to dismiss your concerns, but your own actions as nominator, or rather lack of action, seems to have been the problem in the case you mention. See page instructions: "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." Speaking as a former Peer Review housekeeper, I would also add that being responsive to the concerns people raise is a good way of actually getting more votes: people lose interest if you don't look like you're listening to the comments you do get. This became very clear to me as I watched Peer Review, and I think a similar psychology might be at work on FAC.
(I won't address the idea of giving admins special powers and responsibilites in an approval process, because it seems to me to be bad in so many ways that I'd be talking all night.) Bishonen | talk 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Posted on User talk:Bishonen

Salve, Bishonen!
Thank you for your comments. First, I would note I was unable to return to Wikipedia for several days; thus there was no reply to the objectors on Bob McEwen. That said, I do not understand the objection to links. What is the issue there? I can think of other articles with many links which successfully passed the FAC process.

The peer review process doesn't work either, thus I do not use it anymore. For example, I give you two articles that were praised or received no objections, but lost at FAC:

I believe the article review process is broken because there is no consistency and not enough participation, thus my suggestions. PedanticallySpeaking 19:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoe polish[edit]

Hello Mr Speaking, thank you very much for your support for shoe polish to become a Featured article. Further to what's said above (can't help being nosy I'm afraid), I found that the more responses I gave to people's constructive criticism, the better the response I got back. Ditto for peer review. Proto t c 11:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delrina as Feature Article Candidate[edit]

Hello there:

I have done the necessary research and have come up with a number of relevant print-based references to the Delrina story. Was wondering if you might take a look and let me know what you think, and leave your comments either at my talk page and/or on the Featured Article candidates page. Cheers! Captmondo 03:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures on year and day pages[edit]

I see that you have added a bunch of pictures to July 20. A recent survey was unanimous in rejecting pictures in these lists. Ksnow 18:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Ksnow

Signpost[edit]

To be perfectly frank, I find it the ramblings of a bunch of people pissed off because Brinkman was main page'd and Cricket/John Howard/Autofellatio wasn't. Why give it the attention that it doesn't deserve by posting it on the Signpost? (I mean this to say, Great FAs, they deserved to make main page). Ral315 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Support for you[edit]

Hi, just stumbled upon some of the criticisms on the Tom Brinkman talk page. Just want to let you know that it is an excellent article and your work is much appreciated. Don't let the complainers get you down. Babajobu 08:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

John Clarke[edit]

John Clarke is know in Australia as John Clarke. It woudl be harder to find him if he is listed under anything but that name. The extra bit Saririst will make it clear to anyone who we are talking about.

Delrina Article Re-Submitted as a FAC[edit]

Just thought I'd let you know! Revamped article: Delrina, with more info, clarifying some points and highlighting the Berkley Systems Inc. v Delrina case, and with plenty of print references. A valued your comments last time so wanted to give you another chance to look it over. Here's its listing on the FAC page. Cheers! Captmondo 18:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bob McEwen links[edit]

If you're still editing Bob McEwen, I point out that you can find the external links by looking for red in the left column of the current version diff of one of my test pages: (diff) (SEWilco 07:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Frank Cremeans died of AIDS?[edit]

I don't know whether you've noticed, but an anonymous editor has added an interesting tidbit to Cremeans's biography. I have no idea whether it's true. There is no sourcing given, but I suspect there's some tomfoolery going on. Acsenray 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For your outstanding work![edit]

To PedanticallySpeaking for OUSTANDING work on W. Mark Felt. Featured articles simply do not get better than this one.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please accecpt a SALUTE from this child of the Watergate era.

Reply Thanks for the award for Mark Felt. I blush with gratitude. PedanticallySpeaking 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

John Clarke (satirist)[edit]

Hi PS

This is a response to your proposal to relocate John Clarke (satirist), the New Zealand-Australian humourist as John Morrison Clarke. While I appreciate the difficulty created by multiple holders of a name, the name John Clarke is a very prominent one in the New Zealand psyche, (though less so than that of his alter ego, Fred Dagg), and no one looking for him in Wiki would think of using the middle name. Most of us don't even know it. For us, he is The John Clarke. I believe middle names should only appear in the titles of articles where they are part of the best known form of a person's name, e.g., Robert Louis Stevenson and John Wilkes Booth. By contrast, who would expect to have to look for Neil Alden Armstrong under his full name?

In any case, with or without the middle name, a redirect is going to be necessary. People looking for him (as they always will) as John Clarke are currently redirected from the disambiguation page to John Clarke (satirist). There would be no gain whatever in redirecting them to John Morrison Clarke (satirist).

I appreciate your courtesy in alerting users to your proposal beforehand, but I think Wiki already deals with the problem admirably. The disambiguation page is an excellent device, which enables users to avoid the confusion often caused by multiple referents of terms. In this case I think it performs its function perfectly.

Cheers, Neil Copeland (Dunedin, New Zealand)


Julia Stiles[edit]

Hey, I noticed you changed the formatting back on the Stiles page. But isn't it better off to have the big section about her charity/interests/feminism down at the bottom, otherwise it kind of looks like that's what Stiles is famous for (considering it's noted before her movie career). The way I had it, we had a (brief) section on her early life and beginnings, which led directly and chronologically into her career. And then all the extra - and frankly least important - stuff like her interests were at the bottom. Would you mind if I changed it back? JackO'Lantern 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The reason I put the information on her interests with her biography is because they naturally go together. We talk about her life, then get to her career. It feels disjointed--to me at least--totalk about her background in one place and to go back to this material at the end. PedanticallySpeaking 16:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it feels incredibly odd to have info about her involvement in charity, etc. before the section on her movie career, since that's the most important thing about Stiles and the reason she is famous. "Personal life" is really just the extra stuff on the side, and I think the least important. The way we have it right now is chronological - the "Early life" section ends with her joining the theatre group - and it leads straight into her early film roles. If we have the personal life there in the middle, it breaks the chronology JackO'Lantern 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Brick by brick[edit]

Posted on User talk:Kaisershatner:

Good work!

Salve, Kaisershatner!
I am most impressed with your contributions to the article I began on the Bricker Amendment. I've not been able to work on Wikipedia very much in the last few weeks so you've been carrying all the water your own. My quick readthrough of your amendments finds a good article. I'm planning to print it out for a closer examination and I plan to add some additional material gleaned from off-line research. I'd also like to look at the New York Times coverage from the period. Therefore, I'm withdrawing the stalled FAC candidacy, which is mainly "opposed" votes and hope to bring it up again in a few weeks. Again, you have done excellent work for which I'm awarding you a barnstar. Keep it up. PedanticallySpeaking 16:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! So glad to get your note. I can sympathize with your frustrations as noted on your talk page, and I hope my comments at WP:FAC haven't contributed to them. I appreciate you pointing me at a very interesting subject and I would be glad to collaborate with you on it. In order for it to make a good run at FA status, I think we still need to elaborate on the Bricker supporters - ironically, the article has much greater detail now about the opposition Democrats and liberal Republicans, and not so much on the Old Guard conservatives who supported the amendment. It had 60 cosponsors - there should be something more about them! The problem I hit was this stuff just isn't online - I've looked for about two weeks for a list of the roll-call vote to see who backed it. Also, there are references to a 40-52 vote prior to the George Amendment but I couldn't corroborate that either. Will I actually have to visit a (gasp) library? I'm going to borrow Caro's Johnson biography from a friend so maybe that will help. Anyway, thanks again and let's get going! Kaisershatner 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
My reply
:I've been meaning to look at Caro's Master of the Senate as well as Johnson claimed he found the votes for Eisenhower to block it. The documents from the time we would really like, e.g. the Congressional Record, aren't on-line to my knowledge. The Congressional Digest, a private publication that reprints excerpts from debates, ran several of the debates in its issues. I'll have to see if they have an on-line archive. But I have looked at Time magazine from 1953 and have some stuff I'd like to add. I have access on-line to The New York Times and want to search 1953 for information. Most likely they would roll calls on the important votes. I'll let you know.
As for my frustrations, you haven't contributed. You've been making substantive contributions. Many of the people who are most critical I do not see adding to the work. (But maybe I'm not looking in the right places.) I saw you were doing a bunch of work, so I left you alone on your editing. I didn't want to get in your way. (This is one reason I do a lot of work on obscure topics, e.g. James Aubrey, because I'd like to do my own thing. I have some obligations that might keep me from it for a couple weeks, but I do plan to work on this topic later.
What subjects are you working on besides the Bricker Amendment? Ave! 15:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I don't really have a major project right now, since I've hit the wall with Bricker for the time being. I've been trolling recent changes, which sometimes inspires me to read something I would otherwise not. Probably I'll run through some of my older edits esp. to "controversial" subjects. Let me know if you turn up some new info for Bricker and I'd be happy to jump back in. I loathe an unfinished project. Kaisershatner 14:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've got Caro's Master of the Senate. There's about twenty pages about our topic. I'm also having the library get the Judiciary Committee report (over 1000 pages!) and some dissertations on the subject. But I'm plugging away on it. Let me know if I can help with your work. PedanticallySpeaking 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Kaiser!
Have been doing a good bit of reading on the Bricker Amendment but I am still not ready to start editing. But I will let you know when I do. In the meanwhile, I've got one of my articles up on WP:FAC, namely Bob McEwen. I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen. PedanticallySpeaking 15:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Again with McEwen[edit]

Greetings!
Haven't written you in a while. Hope you are well. I've submitted Bob McEwen as a Featured Article Candidate here and I'd appreciate your vote. PedanticallySpeaking 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I took a look at the McEwen article. It certainly is detailed and I congratulate you on its thoroughness. However, I can't help but think that it might be a bit too detailed. I don't really think McEwen is worth so long an article. After all, he isn't really a very prominent political figure, even in Ohio. Since being unseated by Strickland, he's been unsuccessful in getting back in elective office, even in getting nomniated by his party, and even while he was in the House of Representatives, he wasn't known for being a prominent legislator. He was one of the Republican party's attack dogs, but not really a big thinker on policy or one with notable legislative accomplishments. Acsenray 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My reply
Thanks for your reply. The question of an article gaining feature status is not about how important the person or topic is but whether or not the article is any good. On my articles on Tom Brinkman and Julia Stiles objections were made when they were on the front page about how noteworthy the subjects were. I'm surprised I didn't get that on Helen Gandy, which was featured and on the front page a couple months ago. Thanks for writing back. PedanticallySpeaking 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, salve! Just wanted to say congrats on Bob McEwen. I didn't vote, as it was looking good the whole time, but I did notice you made it in. Way to go! Kaisershatner 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Conditional to Unconditional?[edit]

Posted on User talk:RyanGerbil10:
I've added footnotes to the Bob McEwen article and I wonder if you'd be willing to change your "conditional support" vote to an unconditional support? The vote is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen. Thanks for your vote of confidence. PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A Thank You and an Apology[edit]

Posted on User talk:Rossrs:
Rossrs,
I wanted to thank you for your affirmative vote on my Bob McEwen FAC. I appreciate it. I also wanted to apologize for my intemperate remarks in the James Aubrey FAC vote. I get frustrated at our fellow Wikipedians and that makes me grumpy and I say things I should not. So please accept my apologies.
What subjects have you been working on lately? Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi PedanticallySpeaking. No problem. It's nice to hear from you. I have the utmost respect for you and your work, and if you were frustrated that's a very human trait. My most recent project has been Vivien Leigh. I stumbled upon it one day, thought it deserved some attention, and then became obsessed by it. It became a FA about 2 weeks ago, and I'm most satisfied with it, of any article I've contributed to. I haven't been doing much since then -I think I may have overwikied myself on that one. Take care. Rossrs 03:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting![edit]

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Parker Vandalism[edit]

Posted on User talk:Thryduulf:
Greetings, Thryduulf!
Thanks for your suggestion on the Adminstrator's noticeboard re the troubles I've been having with James John Parker. I've been an administrator for some time, but this is the first time I've encountered repeated "vandalism" of this type--I put the word in quotes as I don't think it is in bad faith, just by someone who doesn't understand the rules of the road--and I've never had to protect an article. I've done as you suggested and "semi-protected" it. I'm grateful for your idea. PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help[edit]

Glad I could help. Feel free to ask my opinion on one of your nominations anytime and I'll look into it. You do good work. -Litefantastic 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

James John Parker Protection[edit]

Posted on User talk:Marudubshinki:
Why did you remove the semiprotection I posted on the page almost immediately after I protected it? Unregistered users keep trying to rewrite the article as a campaign statement and I was trying to prevent that. I see it happened again after you unprotected it. PedanticallySpeaking 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply of Marudubshinki

I removed it after a request on Helpdesk and because I did not think the vandalism and POV serious enough to warrant semi-protection. In other words, I think you were trigger happy with the protection. --maru (talk) contribs 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My reply

I was not "trigger happy." It is the first time I've ever protected anything since I became an administrator over a year ago. I posted a query about this on the administrator's noticeboard and someone suggested semi-protection might be advisable. The changes, which are lifted from the candidate's web-site (which links to the Wikipedia entry from the tagline "Who is Jim Parker?"), appear connected to the campaign. The changes have been made numerous times (see the page [history]). I gave notice of my reasoning on Wikipedia:Protected pages. I have consulted Wikipedia:Help desk and am unsure what question you refer to. Would you point me to it? PedanticallySpeaking 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply of Maru

Dude, the vast majority of helpdesk requests are made, and handled on, the mailing list. Let me put it this way- just today we had ~90 emails. What you see on that page is a tiny fraction of the true amount.

As for semiprotection, I standby what I said; it shouldn't be used until the vandalism is uncontrollable, multi-layered and complex. --maru (talk) contribs 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My reply

Thank you for your reply. Would you be able to send me a copy of the item from the mailing list? Or is it posted online someplace? PedanticallySpeaking 17:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

His reply

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/helpdesk-l/. Link seems to be down now. I will paste the original request here:
"From: Jim Parker <parker309@msn.com> Mailed-By: wikimedia.org

To: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org"

"I would like to have this page unlocked so that I can perform one final edit. Then we can lock it again. Somebody keeps changing it. Thanks."
"Jim Parker"
--maru (talk) contribs 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My reply

Thanks. This is the man the article is about. And we aren't supposed to edit articles about ourselves. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Posted on User talk:Splash
May I ask why you removed the "semi-protection" from this article? The person who it is about has repeatedly been modifying the article to promote his candidacy for Congress. This has been done from a series of IP addresses and this was my effort to prevent this. PedanticallySpeaking 16:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't. I removed the tag because the article was not (and currently is not) semiprotected. -Splashtalk 16:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Another removed the protection and I thought I restored it. Apparently I only did the alert tag on the page. Thanks for your swift reply. PedanticallySpeaking 16:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes[edit]

Posted on User talk:Rossrs:

Greetings, Rossrs! Hope you are well. I've completely redone the article on the actress Katie Holmes and put it on WP:PR. If you have the time, I'd be grateful if you could add your comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. I hope to get it to WP:FAC soon. Thanks for your help. PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, PS! Great article I must say! I think the text is of a very high standard. I have replied at the PR page but to summarize my comments for you : my only concern is the images - some of them are unsourced and there is currently a bot going through Wikipedia deleting unsource images as possible copyright violation, so they need to be made right fairly quickly. I see that most of them were uploaded by User:AriGold so have left a message on Ari's talk page asking for information to be added to the image description pages. Hopefully we can get this all sorted out before it goes onto FA. I'm sure that this will be easy enough to fix - none of the images need to be deleted (except maybe the "Gap" advertisement) - they're fine, but just need the finishing touches to make them "legal" (or whatever the correct term would be....) cheers Rossrs 01:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Rossrs! Thanks for your comments on the peer review. I've tried to address the points you've made. I keep rereading and, alas, it seems like I find no end of errors. Let me know if you see anything else that needs attention. PedanticallySpeaking 21:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi PS. I've tried again to trim the article in order to better suit it to becoming an FA. Instead of just reverting because it removed some of 'your' article, please could you actually review the edits. If there are some elements that you do not agree with, then by all means, repair them. Please try not to just revert the whole thing. The article, as it stands, needs a lot of editing and trimming to reach FA. Proto||type 11:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

James Aubrey[edit]

Top-notch work! This article is one of the best in all of Wikipedia. Well-researched, cogent, and a pleasure to read. Eleemosynary 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your praise. And great user name, by the way. PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Wiki medal.jpg Congratulations!!! To PedanticallySpeaking for 370 edits on James T. Aubrey Jr. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your praise of my article. PedanticallySpeaking 15:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes[edit]

Hey, I am so sorry but as I added them nearly a year ago, I have no idea where I got all of them from. The first picture, from Batman Begins, was from imdb.com (I think). The others, I honestly have no idea where I found them. AriGold 16:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. It's hard to know just where things came from. I myself had to go back and check my notes when I put in footnotes on this article. It's just that when I've submitted a FAC in the past, usually the first thing I get for responses is "oppose" votes because the photos aren't satisfactory to some voters. Rossrs put in a note about the Oprah clip, I do know. Again, thanks for your support on this article. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aubrey vandalism[edit]

Posted on User talk:Curps:

Thanks for your vandalism patrolwork on this article. I was surprised at the many, many edits made but in comparing versions, I see almost nothing I needed to fix. I wasn't able to get online this weekend to monitor it during its day in the sun on the front page. If I can help with your articles, please let me know. Again, thanks for watching over Mr. Aubrey. PedanticallySpeaking 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes good luck with bringing it to Featured article status. I know you worked hard on that one and I keep it on my watchlist. Keep up the good work.--Dakota ~ ° 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)