User talk:Art LaPella/Archive 2

Would you be so kind as to take a closer look at this? [1] Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent  talk  04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the church "located in the background of the Main Market Square"? Doesn't the background depend on where you are standing? How about simply "located at Main Market Square"?

At the end of the third paragraph, are "The restoration of the church..." and "...the following unfortunate reconstruction..." the same thing? If so, then the word "following" is misleading, because a reconstruction doesn't follow itself. Were they two completely separate reconstructions? Then why is the later reconstruction the only reconstruction without an approximate date mentioned? Or does it mean that as a result of the "restoration" and "the discovery of its Romanesque past", that only the Romanesque part had an "unfortunate reconstruction"? I don't think so, because the rest of the article uses the word "Romanesque" to mean what happened in "the early Middle Ages", and it says the church's Baroque style dates from 1611-1618. Art LaPella 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is great. Thanks Art. I fixed the two things you mentioned. Please take a look. Perhaps you can improve on it further. Yes, there were two separate renovations mentioned at the end of third paragraph just like you thought. That particular piece of information was based on article in Polish Wikipedia. Apparently, one renovation was conducted in the late 19th century and than there was the next "unfortunate" one. However, no dates were given and no references for me to confirm anything. For now I decided to edit it out. --Poeticbent  talk  06:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correction of my English. Be patient, it's not over of this story yet. I will adding text in portions so I'm asking for checking them. Thanks again :) Radomil talk 23:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"reviled" - I want ed to say that pilots of the 1st Fighter Reg. saw launchers and transfer coordinates to the 3rd Ground-Attack Reg. that attacked them. Radomil talk 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't attack, but only provided information to others, that sounds the same as the military word "reconnaissance" which is already used several times in the article. So for now I'm substituting "did reconnaissance" for "attacked". Art LaPella 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? "...the 103rd Squadron was delivering orders to commanders of first line..." "Commanders of first line" isn't a rank I recognize. And why would a squadron deliver orders to commanders? One would expect commanders to deliver orders (commands) to a squadron, not vice versa. Art LaPella 23:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

103rd Squadron had fuction of messengers. Pilots took orders (not all, mostly those top secret, maps etc., that werent send by radio or telegraph) from high command to commanding oficers of first line units of land forces, and tok reports etc. form first line to high command. Radomil talk 12:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S "British style dates" are also commonly used by continental Europeans. For us "US-style dates" looks very strange ;) Radomil talk 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.2 Leave anserws on users talk page with whom You are talking. Only then he can easly see it. Radomil talk 12:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the list of "UK-English country" You can add Poland. Our educational system recognises only ESOL exams. As for discusion style AFAIK prefered is anserwing on other users page due to technicalk reasons. Your counterpart in discussion recive message from wikimedia that someone edited his talk page. Regards :) Radomil talk 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, good idea, but if You are not too long in here :) I'm admin of pl:wiki and for now I have 3894 pages (without their discussion) in my watchlist~there. Adding talk pages of all persons that I ever talk on Wikipedia would be a nightmare ;) Radomil talk 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Would You be so kind and check my final part of text in the Air Force of the Polish Army? [2]

"Chessboard" is traditional name of Polish Air Force national mark [3]: . As for proportion of sections... mayby someone would expand world war II section... who knows... it's Wiki :) I don't think that cutting informations for correction of proportion is good idea :) Radomil talk 21:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps it would be good solution to write about this problem on Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. Maybe other users will expand/divide article in different way? Radomil talk 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great! Thanks a lot for taking the time out of your day to let me know, and also thank you for that link! I'm sure it'll provide very useful in my future editing forays. Thanks again! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. What is the proper way of introducing dates in the English language article? Do all exact dates get hotlinked in English Wikipedia? What if the year is mentioned, but without commas, neither before nor after? - I'm talking about this edit.--Poeticbent  talk  21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I quoted at Talk:Air Force of the Polish Army says to hotlink the month and the day, and goes on to recommend linking the year to enable other "preferences". Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) goes into more detail. The reason to link the month and the day is simpler: to please the British as I explained. I looked over English Wikipedia's most heavily edited article, George W. Bush, and found that about 90% of the exact dates hotlink the month, day and year.

What if the year is mentioned, but without commas? Do you mean February 4 1945? I see that sometimes, but Americans (at least) are taught in school to put a comma after the 4. If you link the February 4 and the 1945, it will add a comma even though you "forgot": February 4 1945. Art LaPella 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my comment there. I have no problem accepting the links, but there’s the question of omitting all commas, which is a bit harder for me to swallow. --Poeticbent  talk  22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If commas are the issue, then once again, if you link the month and day (day and month if you're British) and also link the year, the system ADDS a comma before the year, even though it wasn't typed. When I read Air Force of the Polish Army, there is a comma before each year. I don't think it depends on preferences, because of what the policy says. The exception is April 1 1944 at the beginning of the third paragraph, which could be fixed by linking the 1944. Art LaPella 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply there. My computer at home does not show what you suggest it should. The numbers remain "17 February 1945" with no commas, like it is written in the text. --Poeticbent  talk  23:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to take a look at this [4]? Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk  22:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jordan say "Tired body requires rest..." in English? If not, "A tired body requires rest..." is a better translation. Since he spent time in other countries, he may have said it in English, and we should retain the foreign-sounding original quote. Art LaPella 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the proofread. Much appreciated in both, the article and in the hook for DYK. The quote from Jordan was borowed from Polish Wikipedia so it might have originated in any language since Jordan was a polyglot. I think we should give it an English sound. --Poeticbent  talk  01:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what he meant to do now...I suppose I jumped the gun on calling the edit disruptive. Pretty sure it's our same user though, IP resolves to Brazil.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Art LaPella 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to take a closer look at these two before it's too late? [5] [6] Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 03:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Art LaPella 05:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I was most impressed with your "parashah Tesaveh". Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 13:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just copy phrases like "parashah Tesaveh" into the search field at the left, clicked the first search choice, and confirmed the association in the article's first sentence. Art LaPella 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to take a look at this? [7] Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the latitude and longitude in the upper right corner, then click Google Maps and zoom all the way in, it says "Uniwersytet Jagielloński Collegium Novum", between Golebia and Jagiellońska streets. I don't see Mickiewicza, from the address given in the article. Besides, the article says the Agricultural University became independent of the Jagiellonian University in 1972. So is it the right building, or do we need another latitude and longitude? Art LaPella 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this. And yes, you were right about the coordinates leading to Jagiellonian University instead. If you know how to get to the right place with ease, please go right ahead and change it. Thanks for linking the dates according to Manual of Style. Much appreciated. --Poeticbent talk 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My usual map software thinks Krakow is in New York or Australia. I found a map of Krakow with a street index *[8], so now I know where the street is, but the only school I found on that street is "Akademia Gorniczo-Hutnicza". You've written so many articles about Krakow that I assume you lived there, so is that the same place? If not, could you direct me to it along that street? If not, I suggest we remove the coordinates rather than provide wrong coordinates. Art LaPella 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the trouble. I searched for Agricultural University at http://www.uk.map24.com/ and found its address there, however, the name of the university was not shown. There are two universities on Aleja Adama Mickiewicza (avenue) just nine doors from each other. I was born and raised in Kraków, but I never visited either of them. I suppose the coordinates would work for both if I could only find the coordinates on that map. Here are the two universities with their respective addresses.

• Agricultural University of Kraków (Akademia Rolnicza w Krakowie)
  

Address: Al. Mickiewicza 21, Kraków

• University of Mining and Metallurgy (Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza)
  

Address: Al. Mickiewicza 30, Kraków

--Poeticbent talk 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the clue I needed!

Resolved

Art LaPella 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous! Now, may I ask you to take an equally discerning look at another new article? [9] Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 02:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find much to change this time. But I did change the coordinates again, even though the old coordinates correspond to the address according to map24. According to Google Maps, that area is labeled "Planty", and the "Flash Earth" satellite image confirms that area is covered with trees. Google Maps labels a building to the northwest across the street as the academy, so that's where I moved the coordinates. Art LaPella 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thanks a million! There’s an old Polish saying, “those who give quickly, give on the double”. Cheers. --Poeticbent talk 04:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and one more article please. This is the last of my Kraków universities series. [10] Thanks.--Poeticbent talk 02:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Art LaPella 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you have edited this article on St. Joseph's College, Hong Kong some time ago, thanks for your help. I've rewrited the article quite substantially, can you kindly give some comments especially on the language? Thanks a lot. sctonyling 16:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article. Here are questions on specific parts of the article:

1. I changed "library assistant" to "a library assistant", but did you mean to use the plural "library assistants"?

2. Is it really "Haye's Trophy" or should it be "Hayes Trophy"? I can't think of anyone named "Haye", but "Hayes" is a common English name for people like U.S. ex-President Rutherford B. Hayes.

3. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers in words says: "Whole numbers from zero to ten should be spelled out as words in the body of an article." I'm not sure if that is a good rule, but it explains why I have spelled out whole numbers from zero to ten as words.

4. Grand slam is a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. We don't usually link to disambiguation pages, but in this case it might be the best way to give the readers a general idea of what you mean. Usually for Americans, "grand slam" means grand slam (baseball) or maybe a grand slam in bridge.

5. You said you were young, so have you thought about how many people will read about your alumni and their large donations, and ask them for money? I hope you have some kind of permission, especially when naming a large, specific dollar amount. Maybe Hong Kong is different, but Americans don't usually publicize that sort of thing so openly. Art LaPella 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proof-reading the Political Ideology in the U.S., I really appreciate it! Regards, Signature^brendel 05:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your remarks over on the DYK Template. This is my first time ever recommending an article--I assume that your comments referred to the suggestion being over the 200+ character limit, and the term "heroic wounding" being a suggested fact. I am still a little murky on what 'character hook' meant. If you could elaborate further, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! MrPrada 03:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant only the 200 character limit, with no comment on "heroic wounding". What you referred to as a "suggestion" is often called a "hook" on the DYK talk page because it hooks readers into reading the article. The phrase "suggested fact" is there only because others in your position didn't know what a "hook" is, so I used the same phrase "suggested fact" used in the 200 character rule. Hence: "269 character hook/suggested fact" equals "269 characters in your suggestion, which is over 200". Art LaPella 04:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Brackish, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.131.255.238 13:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want the redirect, not the band. Art LaPella 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to take a look at this? [11] Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Jordan's Garden" 3 times and "Jordan's Gardens" 3 times. Is that an oversight, or is it a translation of a Polish plural that was changed over the last century? Does "arching" mean arching one's back as an exercise, or is it archery? Art LaPella 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Art. You never fail to impress me. The article should read "Jordan's Garden" when referring to the original Jordan Park in Kraków, and "Jordan's Gardens" in plural for all spin-offs throughout Poland, combined. And of course, I thought about archery there, not arching. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to take a closer look at this [12]? Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Art LaPella 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Please accept my sincere thanks, Art, for helping to bring the following articles to the front page of Wikipedia as DYKs: Lucjan Dobroszycki, Collegium Novum, Church of St. Wojciech, Henryk Jordan, Agricultural University of Kraków, Ludwik Solski Academy for the Dramatic Arts, The Pontifical Academy of Theology, Jordan Park, and Polish Jura Chain. I hope this little barnstar will be able to express my gratitude. --Poeticbent talk 04:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm moving it to my user page. Art LaPella 05:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Proddy, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Proddy is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Proddy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is it better now? --Vonones 05:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little. I'll have time to try to improve the translation myself after 20:00 UTC. I know a little German which might help explain the parts I don't understand in English. Art LaPella 13:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article. Please see that I haven't changed the meaning. Art LaPella 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot, do you think we should move it up for the choosers to see? --Vonones 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand; move what up where? Template talk:Did you know already says that we have edited the page and my template was removed. Jakob Künzler shouldn't be moved to another day, because Template talk:Did you know is organized by the day the article was created. I am not a "chooser" in the sense that I don't choose which hooks go on the Main Page. Art LaPella 17:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! it got featured :) --Vonones 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a more discerning look at my copy.[13] And, thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my monitor, the Kosciuszko Fort image upper border has a line crossing out a few words of text. Retrenchment links to an economic article; did you mean "entrenchment"? Dictionary.com and my experience as an American agree that "insulation" protects against sound, heat/cold or electricity. I'm not sure what word was intended - something like "caulking". Art LaPella 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading "History of the Kościuszko Mound" I think the right word for "insulation" is "waterproofing". Art LaPella 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this. I also fixed the layout hoping that the line you mentioned would disappear, although I don't see it on my monitor. --Poeticbent talk 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the line crosses out "Culture of Krakow" instead of "earlier historical church that was". Oh well. Art LaPella 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to take a look at that on a different computer tomorrow, since nothing's crossed out on my machine. But, I do know what you mean. Some layouts are like that. --Poeticbent talk 11:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Now the line goes across the bottom of the letters of "History of Krakow", with "Culture of Krakow" to the right of the picture. It still looks wrong but it's much more readable with a line across the bottom. The previous version had a line near the tops of the letters, with the picture covering the bottoms of the letters. Art LaPella 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? I added a couple of lines and the new reference pushing the content down a little bit more. --Poeticbent talk 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. The line just touches the bottom of the comma after "Heritage Abroad", and the "See also" section appears to the right of the picture. Art LaPella 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll leave it like this, Art. I don't seem to be able to reproduce the setting of your monitor, although I tried. BTW, the "Text size" on my monitor is set at "Medium" and together with the usual size of my "Active window" there's nothing wrong I can see. Thanks for being such a good sport. --Poeticbent talk 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you want to know my monitor parameters? I didn't find the ones you described but I did find: HP vs19 flat panel monitor, 1280x1024 pixels, "Normal" font size (not Large or Extra Large), 96 DPI. Art LaPella 03:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. The only difference is the size of my monitor at vs20 flat and my res. at 110 DPI. Not notable enough. --Poeticbent talk 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this thing for months, with the intention of upgrading its overall status. I suppose, it would take you a bit longer to perfect it. Nevertheless, this is a matter of greater importance to me, so please, get your hands dirty. --Poeticbent talk 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction, is "Wawel Castle with National Art Collection" the same as National Museum, Krakow? If not, can we link the "National Art Collection" to some other existing article? Anyway, it doesn't sound right for a list of landmarks to include Wawel Castle twice, so maybe it should be "Zygmunt Bell at Wawel Castle". Art LaPella 06:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Art. Every little bit helps. Please see this if you want to get an idea about what else is there... I’m not sure if I can address it all before I run out of time. Btw, National Museum and Wawel National Art Collection are two different things. I fixed that. --Poeticbent talk 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! Last night's edit doesn't show! Let's try it again - it's still written down from last night so I could do it in one edit. By the way, I don't know much about Featured Article procedure - my philosophy is to fix the obvious things first. For instance, you'll find I fixed almost as much at Krakus as I did at Krakow. Art LaPella 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Art. Of course I noticed your work at Krakus right away. And thanks for the link to Schengen Treaty. I didn't even realize we had a 26.8 KB long article on that already. --Poeticbent talk 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your welcoming message would be really appreciated here, especially after this comment. Much obliged. --Poeticbent talk 01:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For proofreading Tower Mounted Amplifier --Figarema |^Talk 00:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your reply at DYK suggestions, but I realize that the clutter on that page makes it unlikely folks will notice many new comments. So I posted it below, in a slightly altered form.

OK, sorry to direct the comment at you, but random comments at DYK aren't really helpful, especially to new users, a lot of new users don't even realize there is a hook length requirement (I know this is not a new user, but as much as we want everyone to read instructions, not everyone does, even established editors, this case being an example). I would say, that DYK hooks are like any material published to Wikipedia, if you don't want someone to edit it, don't publish it. IvoShandor 06:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least you link to the rule, but I think expecting everyone to come back and check for comments is a bit much, I would just hate to see quality material slip through the cracks because of ignored comments. I realize the work you do at DYK, and don't misunderstand me, it is greatly appreciated by me. IvoShandor 06:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice comments there because of how I look for errors, and I also answered there. One of the rules is to expect to come back and check for comments, by others not just me, and if you don't want any comments on DYK suggestions then that would be a major change indeed. If nobody else notices my length messages, the selecting administrator is supposed to edit for brevity anyway. Quality material would be more likely to slip through the cracks if I didn't say anything, and I'm not sure that a complete rewrite by me would be quality material any more. Art LaPella 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal. IvoShandor 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Art for correcting my Dyk nomination. I was reading your user page a bit and really liked it when you said, dishonesty in religion is called faith, and dishonesty in science is called political correctness-spot on. Anyway, don't fix those mistakes I've already done in this message :) Regards --Tarif from Bangladesh 06:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sir. I sincerely appreciate your copyedit in the article Asahiyama Zoo! For I'm not proficient in English as you (I'm such a ignoramus Asian dude!), I'll have lots of mistakes specially the way to put articles such as "the". Perhaps you might find other grammatical mistakes and typos in the articles I've written, so I'll be happy if you keep checkin me out, though I'll also keep attention not to have mistakes.

BTW, Asahikawa, Hokkaidō have been labeled so that it's cleaned up using prose. Perplexed at meaning of using "prose", but I'll just try to expand it next. The article would be smashing one if you cooperate after I write some.

With kindest regards --Daigaku2051 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Asahikawa, Hokkaidō. Here are some things I couldn't fix because I didn't understand them: "There are about 130 rivers including the Ishikari River and Chūbetsu River, and over 740 bridges are located." 130 rivers and 740 bridges where? I don't think they would fit into a city. Did you mean 130 rivers and 740 bridges in Hokkaido? I changed "when the IJA 7th Division (第7師団) was settled" to "when the IJA 7th Division (第7師団) was posted there" (a noun going with the verb "settled" would usually be a family, a wilderness or a disagreement), but is that what you meant?

Your English is better than my second-best language (German). You probably looked up wikt:prose if necessary, so maybe someone used the word to refer to this Template talk:Did you know rule: "contain more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)". Art LaPella 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say thank you so much again for English my edits. Actually, there are about 130 rivers and over 750 bridges in Asahikawa, and I added a source. I was also doubted if there're really over 750 bridges, but some sources prove it's true. I think the word "posted" was much preferable, that was what I wanted to mean, thanks! --Daigaku2051 08:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the Japanese reference but if there are 130 rivers in one city, then I think most of them would have to be small enough to jump over. In that case, a better translation would be "rivers and streams" or some synonym. We wouldn't normally use the word "river" unless it were at least 5 meters across and probably bigger. Also, in an American city we would direct a small stream into a culvert and bury it under a road, and we wouldn't call that construction a bridge. Art LaPella 19:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I've never known that you added a comment. I added "rivers and streams" to the article, but according to the source, there doesn't seem to be a distinction between bridges and culverts. It just says 750 "bridges" (橋) , not "culverts" (排水溝) . If you think it's too doubtful, I think it should be deleted. I'd like to try to count the number of bridges if there's really 750 in this city, but that's going to be a big project I think.... --Daigaku2051 13:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to direct your attention to the source. Now you've read it and I haven't, so you know something I don't know. Art LaPella 20:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Art,

You helped me on my first posting (when I was Mycroft Watson) and have done so on subsequent questions.

I have asked for help (using "helpme") on "My Talk" regarding the following from the article Philo Vance:

User talk:Marshall H. Pinnix From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Judging by the time you've spent on Wikipedia, I'm going to assume that blanking the Philo Vance article was an accident... not to worry, I've put it back. Accounting4Taste 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps not, the second time. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Philo Vance, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Accounting4Taste 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why have you blanked the Philo Vance page three times in the last ten minutes? You haven't given an edit summary to explain to anyone why you're doing this, and it sure looks like deliberate vandalism. I'd appreciate an explanation. Accounting4Taste 01:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

helpme

Please see my explanation in "Discussion" for the article "Philo Vance" as to what I have done. I strongly deny that my additions were "original research"--they were reasonable additions to text normally found in encyclopedias. (I learned about "original research" from my exercise with "Blood Done Sign My Name" earlier this year.)

Accounting4Taste's accusation of "deliberate vandalism" is insulting without any justification. (I recall seeing in Wikipedia's rules that courtesy should be shown between editors.) My understanding is that any Wikipedia editor can make revisions to any article within the bounds of Wikipedia's guidelines and restrictions. If not, no articles would ever be improved from their original text. (I haven't complained when revisions were made to my previous postings other than "Blood Done Sign My Name.")

Finally, I add that Accounting4Taste has said in "Discussion" that he doesn't possess copies of all the Philo Vance books; I do.

Thanks for your help.

Marshall H. Pinnix 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have removed the helpme template because you have not posted any questions. Feel free to readd it if you have a question about using Wikipedia. Thank you. - Rjd0060 03:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I am looking for help!

Ask your question below. You can look at the Help Contents, ask at the Help desk, or search the FAQ. Note to helpers: once you have offered help, please remove this template.

As you suggest, I am putting the "helpme" template back because I do have questions, stated above and below.

Marshall H. Pinnix 03:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anytime, but Items that are unverifiable or original research are not welcome here. Instead, what you might want to do, you may want to search Google or The Internet Movie Database. These two may help. And you may want to organize the talk sections a little so, next time, when you need help, I (or other people) will be able to help you. I'm not done yet, so I'll keep the {{helpme}} template on, for now. -Goodshoped35110sMy Talk!Contribs 03:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, -Goodshoped35110sMy Talk!Contribs

The Internet Movie Database. was not my doing. It was put there by Accounting4Taste in the original article (in the "Movies" section). I left it there out of respect to Accounting4Taste, the original author.

I don't understand what you suggest I go to Google for--there is nothing in my text that is unverifiable. When I quote or make reference to content of the adventures, I identify the particular novel from which directly taken. I can't vouch for the comments in the "Criticisms" section--except for the "Catalogue of Crime" one, which came directly from that book, page 520-- because the rest are those of the original author, Accounting4Taste.

Marshall H. Pinnix 03:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll send someone else to help you. Please put the {{helpme}} template back on, as I will search for another person. -Goodshoped35110sMy Talk!Contribs I am looking for help!

Ask your question below. You can look at the Help Contents, ask at the Help desk, or search the FAQ. Note to helpers: once you have offered help, please remove this template.

Doing what you say immediately above.

Marshall H. Pinnix 04:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marshall_H._Pinnix" Category: Wikipedians looking for help

Back to you, Art,

I'll greatly appreciate your help.

   Best regards,

       Marshall H. Pinnix 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Art LaPella, I moved this over from your userpage and tl-piped the template links so as not to show up at Category:Wikipedians looking for help (which is how I got aware). — Dorf⁠, was: AldeBaer 07:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User talk:Marshall H. Pinnix Art LaPella 01:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about the hook length at WP:DYK (6th October). I shortened it, but I was momentarily confused by the "310 character" bit. I thought you were asking me to reduce it to a limit of 310 characters. Could you possible put the "less than 200" bit in the initial link, as I had to scan the page to find what the limit was. I think the new one is 199, but that excludes wiki-mark-up (which isn't visible on the page for readers anyway). Thanks again. Carcharoth 10:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The suggestions section doesn't call the hook a hook. This could cause confusion. The current wording says "suggested facts should be short and concise (fewer than about 200 characters)". I think the link between 'fact' and 'hook' should be made explicit. Possibly it got changed at some point. Also, you say you don't include the '...' but do you include the '?' at the end? :-) Carcharoth 10:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few changes. Hope that makes things clearer. Carcharoth 10:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I should explain any more in the initial link - the whole point of the link is to avoid taking over the page explaining such details, which makes everything else harder to find. My article's first sentence says to be shorter, and my second sentence explains the 200 limit for those who don't know it. It also refers repeatedly to the Suggestions paragraph which says "not the edit page containing Wikitext". User:Art LaPella/Long hook also says "In the rule quoted above, 'Suggested facts' means hooks, not articles", and I can't make everything more prominent than everything else. But I like the idea of one name for a hook as in your change - my article suggests the confusion that has caused in the past. I'll mention the "?" at the end. Art LaPella 14:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. FWIW (sorry, for what it's worth - just been reading your user page), I think you should either count both the ... and ? (they both take up screen space), or ignore both (they are both part of the surrounding boilerplate). Of course, some hooks are a short sentence ending in ?, followed by a short explanation sentence (still keeping under 200), so maybe that is a good enough reason to not bother. In a character counter, does the ... count as 1 or 3? I just checked - it is 3. That's a good enough reason to leave it out. I guess the hassle of trying to avoid selecting the ? is a good enough reason to include it. Well, it looks like I've talked myself into a corner here! So I'll stop there. Thanks. Carcharoth 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thought in counting "?" but not "..." was that a) nobody has ever disputed a count for that reason, b) if someone did make an issue out of 200 versus 203, then it would be helpful to point to a long history of doing it one way or the other, so I should be consistent c) ... is boilerplate but ? (or .) would be used at the end of any sentence. Whatever. Art LaPella 20:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Whatever. But that is beancounting for you! :-) (And I'm glad someone does it, otherwise DYK would be sprawling all over the place). It is tempting to try and squeeze as much as possible in, but short and catchy does it. Carcharoth 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no active arbitration case right now, so it can go on WP:RCU. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out how to submit a Check User. Now I think I did it well enough to be understood. Art LaPella 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need any help. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Art,

Thanks for your input on my DYK nomination. I answered your remark here:

Di you know:Articles created on October 18

Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. I presume this will be OK with other editors for DYK. Art LaPella 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the Patent Office knows more about starting a project than about getting a project to work. Art LaPella 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird. No edit conflict? As I was writing it, I was thinking "This really is Art's thing" so maybe it's the result of some cosmic misalignment resulting from me taking on a grammar question. ;) Cheers, - BanyanTree 03:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work there. Rarely an error goes by without your comment or resolution. --Stephen 09:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Art LaPella 17:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a note from you that it appears I am engaged in an edit war, which I was not aware of. I have searched related changes and can't find even my own entries (although my entries show up on the page in question), much the less any entries that removed my edits. So, not knowing who changed my entries, I can't engage in Talk with the conflicting editor. What am I missing? Ordovico 19:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it so it is definitely passed 1500. and the DYK has been subst for dedicated, which is what some sources do say instead of segregated. Simply south (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The decision whether to use the article will be made by others (they probably will). This resolves the problems expressed at Template talk:Did you know. Art LaPella (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have made some comments at where it is right now. Simply south (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(hm....am i doing this right by answering you on your 'talk' page?) Thanks for fixing my comment about the Atom page. you asked what happens when i try to click on the Atom page's 'edit' tab, but the thing is, the 'edit this page' tab is suppressed when i go to that page, i don't see it as an option. anyhow, thanks for fixing the typo. Supineny (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job. You caught many errors that previous copy editors missed ;).Kmarinas86 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Art LaPella (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Art LaPella. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find an appropriate category other than "Boring", which doesn't seem to be intended for a list of real names. Art LaPella (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is that kind of facility where is no treatment. I was unable to find better translation anywhere, it is called "zachytka" or "protialkoholni zachytna stanice" which is hard to translate, but vocabulary showed me sobering-up station. When you are really drunken and you are for example injured or you fall asleep somewhere in the city completely drunken or there exists a danger you can be harmed by you drunken state you with the high probability end up in the sobering-up station. It is a special kind of medical facility that is able to handle with drunken people and suit them proper medical care if necessary. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sobering-up station" is as good a name as any for that concept. I added some explanation to sobering-up station, and of course you may correct it. Art LaPella 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Art LaPella. Thanks for your contributions to the article Samuel Cony. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Art LaPella 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for fixing the error on the St Barnabas Church, Hove DYK hook. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Art LaPella! How are you? Thank you for your contributions to the article Samuel Cony. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome again. Art LaPella (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I see a fair number of "thanks you" on your talk page, you deserve another pat on the back for all the hard work you put into DYK. You certainly help keep the gears running. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		To Art LaPella for all the little (and big!) things he does to keep DYK running smoothly. AgneCheese/Wine 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll put it on my user page. Art LaPella (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your comment that my expansion of Sai Baba of Shirdi for DYK-nomination consisted of only "10%", I was wondering how you came to that figure. Did you use a specific tool? Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 02:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a tool was unnecessary because the article was obviously well short of a fivefold expansion. I said "under 10%" (not "10%"). To see why, click Sai Baba of Shirdi and then click the history tab near the top of the page. I was answering a comment made on December 14, so see the revision history for that day (or if I count from December 13 I get a similar result). It says the article was 30,023 bytes when the day started, then shrank to 29,973, then grew to 30,346 bytes. 5 days earlier on December 9, there were no edits, so the length was 28,743 bytes all day. So no matter which time you choose on December 14, the article had grown less than 2,000 bytes since December 9. 2,000 bytes is less than 7% of 28,743. This arithmetic doesn't account for all the parts of the article that should be left out of the count (see Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions), but since most of the article should be counted, and since the uncounted parts are to be subtracted from all the numbers above, the conclusion still stands without needing more elaborate counting: the article grew less than 10% and surely less than fivefold (500%).

It's unlikely that anyone would expand such a long article fivefold, which would make it about 150,000 bytes. But once again, all the elaborate rules and arithmetic are summarized by what it says on the Main Page: "Did you know... From Wikipedia's newest articles". Art LaPella (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Seems rather complicated. I was hoping there might have been a tool to make life easier and use on a number of articles. I can do it manually as you suggest, but maybe I'll program a tool when I get some spare time what with Christmas coming up. Happy Christmas by the way! Ekantik ^talk 06:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was no tool, I said I didn't need one for this case. See the paragraph that begins "To count the number of characters in a piece of text..." at Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions, which describes what to count, what not to count, and mentions this website or Microsoft Word as tools. Art LaPella (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on the Template talk:Did you know page, which may not get noticed because it is so crowded. So here it is below:

• According to the Suggestions, the article must be expanded, at least 1500 characters long, cite sources and be interesting, which the article with modifications satisfies. Making the modifications longer would not be appropriate because the interesting DYK is not the main topic of the article. Could you help me understand what criteria are not satisfied and how this interesting bit of information could make it to DYK? Truthanado (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the real question is what is the meaning of expanded? My understanding is that it is based on the quality of the expansion, not the size. For example, let's suppose there were a 40,000 character Wiki article on Abraham Lincoln up to (and not including) April 14, 1865 and then someone added the sentence "John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln at Ford Theater on April 14, 1865", would a DYK hook of "Did you know that President Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford Theater?" be acceptable or not? Thanks in advance for your help understanding what the requirements for a DYK are. Truthanado (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the second (or third) sentence of Template talk:Did you know says the article must be no more than 5 days old or significantly expanded, and even the word "significantly" is an understatement. It's the size not the quality. Further down, Template talk:Did you know#Suggestions says the article must "be no more than five days old (former redirects, stubs, or other short articles that have been expanded fivefold or more within the last five days are acceptable)." Although a fourfold instead of a fivefold expansion might slip by, your John Wilkes Booth example would never be considered for Did You Know - unless of course there were a new article on the assassination, with at least 1500 characters counting prose only. Did You Know is pretty mechanical about counting characters, if only because we're better at quickly counting characters than at endlessly arguing gray areas, at a speed of over one new hook per hour. Articles whose authors very obviously don't speak English as their native language, go through. Articles that aren't new or essentially new, never go through.

This may seem too legalistic and I don't have a strong opinion about changing it, but that's what it takes to get approved. If we adopted a John Wilkes Booth philosophy for Did You Know, then we would have to change the main page heading. It says "Did You Know... From Wikipedia's newest articles", not from Wikipedia's newly edited existing articles. Wikipedia talk:Did you know is the place to debate the rules. Art LaPella (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback; it's helped my understanding. I've done a little more research/reading and learned that the main purpose of DYK is to encourage well-written new articles. In the future, perhaps we should consider something similar that encourages well-written updates to existing articles. Happy holidays. Truthanado (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (For whatever it's worth) I thought that was the most interesting item in the list that day. -- carol 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Art LaPella (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to hang out around the DYK noms quite a bit, so I thought I'd ask you this: Is what I've been doing (posting reviews of the noms) helpful? For some reason, I was under the impression that only admins could move the articles to the template, and I just found out that that is incorrect. Do you think there is any value in doing what I have been doing? Thingg (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reviews of the noms are helpful. The ideal Wikipedia shouldn't put things on the Main Page without reaching a broader consensus on issues like yours. There have been some objections to some of your judgments but I'm sure you have read them. I similarly review noms, at a much more detailed level (which is not a criticism of your level), and usually just make changes myself to things like capitalization. I post questions as you do when a proposed change is more complicated than spelling etc. I won't comment on moving articles to Template:Did you know/Next update because I have never done that myself and don't know much about it. Art LaPella (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you're active ATM. Are you planning to post the next DYK update? It's running late already and we have something of a backlog right now. Gatoclass (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that request, seems it was done while I was posting that :) Gatoclass (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is often late. Another adminstrator who is interested in DYK would help. Would you like to be that new administrator? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my place is proofreading for simple errors, not taking responsibility for the final product in the ways that are expected from the selecting administrator. Art LaPella (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. could you please change the word "white" to the word "American"? This is in accordance with the current revisuion of the article. thanks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/January_4%2C_2008" --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you. WP:ERRORS is a better place for such requests. Art LaPella (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thank you for the help. feel free to write on any further items. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly review the DYK for Edward Kennon? I tried to reduce it in length, but it is hard to do so to get the unique point across. Thanks, Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does counting hooks just mean the spaces of something? Thanks for shortening this: I could not seem to reduce its length accordingly.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 200 character limit includes both letters and spaces. For instance, "Billy Hathorn" is 13 characters: 5 for Billy, plus 1 for the space between words, plus 7 for Hathorn. You could count the entire hook one character at a time that way, or you could automate the count by using Microsoft Word, or you could use some similar word processor, or you could use a website like this one. Art LaPella (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you comment. If I understand you, you do not distinguish between in-the-news article links and any other article. I, however, seek to simplify determining which link goes to the news article referenced by linking it to a meaningful phrase such as "Services are disrupted" to prevent persons from clicking through to an article about the world wide web. I didn't anticipate the subject to involve much discussion but I am interested in hearing what thoughts you are putting forward, and coming to a consensus if that is a possibility. SideJob (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC) If you do agree with changing the presentation of this link, I would greatly appreciate your backing on the Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_In_the_news talk page.[reply]

My comment here was that I simply didn't understand what you meant. Now I understand what you meant by a "keyword". Someone else has changed the Main Page to say disrupt internet services, and the Internet link no longer appears, so is that what you wanted? Art LaPella (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accent, that's 101 Google hits v. the official Library of Congress file. Durova^Charge! 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a Library of Congress file, so revert if you like. But I checked all 101, including some in the Italian language - only Wikipedia uses the accent. Art LaPella (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right with me; LoC occasionally makes mistakes. They hosted a flipped version of this file, for instance. Durova^Charge! 05:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was not sure, but my DYK suggestion on this article has not been reviewed as yet. I was wondering if you could review it before it gets expired? Thanks, Mspraveen (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Chowrasia is now at Template:Did you know/Next update, from where it will probably proceed to the Main Page within the next 9 hours. So if "reviewed" means the green checks, orange X's or purple "/"'s, that review is no longer necessary because the hook was accepted. Anyway, that kind of review is normally provided by others such as User:Agne27, User:Gatoclass and others, and my contribution is more basic proofreading for things like capitalization and punctuation of the hook. Art LaPella (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Mspraveen (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - can you explain something to me: I recently nominated Port of Mainz as a DYK. Then today I come back and find that it has been placed on the main page and all, but that I missed it. Looked a pretty short period to miss it (I am usually on way to much for a 24 h period to simply slip through like that, but ok.

But then I check the nomination archive (where you commented on this) and not only did someone simply change my hook (from a hook talking about staple rights to one talking about the Roman port), I also get:

"Which is the intended article? Port of Mainz is used in another hook, which is presently at the end of February 12. Staple right isn't long enough. See #Suggestions for details. Art LaPella (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)"

"Port of Mainz has already been featured and Staple right is too short. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)"

Well, I see now that I forgot to bold the main entry - but why do you guys think there was another hook? I assume that someone else simply changed my hook and copied it in again??? Did it actually END up on the main page at all? I am quite confused Ingolfson (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now. Someone else nominated me, while I was still finishing off the article before nominating it myself. How irritating. My hook was better, and I had planned that one for a few days. Ingolfson (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My usual role is proofreading for mechanical things like forgetting to bold the main entry, and sometimes checking if the article is at least 1500 characters (counting prose only), rather than policing this sort of thing. But if there is a new article, there is much precedent for someone else to propose it for Did you know, and provide a hook. I understand the irritation, and a better place to discuss it would be Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Art LaPella (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: Did you know is normally updated every 6 hours, not 24. Art LaPella (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bubonic plague map 2.png has been fixed. Thanks for bringing that to our attention! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Art LaPella (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits to EVP. Hopefully we can keep people from trying to force changes into the article. You see on the talk page some of the false interpretations of policy which could lead to that. I have nothing against sourced skeptical material, only to articles which sound like they are promoting or are derogatory to the subject. And of course, we can fill the thing out with whatever sources are relevant, with ATT. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have relatively little patience with eternal neutrality debates, and I can probably help more people with edits like this one. However, in places like EVP I get frustrated seeing the same arguments presented over and over again. Lately, the argument goes that even if a pseudoscience/parapsychology/insert synonym here is notable enough for an article, we can't say anything in that article because only pseudoscientists/etc. talk about it, so no reliable source exists. It would be nice if all such debates could be centralized at one place, probably a policy talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you’ve reviewed my submission of Chelembra Bank Robbery. Is there any other formality from my side in order to approve it to DYK? Is there any cleanup required in the main article? Please leave your comments here. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over the article to make it sound as if an American or Englishman had written it, although articles with a foreign sound have made it onto the Main Page in the past. Other than that, just watch Template talk:Did you know to see what comments come from others. Art LaPella (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. --Avinesh Jose  T  12:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chelembra Bank Robbery, 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.

--Maxim_(talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, although that is exaggerated - all I did is edit the foreign-sounding English, as discussed in the section above this one. Art LaPella (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened was a wrong username was copied from T:TDYK to T:DYK/N. --PFHLai (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm the creator of the article and thankful to Art LaPella for editing it. --Avinesh Jose  T  10:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me if Invicta (locomotive) is long enough to nominate please? Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, not quite. I count 1370 characters. The rules say 1500, and sometimes people ask for more anyway. I counted the 5 paragraphs of text, without the headers. The rules are at Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria. Art LaPella (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art, I am not sure that I can claim to have completely understood the terminology of the guideline on dashes, so as to give an accurate and explanatory definition. However, there are examples there, and I think it is these that help one understand the guideline the most. It would appear, as I see it, that the relationships referred to in the guideline more or less are:

• from one object to another (first bullet: to or through);
• between two objects (spacially/temporally);
• of one object against another (conflict);
• of one object in relation to another; and
• of two objects together (co-operation).

As long as both are independent, and there is a relation like these (just look at the page's examples, and it will probably come to you if it is a similar case or not), an em en-dash is fine. Besides, it is often likely that a hyphen will simply look wrong in this usage; an en-dash shows disjunction well (key-word independent), while a hyphen is more connecting. I don't know if I can express myself better. I do know, however, that I am usually rather confident about the usage of en-dashes, unclear as the guideline might sometimes appear. Waltham, The Duke of 23:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "an en-dash is fine", not an em-dash. I'm particularly puzzled by the example Mon-Khmer languages. A hyphen is used because there is no relationship - (oops, I mean —) but there must be a relationship between the Mon language and the Khmer language, or the phrase "Mon-Khmer languages" would be as meaningless as "Danish-Korean languages". The only other example of a non-relationship is "Indo-European", although Indo-European languages are related languages spoken in both India and Europe. Art LaPella (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did. :-) (It has been corrected now.) Now that I see where the problem is, I understand your concern; although I don't know much about languages, it is plain that there might be more to this than meets the eye. I think you should bring this up at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style—after all, it is things like this that cast doubts upon the validity of guidelines and reduce the willingness of editors to follow them. If you will excuse me now, I have to attend my Danish–Korean lesson.

PS: I almost corrected the "em-dash" in your message instead of mine. I spotted it just before saving. Waltham, The Duke of 08:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style#Mon-Khmer Art LaPella (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love the Bill Gates joke. I escaped and survived his empire and am thankfully still alive. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 03:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redondo Beach? I live by Steel Lake. Art LaPella (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too cool. The area has changed so much in the last ten years. I have many fond childhood memories of Redondo. *sigh* ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 05:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you understand the rule I quoted? Winthrop isn't a new article, and it isn't five times bigger - it isn't even 2 times bigger, so I can't imagine a selecting administrator picking it. Sometimes we discuss changing the rule, but the Main Page does say "From Wikipedia's newest articles". Art LaPella (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did understand the rule :-) I added the content over a period of time, and it wasn't really very much. I read through several pages on the Washington state archive to find it though *whew* I am a fan of Winthrop. A lot of character packed into a wonderful little place. It is even home to the oldest legal saloon-been there(good food!), done that, and even bought a t-shirt! And the scenery of the area only adds to it all. I can just see the Harvard & Yale graduates walking through town so many years ago! Thanks for writing back. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our family has been to Leavenworth, Washington several times, so maybe we should try Winthrop.

I have just created a new explanation page. At Template talk:Did you know it will look like this: No qualifying article. Art LaPella (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hook's author will hopefully click that link and get an explanation. Since you were just in that situation, you can tell me if I missed anything. It resembles User:Art LaPella/Long hook, which I have used for months. Art LaPella (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks for taking the time to create the template :-> BTW you should try Winthrop and Twisp. We made the trip in a loop, starting out in Olympia, then driving across I-90 and around through Wenatchee and Highway 20. On the way back we drove down Highway 20 to I-5 and then on to home. Be sure to eat at Three Fingered Jacks! ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 04:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no escaping the Curse of the Duke, Mr LaPella. It was attentive enough on your part to change the hyphen to an en dash, but what you did not know is that it should also be spaced, as the first part of the compound had a space. Unfortunately, I was quite late and my suggestion was not implemented, but that is not why I am here. I just wanted to be all smug and taunting, and remind you that you shall never be free of my presence.

You are doomed.

PS: Don't you archive? Waltham, The Duke of 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I shall be free. In another few months you shall presumably be making such changes yourself if I haven't learned by then—and if you still aren't watching Template talk:Did you know. Did you miss #Archive? Art LaPella (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That's "free OF my presence"! Art LaPella (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have taken the liberty to indent your message, for greater clarity.
• I am too busy to watch the hooks in their making. I could try to have a look once in a while, given that they are short enough to be corrected relatively quickly, but there are just too many of them.
• On the other hand, the prospect of becoming an administrator is certainly an interesting one. As I am not really into vandal-fighting, DYK would become one of my basic priorities.
• I noticed the existing archive, but perhaps a second one is in order. This page is way too long.
• Is anything wrong with my of? I see no problems whatsoever. Waltham, The Duke of 00:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are only around 50% more hooks flowing through at Template talk:Did you know, and about 1% more hooks at Template:Did you know/Next update, than on the Main Page. The former looks much longer because it has a week's worth of hooks, but I only review the new hooks. This is done on the edit history page by comparing my latest edit to the current version (or maintaining a time stamp list in case I don't change anything.) Art LaPella (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Only" 50% means that one out of every three hooks will not end up in the Main Page. A sad but unavoidable waste of resources. It could be worse, of course... Well, it's just copy-editing; I suppose I could do it when I have time. I'll use your system—it's simple and effective.

The only problem is that hooks tend to mutate after being reviewed, which means that I'll still have to scan them on the Main Page.

What about the automated archiving list? Nobody seems to have any further comments to make, so I think our work on WT:DYK is done. What's next? Waltham, The Duke of 04:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Wikipedia:Bot requests, where I have the experience of trying and failing. I don't know a better alternative. Art LaPella (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that you should try your luck (again). This time we have a system which is neither too broad in scope nor requires admin tools; with some luck and persuasion, it will be accepted. I'll come and comment once you create the thread.

On a completely different note, I have just discovered Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits. Funnily enough, the person whom I know who is nearest to me is... You. Just fourteen places below me, sharing the 1916th position with another three editors. Odd... Waltham, The Duke of 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot requests#Did You Know Art LaPella (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let's see, now, how it goes... Waltham, The Duke of 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Gimmetrow has taken up the task. She says that it will take time, but that's only to be expected... I think we can be optimistic, Mr LaPella. I'll have the champagne ready just in case... Waltham, The Duke of 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She? You know something I don't. Art LaPella (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I've just heard as much. One uses a pronoun, and it spreads. I hope I'm not mistaken; it will be the third time and someone will be quick to attribute it to some kind of obscure syndrome. Last thing I need. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Art LaPella. Thank you for catching my mistake! I've included the link to the actual article now. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out my objection. Art LaPella (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Kafka Liz (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]