New Messages • 新しいメッセージ • Nuevos mensajes • 新消息 • Νέα μηνύματα • Mensagens novas • Nouveaux messages • Новые сообщения • Nieuwe berichten • Nuovi messaggi • 새로운 메시지 • Neue Mitteilungen • Teachtaireachtaí nua • ====
Welcome. - Boston (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the rhombus article, "a rhombus...is an equilateral parallelogram. In other words, it is a four-sided polygon in which every side has the same length...A rhombus is a variety of quadrilateral. A rhombus with right angles is a square."
However, as the term 'rhomboid' apparently refers to a distinct (albeit similar) type of quadrilateral polygon, one cannot, oddly enough, apparently describe a 'rhombus' as being 'rhomboidal'. My bad. :) -70.251.131.28 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Your bad or not, you're still my geometrical superior! --Boston (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Boston. Reference URLs on the cathedral website need to be respecified, because that web site uses frames. The page displayed when a user opens http://www.melkitecathedral.org/ does not contain any of the history facts in the article. Regards. Chonak (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand the point your making but still think there's a strong argument that this is primarily a Scandinavian phenomenon. The countries listed are mostly Scandinavian if not 'Nordic'. I am of south Italian ancestry and appreciate there is a tradition of veneration of Santa Lucia but it's not really in the same class. In sweden St Lucy's day is a national festival that involves school children, ceremonies and even the monarchy. In southern Italy celebrations are usually limited to a village parade or so. Now I'm happy to accept that the Nordic idea of St Lucy has very little to do with the woman (rather a pagan hangover) but that's a different issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
His 'successful banking career' and education are also arguably not part of his 'early life'. 'Early life' suggest pre-adulthood days. I think it should be renamed 'Professional Life', and the stuff of the top moved into that section. 96.52.162.82 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
College wouldn't be professional life, so make sure you differentiate. I don't want to edit conflict you, so I'll let you play with for a while, experiment, etc. I may or may not make changes when I revisit it later. If I do, you can always change it and fine tune in further. Peace. --Boston (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
College does fit into professional life, especially a professional post-graduate degree like an MBA. The fact that he moved to America when he age 14 isn't really a professional detail, but it is a fact worth keeping so I changed it into a phrase that simply introduces his professional qualifications. I'm mostly done with it now; there are a couple of other interesting details I'll add later once I have adequate references. Take care. 96.52.162.82 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It's okay to include the MBA in that section, but we should find a different place to say "Muzzammil Hassan came to the United States from Pakistan at age 14.--Boston (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC).."
On the article Simple vow, you have placed the label that the tone is inappropriate. The template goes on to say "see talk page" for further information. But the last entry there is nearly a year old! Could you be more specific (and up-to-date) about your concerns? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I left explanation here. Best wishes. --Boston (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I've been rather busy. Image is the same on both web pages you have provided me (I've also done some searching with little luck) but the resolution is much lower then the image thats on Commons so that makes the deletion as a copyrighted image harder, as we have to link on what could be the original but it's still possible to argue. I've not looked at the uploaded images from the user but will when I get a chance. Bidgee (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Boston, and thanks for your message. It was quite an interesting subject to research ... I was worried about notability at first, but I found enough decent sources in the end. Despite all the gates being in my local area (the most distant is about 20 miles away), I had only vaguely heard of them and didn't know the name. Just one of many eccentric features in Sussex! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am here to say that you have removed alot of value to the Mantis article. I prefer the original version of the page. Yes, there are no species accuracy, however, you could have simply discussed this on the talk page. Until then, the article should be reverted. Thanks. ZooFari 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the article. I disagree with your statement and don't see the value of a bunch of unidentified pictures that can't be properly captioned or linked to other articles. The mantis article, like many very popular articles on Wikipedia, is often a mess. Many of the pictures I edited out were of poor quality or had such useless captions as "Praying mantis in Europe." (italics added) Better pictures were available so I used them; these edits brought the article more in line with best practices. Refer to Wikipedia:Captions for a discussion of this. --Boston (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
After some consideration, I admit your edits are impressive. However, I prefer the old image in the taxobox, since it is featured. If it didn't have the species, I will contact the uploader or find out myself what the species is (of coarse, with a source). ZooFari 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. "Image:Large brown mantid07 edit.jpg" is (I think) the taxobox image to which you're referring. Here the problem isn't one of identification; it's Archimantis latistyla. Rather, I feel that at the size shown in the taxo box the mantis is sort of camouflaged making it difficult to instantly recognize. He's also grooming himself in a strange position. This adds to its interest as a featured photo but detracts from its utility in the taxobox. I think the Sphodromantis viridis picture now in the taxobox is better because it has a clear outline and instantly gives the viewer a sense of Mantodea anatomy. While I think most would agree with me, this is ultimately a matter of opinion. BTW, I added the above-mentioned A. latistyla photo to the gallery as it's worthy of inclusion in the article. --Boston (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Boston, thank you for your comment. But I disagree with your statement articles with out reference should be cleaned up. Any person who is using Wikipedia can edit or delete the articles which they think it is not proper, I agree that I have started so many articles with only one sentence but most of such articles had grown up by other users who knew about the subjects better than me, ie what true Wikipedia is for and how it works. If all the articles must have reference, then the Wikipedia does not exist at all. Something is better than nothing (but of course we should make sure that the articles are not just from our imagination, it should always be true).Kjrajesh|talk
I didn't say that they should be deleted. I said that they should have WP:References. This is a separate matter from WP:Cleanup. Articles that need cleanup have relatively major problems. Making an article without references is one thing, making an article that needs cleanup and leaving it for other editors to do is another. Looking through the articles you've created I see three types: those that have been tagged for problems, those that need to be tagged for problems, and those that have been fixed by other editors. You also seem to have little interest in WP:copyright policies. At any rate, thanks for your response and best wishes. --Boston (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Several references have been added to the Jill Foster Abbott article. Can we remove the reference tag now? Dmarex (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for making improvements. --Boston (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. While on the subject, did you add that other tag (plot) too? And what can be done to remove it? The synopsis has already been shortened by a few users in an attempt to remove the tag, but how much more can we cut down? She has been on the show since it's beginning in 1973. Dmarex (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It still looks pretty plot-heavy too me. You might ask the opinion of User:TAnthony as that is the editor who placed the plot tag. --Boston (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bridges TV, 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.
On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muzzammil Hassan, 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.
Would you please remove the deletion tag on P3M? While I've tried to clarify that it isn't hoax or something, it is well established technique in computational physics. Thanks a lot. --mcyp (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for improving the article and adding references! --Boston (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the spam tag from the article. Obviously a spurious claim. The article could be cleaned up but as you pointed out, it's a significant organization with a long history. Although, really, non-profits have been known to spam WP as well. I used to live down the street in JP from it and often passed it on my way to work on the T. Heh, I don't think that's a COI, is it? Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much. At some point I'll try to find some Boston Globe articles about the place or something. It is a pretty illustrious institution, so I think maybe rather than greatly changing the tone of the article, the claims therein just need to be better substantiated. BTW, I lived in JP as well and you reminded me that 6 months ago I walked to MSPCA, took a pic for Wikipedia, and never uploaded it. Picture now added. Best wishes. - --Boston (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy tag, with why in the edit summary and also a talk page topic. I have changed to reference format (there are three) and on the talk page there is a link to a gallery of covers of School Friend showing that this publication definately existed. Rather than deletion, merging into a School Friend article would make more sense. Currently that does not exist, so it should make sense to let Silent Three exist up until an adequate School Friend article exists to merge it into. If something exists I don't think it's right to delete it just because we don't have something to merge it into. If something is notable enough to be merged and remain on Wikipedia then it should be notable enough to stand on its own until that is possible. Tyciol (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No worry, I won't drag it to AfD but please do, for the sake of Wikipedia, try to establish notability better if possible. Or create a new article and merge them -- whatever you think is best. Thanks for improving the article and/or reverting whatever had been done to make it look so bad when I found it. Best wishes. --Boston (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
On March 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gigantotomy, 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.
Cool, thank you. --Boston (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. You are correct - I was taunted, but it would have been wise of me to have held my reply for one day before sending (not) it. On the other note, if I am rescuing an article, I will almost always improve the article before removing the Prod. If I remove the article without improvements (which is rare) I do state my reasons. I have taken heart of your friendly communication, and I appreciate your helpful comments.Esasus (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Boston. There are a couple of problems with the file. Firstly, you didn't upload it at Commons, which isn't good, but it can always be moved there (as I just have). After looking at the source though, a much bigger problem appears: you haven't looked closely at the copyright notice. It says Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License - Version 2.0. If it's not obvious, we can't accept non-commercial images. Please make sure any material - images, text, whatever - allows commercial use and modification. It's a beautiful image, and apparently our only photo of the species (bloody apathetic photographers out there...), but it will have to be deleted, and quite soon. Richard001 (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, looking at where they got the image (which is what should primarily be cited), it is a pretty recent upload at Flickr. I'll try asking this uploader if he's okay with removing the NC status, then we might be able to undelete it at the Commons and have it back again. If not, there are plenty more there that we can request. Richard001 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
And another mantis of the same genus seems to almost certainly have the wrong picture. Take a look at the Flickr file linked at File:Orthodera ministralis.jpg and see my comment. (I'm just stalking the mantis genus here, not you). Richard001 (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note and your attentive efforts. I agree that File:Orthodera ministralis.jpg is misidentified as even the males of this genus have an extended thorax unlike that of the mantis in the picture. I hope you're able to get another pic by the process you described. In regards to the File:Orthodera novaezealandiae, at the time of uploading it I wasn't savvy about observing that not all CC Licensed pics are okay here. I raised Orthodera novaezealandiae in captivity last year, but at only 1" long even the adults are were too small for me to get a worthwhile picture using the equipment at my disposal. --Boston (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen one since I've been taking photos. The camera I use would be able to get a fairly good photo if I could find one, though I'm not sure where to look. There are plenty on Flickr though, and I think I'll move towards insects rather than birds for a while, so I should have some up eventually. Richard001 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't so much write off poor old Ei-Q as I noted that the text and references at the time didn't establish WP:notability. Thanks for improving the article, you did a good job. BTW, you can remove a tag yourself if you feel you've addressed the problem. Happy editing. --Boston (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Specifically at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 February 26. Thanks for your diligence. (With one of them, I think infringement was the other way around, but two have been cleaned, and I imagine the third one will be, though I'm waiting to hear back from the contributor in case the website is his or her own.) Just thought I'd stop by and give you some random peer approval. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. High kudos to you for following up on it. --Boston (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the photo. I used it in the article. Now, the state of the info on Scapular itself within Wikipedia is basically chaos, as you observed. As I did research I realized that the article on Scapular is short of references and as you noted the template I made is at the moment simplistic. There are 18 approved scapulars based on several sources. I think we need to:
Make a page for each one, "by name" because there are several "white scapulars" as you noted.
Change the scapular template to have say 9 entries after the 18 pages are in good shape.
Fix the Scapular page itself, for it needs help.
If you would like to cooperate in making the 18 pages correct, I will be glad to work with you. Cheers History2007 (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I will help. Fixing the scapular page itself might be a big challenge because there's so much original research we'll really need to be bold in paring it down and removing content, and that might meet with opposition. That should be top priority, however. I nominated rosary and scapular for DYK, so it will likely appear there next week. This means the scapular article itself will then get many clicks as a result. BTW, I do suggest using File:Rosary&scapular.jpg higher on the page in the rosary and scapular article. It should probably be the first picture. It's not a "pretty picture", but has high and very immediate information value for someone who arrives on the page without even knowing what the rosary is and what scapulars are. Remember our leadership is worldwide, including China, India, Japan, Indonesia, the Middle East, etc. I apologize for suggesting you put the photo where you want it and then turning around 12 hours later with such a specific idea of where it belongs! --Boston (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, great. I made the suggestions on the talk page for scapular, to do it more smoothly. As for picture placement, I searched long and hard for that top picture because The Catholic Church learned long ago that "nice art sells". Just look at St. Peter's, or my page on Roman Catholic Marian art. So I feel that the top image needs to be as glamorous as one can get it because it somehow draws attention. So I started with the most beautiful art of St. Simon and ended with Caravaggio's St. Dominic for a specific purpose. I did, however, realize that some people may like to see what rosaries look like, so I added a gallery anyway. Now, regarding the 18 subpages, the text is in the Catholic encyclopedia and I have spent hour and hours and hours getting the page numbers for the references for the Rosary and scapular article. So it will be easier to get the material together. I think 30-60 days is really needed, but then teh scapular has been around since the 13th or thr 15th century, and a couple of months will not a big difference make. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel a bit like I've been canvassed. I hope this isn't the case and that editors participating in previous discussion received a similar notice regardless of how they opined. --Boston (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
On March 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article species group, 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.
On March 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mantis in Lace, 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.
On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Nies, 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.
On March 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Friends of Gilda, 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.
On 13 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Camponotus vagus, 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.
Thanks for the nom! Royalbroil 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I actually wasn't going to nominate them. lol I didn't want to bother expanding Moonchildren enough to get it to pass so really that's all you. I wanted to nominate Cara Duff-MacCormick but I didn't because I couldn't find out if she's still alive or not. I guess that really doesn't matter but I like my DYK suggestions to be my best work. So really you weren't stepping on my toes at all. Feel free to nominate any of my rejects in future. You're contributing to the articles in a positive way so its a good thing. :-)Nrswanson (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought, but here is another one of my creations which would make a great DYK with a little extra work. I would do it myself but I am busy with other projects at the moment.Nrswanson (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks long enough so I might drag it to DYK without expanding at all unless I need to better reference the hook. --Boston (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for doing that DYK. I did not even know what a DYK was when you did it. Look at the results here: [1] and [2] . Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you're pleased. It's cool knowing that a few thousand people have looked at your article, isn't it? --Boston (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Boston, we've only a few hours left and I've just completed all my submissions. But shouldn't they be in queues by now? I don't know if you know anything about it but perhaps you could alert someone to this or tell me if you know who I ought to alert? --CandlewickeST# :) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Tough question. If you go the edit history of the update you can see some people who have been active there. But at the same time, Wikipedians who feel that another Wikipedian is rushing them usually slow to a stop, so it's a tough call. It isn't St. Patrick's Day in the USA for almost 9 more hours, the Brits probably won't be any help, and with the extreme change in timezones March 17th in Australia dawns when the rest of us are cleaning up after Easter. As such, it might just be better to wait until an admin decides to do it on their own initiative. After all, if there's one thing we Irish are known for around the world it's our easy-going natures and our respect for authority. Lá Fhéile Pádraig sona duit. --Boston (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will follow that advice by sounding less urgent. I will be casual. Perhaps Europe will assist... hang on... shouldn't it be Saint Patrick's Day in Australia? Hmmm... the same to you... for someone named after an American city you know a lot about the Irish language... :) --CandlewickeST# :) 19:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot that the IDL is to to the east of Australia. Facts about Australia are, in general, forgettable. About myself, my granddad came from An Cheathrú Rua, and my cousin teaches Irish in Sligo, but I've never been able to master more than a few words. Mea cupla, mea culpa, mea maximum cúpla foca. --Boston (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Which would mean that Australia will already be unwrapping its Easter eggs as America embraces snakes and shamrock... my, that's quite a few words already... ;) --CandlewickeST# :) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Any suggestions? Maybe change "Europe" to "Ireland"? Royalbroil 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I did and do think that is the simplest solution. When readers click and find out where the episode takes place that can be an extra holiday treat. --Boston (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. On an unrelated topic, are you positive that the James Walters dab that you did for the World's Largest Cedar Bucket is the right guy? I assumed it was an average person when I heard the answer in the contest. This Walters was married in 2002 and he lives many states away. The bucket burned in 2005. I delinked, please provide a reference if it was him. Royalbroil 03:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea. The article already linked to the URL of that person, I just changed it to a Wikilink. Doing some websearching, I don't think James Walters and Jaki Neubauer are notable. --Boston (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! That's most unexpected and I'm glad that I've inspired contributions to the area of television as I discovered it to be a severely neglected area when I began to work properly on it. And with the GAA being another area desperately in need of contributions (I hope to assist there during the summer) the Celebrity Bainisteoir article has helped enhance that greatly. Also the timing of your mentioning those two articles you began is uncanny, Baz was on yet anothertelevision show a matter of hours ago and CB series 2 begins on Sunday, replacing The All Ireland Talent Show, the winners of which will be on DYK soon! Here is a source from the Evening Herald for one of the new contestants! So many connections! So there's some further information for you on those two. Incidentally, you sorted out the second last red-linked contestant by creating Baz and I finished the lot with Gerald Kean, which subsequently made it to DYK a few months ago and was later subject to a rather bizarre attempt at deletion. This page could do with an archive. I love your talk page design! :)--CandlewickeST# :) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Tá fáilte romhat. Would you have guessed I have never seen Celebrity Bainisteoir nor have I seen Baz except in photos? I had never even heard of either of them before reading your Fáilte Towers article and helping with the DYK hook. I did try to watch Celebrity Bainisteoir on RTE online but it's not available in North America. I guess it just goes to show what can be done with rigorous use of online sources. --mBoston (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed! It seems remarkable that you had no prior knowledge of either. A google search throws up a few YouTube videos though. I imagine that would be quite irritating for anyone Irish and abroad but I think they allow their news bulletins to be viewed internationally, although I'm not certain. It was really quite odd watching both Nancy Cartwright and Barack Obama getting to grips with the Irish language yesterday and today! Ith mo bhristí agus is féidir linn! :-) --CandlewickeST# :) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Of course "local" in that instance being 1.5 times the population of Ireland if Wikipedia itself is to be believed! :) I presume you'll be interested then in keeping an eye on the Celebrity Bainisteoir article for series two? It would appear to be either me, you or nobody at all... :( I suppose I may even get round to creating a template like I've done for Fáilte Towers and The All Ireland Talent Show... --CandlewickeST# :) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
OK... well at least that confirms me as essentially its head maintainer. Although it is probably big enough to divide into a separate article for another series... --CandlewickeST# :) 03:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I need to be careful with the reference I provided in the discussion page. I didn't spend too much time in the search (being new and aimed for a younger audience, the web search is full of blog entries and the like, so I need to do a little research into each individual book), but intuitively, an author with that many hits is clearly notable - finding the killer WP:RS is the PITA. I doubt that any admin would delete any of the articles, but these days I'm not too sure about these things. I guess what I'm saying is, I will try to put something on each book's talk page, but it may take until tomorrow afternoon (approximately 1600 UTC).74.69.39.11 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
In the meanwhile, go ahead and remove the prods. Just don't remove the reference tags until the issue is solved. Thanks and Happy St. Patrick's Day. - --Boston (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. When I noticed that you had not blanked this article with the copyright problem template, it led me to wonder if your concern was actually with the image? If so, I share it, and have nominated the image for deletion at Commons. But I wanted to let you know that (a) we don't handle images issues at WP:CP; those are addressed at WP:PUI, generally (see WP:GID for more), and (b) we can't delete images on Wikipedia that are on Commons; those have to be addressed there. :) If you know all this, and I've misunderstood the purpose of the listing, then please excuse the note. On first blush, I didn't see any violation within the text, but I didn't do a close comparison because I'm moving forward under this assumption. Please let me know if I'm wrong so I can go back and more closely compare. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I confess: after placing the notice, I figured out that I had placed it in the wrong place. I hoped that someone who knows how to get images deleted from commons might take up the task. Thanks for your valuable assistance! --Boston (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
When I closed the merge it went on to my watchlist, then I saw this today and tried to revert back to your edits. Hope they're correct. Regards jheiv (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is helpful. I have been "hands off" the article so I don't break the 3RR. Thanks and good wishes. --Boston (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but i usually am quite the asshole. also, a random compliment, that is a very nice picture of the MA state house you uploaded and have on your user page, though the stubborn Chicagoan that I am it took a bit to acknowledge that Boston has anything to like ;) Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No I did not, thats what I like most about wikipedia, away from all the controversial articles there are interesting things to read left and right. Thanks for that, Nableezy (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Now if the Bulls can just beat the team that shall not be named I could be happy for a day Nableezy (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I literally look down into Fenway Park from my bedroom window. I can't see the field, but I can see the stands. On game nights, my front sidewalk -- and even worse the T upon which I rely -- will be clogged with slow moving and/or unruly fans. If it wasn't absolute treason I might also articulate a wish that my home team might have a short season. --Boston (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets go BULLS. great game, maybe not so much for yall but now i can sleep with a smile on my face. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a note I have changed your CSD from "because well...see for yourself." to "It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic". the reason you provided is just not specific enough to see why it is to be deleted. --DougsTech (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
True that...thanks. --Boston (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the info :) yeah i was kind of thinking about making a artical of my band but ill let someone make one when we get more known... thanks for the info :) DemiLovatoWishes (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I can see here it looks like you have made multiple user names. This can lead to big problems as there is a very strict policy about sockpuppetry here. Do you want to indicate to me which (if any) of those screen names is not you and which one of these screen names you wish to choose to use from now on? If so, I can work at getting the others shut down before someone comes along and freaks out about it. Thanks. --Boston 06:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
UMMMMM yeah i dont have another account... DemiLovatoWishes is my username for like everything..... this is the only account i have made on wikipedia... but thanks for the info :)DemiLovatoWishes (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
There's clearly more to the story than that. --Boston (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these are socks; I think Sierra has Wikipedia confused with Facebook (as do many of the other accounts she has posted comments to). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think they're more or less contemporaries/peers, and like the same crappy stuff; but that's my impression. I don't think you've got any evidence here that would justify a checkuser. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I strongly share your suspicions, Boston, but I concur with Orange Mike that evidence (especially evidence of disruption) is lacking. I'll help you keep an eye on this set of accounts.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL...I never saw that page before but the sentiment is one I have felt more than once. Now please stop "vanderlizing" my talk page!--Boston (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me and nice work! I'll have a look at the page and see if there's anything untoward. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks for using my chicken template and promoting wikilove! People really dont expect fried chicken as a gift...but thats what makes it so much fun! --DougsTech (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your apology, I appreciate it. It is frustrating to see the article continue in its current form simply because it is so narrowly defined. The majority of sources pertaining specifically to British Pakistanis do seem to be negative and US centred. Any sources which would address the imbalance cannot be used as they rarely focus solely on British Pakistanis. It seems that the bias of the media has crept in through the Wikipedia back door, merely because of the way the breadth of sources is focused. Furthermore I believe the US media's focus on the term "British Pakistanis" is caused by the fact that "British Asians" would be interpreted differently than it would in the UK (through connotations of far east Asians).
On a related note. Why hasn't UnknownForever been given a check-user yet? The sock problem must be resolved. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
you are right. I have said what I needed to say. since you have more experience on wikipedia I want you to take the lead on this article and AfD while I spend some time and work on my next Terrorism = whateveritiscooltocallitonwikipedia-ism related article. I do suggest that we bring up to administrators attention that user 'always ahead' has vandalized this article once and may do it again. Ditto for Nangparbat and his innumerable sockpuppets who tried to blank the page several times as soon as I started work on it. BTW check the pageview statistics looks like a lot of people find the article interesting and are looking at it. I wonder if that influences the closing admins decision. Cheers;-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the high volume of hooks suggested, nominations for 2009 April Fool's Day DYK are now closed. DO NOT add additional suggestions to this page as they will not be considered for inclusion and the increased volume will only make it more difficult for editors to select and edit among previously received entries.
Nominations for next year's April Fool's Day open on 1 January 2010. Please wait until that time before nominating April Fools Day hooks for consideration. New hooks submitted before that date will be deleted. Also, please note that this message is an early April Fool's Day prank by this loser because he knows some of his April Fool's Day nominations aren't that great and he is afraid they won't make it to the main page if better nominations are received. He is trying to get a 200 DYK medal and has a few articles from the previous year that weren't submitted to DYK discussion in time for approval. Submitting them as April Fool's Day hooks is his final, desperate opportunity to get his mustard-colored acknowledgement boxes as a reward. Otherwise he will have just made those article for the satisfaction of improving Wikipedia, and we all know what a senseless waste of time that is. --Boston (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You can't just close the DYK noms without discussion! I undid you template. Some people always do awesome April Fool's Day DYKs at the last minute. You can discuss on the talk page if you want. Royalbroil 02:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you read it before undoing it. --Boston (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that other people will make that same mistake that I did. I don't think it should stay. Nice try! I wish someone would certify the 2 articles that I nominated. I don't like the noms hanging there for so many months. Royalbroil 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Then please put it on Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know. That is a smaller, more experienced group and it isn't the place where people actually make nominations. (Hint received, I will certifiy your articles. Jeeze!) --Boston (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
How about you put it on the talk page, but rewrite the complete box with irreverent style of the 2nd paragraph? The first paragraph was too serious... Royalbroil 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Too serious? You mean too hilarious! I should be a comedian. I know this because it was once said to me by a woman in a tavern before she drew a drink in my face. --Boston (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL. I mean the first paragraph was too convincing! Royalbroil 03:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to read about your wikiabuse. I hope things go better for you. I avoid the drama. You suggestion about hanging around DYK is very sensible, as long as you stay away from the talk page. If you watch that page, it's easier to watch people slinging mud at each other. Royalbroil 03:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall that page was a much mellower, friendlier discussion maybe 1 - 2 years ago, but maybe that is just nostalgia. --Boston (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It was mellower 1-2 years ago. We often went days between posts. People rarely came there with an axe to grind. Some drama-lovers like to hang out there now. Royalbroil 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this message is an early April Fool's Day prank by this loser because he knows some of his April Fool's Day nominations aren't that great and he is afraid they won't make it to the main page if better nominations are received. He is trying to get a 200 DYK medal and has a few articles from the previous year that weren't submitted to DYK discussion in time for approval. Submitting them as April Fool's Day hooks is his final, desperate opportunity to get his mustard-colored acknowledgement boxes as a reward. Otherwise he will have just made those article for the satisfaction of improving Wikipedia, and we all know what a senseless waste of time that is. --Boston (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a good compromise (you suck). I really respect your great work on DYK (you suck) and will go with this suggestion (you suck). At any rate, this is better for Wikipedia (Wikipedia sucks an infinite amount of monkey balls). Thanks! --Boston (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't comment on the April Fool's DYK page, but I don't understand how your 2 most recent noms are funny (no disrespect intended). Maybe Jason "King" Kendall could be spun better, but right now I don't get the humor. The Nevins Farm and Equine Center talks about different (albeit fairly unusual) animals that are raised at a farm. Farms exist to raise animals! Royalbroil 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the Jason "King" Kendall hook is struggling. For Nevins Farm and Equine Center, I think "farm" implies food and that the hook implies that people in Massachusetts are eating rodents. I thought this was a bullseye but community reaction may indicate it has missed the target. --Boston (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like my hooks for The Holyland (Wisconsin) and the Chili Bowl might be off the mark too based on reaction. I thought a pay per view special about odd topics like midgets (short people) in a chili bowl might be interesting. The Holyland is a major religious region for Isreali and Arabic people Jerusalem - it has nothing to do with Germans. Royalbroil 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Um...yeah...we have all heard of the Holy Land. I tried vamping your hooks a bit. If you approve of the new versions on the talk page in question I'll be happy to verify articles. Actually, I'll verify articles either way but why not try to actually move them forward as much as possible? --Boston (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Spendid, me likey the extra juice you put in the hooks! Royalbroil 04:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I used to have talent for happy, snappy hooks before Wikipedia, for me, devolved into an exercise in masochism. If you can do anything to help my two hooks we discussed, that would be appreciated.
Okay, I'm in no mood to do this for the rest of the weekend on other articles (or the one we've been arguing about). Lets call a truce? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you want to call it, I agree unconditionally. I wish you a joyful and relaxing weekend. --Boston (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noming Lorne Munroe. Here is another one for DYK you might be interested in nominating. For some reason my brain is having a hard time formulating a catchy hook, which is strange given how interesting she is. A possible double hook, with some referencing and a bit of expansion, could be done with Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival. Nrswanson (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
On March 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indian Love Call, 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.
I really have no way of proving that "Not Quite Dead" is notable. It is a professional comic book by a major artist from a major publisher. Is there any other professional comic book that has been classified as "not notable"? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I would do some net searches. In the meanwhile, having it tagged does no harm. Unfortunately, there are about 5000 articles about Marvelverse, DC Comics, and other comic book subjects which should also be tagged. Many should be deleted or merged. Don't even make me think about manga; it's a disaster here. But it is Wikipedia policy that two (or 5000) wrongs don't make a right. I'm not on a mission to correct these problems but rather found Not Quite Dead by hitting the "random article" button. All articles are supposed to show notability so I tag those that don't when I see them. Even a book by Ray Bradbury or a movie starring John Wayne must show notability. We don't say "it is notable because this person did it." Food for thought: When we can't show that something is notable in an encyclopedic sense...is it really? --Boston (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
All set. I've permanently blocked the two accounts for sockpuppetry and general disruption and I blocked the IP for a month. Drop me a yell if he/she comes back. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome...the swift mop of justice! --Boston (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes. 'Tis grand fun indeed to wave the Damp Yarn of Righteousness at evildoers! Thanks for allowing me the opportunity. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL right back at ya. It isn't often I get to do shtick on this site. Gotta save that for the blogs, unfortunately. Anyway, I need to run. Thanks again for looking to PMDrive1061 for all of your deletion and vandal-slaying needs. Later, bro! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
.svg)
