I noticed your post on User_talk:Dekisugi. Thought i'd give him and you a helping hand. If you're having a problem with a user vandalising pages, you can report them to the admin Here. Hope i've helped :) - TheProf07 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks TheProf07. Yes, you can report there, and that's where I reported vandals, because I'm not an admin. Keep up the good work! Dekisugi (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I happened to notice your Pól Ó Foighil article in the DYK "waiting room" a last night and left a complementary note beneath it. I see no reason why it shouldn't make front page. U haven't checked out your "Lazarus" Coogan article but will. Go n'éirí an t-ádh leat. -- Boston (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's your hook going on the main page later today. I used to fill out the D&D monster and class stuff, but I think that is a real lost cause- it may well be best to delete the lot and start over! So (if LM gets to good article) I'll continue to write the book articles up when I feel up to it. By the way, you look a little like one of my favourite musicians! J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, the Crispus Attucks article is a huge vandal magnet and always has been! --Boston (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Looked like it to me, too. I'll keep an eye on it after the week is up and see if stronger measures are warranted. I was kind of surprised it hadn't been protected before. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I remember trying to get it protected about a year ago but can't exactly recall the results of my efforts. I think it was protected but only temporarily. --Boston (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I like your work. Walpole just happens to be on my watchlist. Thanks for the note though. There's nothing like a little wikilove, huh? Mstuczynski (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No, i think the next time User:Steph mcdonnell vandalises a page he/she will be indefinitely blocked by the admin. You should report it to WP:AIV if you spot him/her vandalising wikipedia again. As for the sock IP's, make sure the admins are aware of them aswell and they should get temporary blocks. Thanks TheProf | 2007 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is what the image depicts. However, please see my comments to Ghostexorcist. While it's unwise base one's understanding of a concept on a single image, I will let your edit stand for the reasons I expressed on Ghostexorcist's Talk Page. Best wishes --Boston (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Re-reading the caption with very close attention to syntax, I suppose the point of whether or not the stereotype has been applied to other Asians or not is a moot point. Literally, this picture depicts (as it says) "a harsh depiction of the Chinese". In other words, it is good that you changed the caption accordingly. --Boston (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am not claiming that "coolie" is a Chinese-specific phenomenon, just trying to describe what the image depicts correctly, since the stereotype in the image isn't so general and it seemed to give the wrong idea previously. Anyway, obviously an image caption is not a major issue. And now we edit-conflicted and you said basically the same thing I was going to, but I'm posting it anyway. :-) Dmcdevit·t 06:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On 8 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Museum Wharf, 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.
--50 awaits ... Victuallers (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kindness! There's a couple more articles I recently-created and submitted to DYK so I guess I am back whether I want to admit it or not! Busy these days, though, so I think I will never match how profilic I was a year ago. Again, thanks for the message, it's a pleasure to be working with ye again. Boston (talk)
Don't be scared. But if you leave the gay mafia Cabal, you won't sleep with the fishes. You'll be forced to wear brown shoes with black pants, be banned from all shopping malls and grow a mullet for the rest of your life. You've been warned. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nice words. Your article list is even more impressive, your DYK record also. Looking forward for more your contributions. - Darwinek (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dude... wow. I think your computer got a little trigger happy with that vandal warn you gave 220.225.246.3. It ended up listing about 7 things which he hadnt touched (yet). Just letting you know. You should lookie here. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I got it now... they were all old things he did. Alrighty. Well, then nm. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't feel the user should look like they have vandalism "strike one" against them when it's more like "strike seven". There were even a few edits I didn't warn about because they could, by a far stretch of the imagination, be exused under a good faith perspective. - Boston (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Mm... I wasnt sure if your computer had just hit the button (or bourbon) alot, or what. Wanted to make sure you werent out there with a drunk computer. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, "BQ". That's my 51st (really 52nd, I once has a DYK that later got merged and I haven't been counting it). Thanks for all your work on keeping Did you know? running smoothly! Boston (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
On 17 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Patrick's Blue, 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.
Another one for your collection - happy St Patrick's Day! BencherliteTalk 09:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I created Clarence Lightner tonight and wanted to know your advice on how to make it a possible DYK candidate. I've never nominated an article before and I don't know if that particular article would be considered a good candidate. Does it help alot to have a picture? Because I can't find a free-use pic just yet. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
For Christ's Sake, don't tell your parents you're a bear! It will only confuse them. - John Waters.
Glad to be of assistance. I wrote two possible hooks for the Clarence Lightner article and posted them at Template talk:Did you know. Go there, see how people are doing it, and in the future you'll be able to do it yourself. Having a picture is nice but not key. References and good writing are key. If there is picture, it can only be used on the mainpage if it is a free image rather than a fair use image. That's why I was able get a picture on the mainpage for my St. Patrick's Blue DYK -- I tied it into a free pic of the Irish Presidential Standard. Boston (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
On 19 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lake Winnecunnett, 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.
Not a bad little article you managed to dredge up there :) --Gatoclass (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
On 24 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tiia Piili, 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.
You're not bugging me at all; I am friendlier than I look. The Leonard Hall (Shaw University) article is good. I see someone already nominated it for DYK and I am sure it will be chosen. Did you have a specific inquiry? Would you like me to give it a delicate tweak when I have time? - Boston (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The hook says the men in the picture are the first graduates, but it's the class of 1889, not 1886. I was wondering how to re-word the hook to match the picture, or should I re-word the hook altogether? Yes, I love to be delicately tweaked. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the little ™ beside the term Big Mind in the Dennis Genpo Merzel article. Does that seem like it belongs? Thanks. I don't think it's proper form for Wikipedia. I have no other motive. Let's seek out some other opinions on this. Boston (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Shunryu Suzuki, and many other teachers, discuss "big mind" in their teachings. TM makes it clear that this is different from such terminology. That and Brad Warner's criticism takes direct aim at the trademark. You are removing content that is factually accurate and non-controversial. I'm not sure why you insist on this? (Mind meal (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC))
Are you aware of the three revert rule? Boston (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am, and I find it curious you avoided making it by having an individual who gave you a barnstar do it for you. That could be considered sockpuppetry. Back to the point: Generally speaking, I agree with you. I'm also up for meditaion, should it be needed. I will go along with whatever consensus is reached, provided it is not just people who have given you a barnstar. Wikipedia generally discourages the use of trademarks in articles "unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." As has already been stated, big mind is a common theme in several teachings in Zen Buddhism. Merzel, being a Zen teacher, has designed Big Mind (which is not a "Buddhist" technique, per his own statements. It is for anyone and everyone to experience, and is informed largely by psychology. Because he is a Zen teacher, and because other Zen teachers use this term commonly, we need a way to distinguish that which is common in comparison to this brand. (Mind meal (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC))
FYI, I am sorry for accusing you of contacting this individual. They likely are watching your talk page, saw this edit, took a look and took action. I just found it curious, being that you both know each other and made the same edits within minutes of eachother—considering this is a usually inactive article.(Mind meal (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC))
You are forgiven; I might have jumped to the same conclusion. The user who did the edit after mine gave me an award once but I don't otherwise know them. Besides being careful about making accusations of sockpuppetry, I would caution you about labeling good faith edits as "vandalism" especially when, as it seems in this case, the issue is open to debate. Best wishes. Boston (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In regards to what we are discussing (rather than how we are discussing it) I think the capital letters does the job. Boston (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that shouldn't be there. See MOS:TM, specifically "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." --MZMcBride (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But the editor above disagrees and has thrice reverted changes. It doesn't seem a terribly important matter, but it doesn't seem like good style either. I removed the ™ twice but don't want to break the 3 revert rule. - Boston (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
How about this: We remove all references to the trademark except in the criticism section—for the trademark is one of the central issues in Brad Warner's criticism. His piece is titled Big Mind™ is a Big Load™ of Horse Shit. Is that a good compromise? (Mind meal (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC))
I advocate compromise, but I think what you decribe is simply what we accepted forms of style in Wikipedia indicate what we must do. If that's the title, that's the title. One doesn't remove punctuation or ™ or whatever someone includes in a title. I think, however, in the Big Mind article itself an explicit mention of the ™ symbol might be appropriate. I will work it in. Boston (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well one thing remains clear: It cannot be removed from Brad's quote. (Mind meal (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
Correct. - Boston (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, in terms of the keep/delete differential, the result was keep between that. In terms of a merge, it looked like there wasn't a clear consensus in the afd, no so much for it, but where to redirect the page afterwards. By all means start a merge discussion on the talk page though, I just didn't feel it was clear enough to call it that at AfD. Wizardman 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouraging assessment. There is so much that has yet to be covered and I try to do my part. Thoughtful notes from fellow editors who notice those efforts make me heart smile, especially from those who do great work of their own as well. Happy editing friend! Tiamuttalk 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Note: The IP you reported only had two edits to its name. This does not constitute enough activity to issue a block.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No worry. I thought perhaps when there is only vandalism we didn't let them have three strikes. I'll keep the policy in mind and I will keep reporting vandals as I see them. I think I got about a dozen blocked this month. Best wishes - Boston (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
regretfully had to revert. It is a wikipedia:Disambiguation page which must follow certain rules. Being a long-time editor, you must know this. You may want to write "Lake district" article (which now is a redirect), using good references. Mukadderat (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
On 2 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Skinny House, 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.
Thank you! This is the first time I specifically took pictures of something in order to write about it. I want to give thanks and acknowledgement to GregManninLB for letting me know about the existence of the Skinny House (here in my own city) by a red link in his excellent spite house article. - Boston (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Very impressive - so many dyks... 100? Victuallers (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! No, I haven't got 100 DYKs, this is my 56th. I was worried that this particular DYK wouldn't make it because of the subject matter: a bad rap song with a potty-mouth name! It's nice to see that people promoting DYK’s have an appreciation for the unusual. I think that’s kinda what DYK is all about. - Boston (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Are you connected with the bot that is leaving red links on user spaces? - Boston 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you give a diff? The only bot I operate is User:Computer and the only task it is processing (currently) is fixing double redirects. -- Catchi? 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank's for the reply. It's "User:CommonsDelinker". I asked because it's trying to use a barnstar image which I think is credited to you. It replaced my barnstars with red links which wasn't so cool. No big deal. I left the operator a message on commons. - Boston (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh That was a newly discovered bug. :) -- Catchi? 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that your signature is not closed, and the text formatting is passed on to following text. Please consider adding </span> to the end of your signature. Thank you! -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I changed my signature per your recommendation. Can I refer me to an example of where my signature as was messeed up formating? I haven't seen it happen yet. - Boston (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the bottom of this page at my signature. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I just took a second look, it seems the formatting was from your message, not your signature. However, it's a good idea to include </span> in your signature to avoid such a problem. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
On 11 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article mizuna, 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.
Sorry, there's only one picture per update and yours isn't it :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
lol...I didn't mean the pic would be on the main page. I meant a pic for the article since it will get as much traffic in the next 6 (or whatever) hours as it ever will.- Boston (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
On 11 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pteridomania, 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! That's DYK #60 for me...but who's counting? ; ) - Boston (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No problemo, nice little article, I enjoyed the read :) --Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please use constructive edit summary in the article. Edit summaries you used in the article like "gobble gobble" etc. are inappropriate. Are you ok? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL. Yes, I am okay...thanks for asking. You're right, of course. I was just "talkin' turkey". Attribute it to high spirits in close anticipation of a fun summer weekend. I hope you have one as well! - Boston (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I do not know that language. I am sorry if I was a bit harsh. But frankly, to a English speaking person it is extremely hard to understand what the edit summaries were. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you weren't harsh at all. Gentle reminders of guidelines are always welcome. If you're really unfamiliar with the phrase "talking turkey" and are curious, you might want to look it up on Urban Dictionary. As an idiom, it basically means "to be very direct and forward". I was, however, just using it in a silly, literal sense. - Boston (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I was just cleaning up the references, very ugly. I will go back and {{Cite web}} them later. Should you not be staying in the Guinness and Irish Whiskey sections? 8-D
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Gak! Take a look at my user page and you'll see I am nothing if not scattershot in my editing topics. And the only booze in my apartment right now is about 2 oz. of cachaça. - Boston (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: your post "Don't mean to step on your edits. If I did, sorry." I say, Edit away! I've got no puppy love for my posts and am happy to have others revise them. GregManninLB (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, what I meant was that I was doing it at the exact same time which often results in an edit conflict. I know you're a mature and savvy user that would never object to the principle of someone editing your work. Thanks! - Boston (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your kind words on my talkpage. I will absolutely link to Raven banner, as soon as my computer works properly and I can finish the article :).--Berig (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
On 13 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bartholomew Gilbert, 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.
61 DYK's?! Wow, that's fantastic - an unbelievable amount. I should really have declined your DYK to let others get a chance! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL. If that was so, why do they have 50 DYK and 100 DYK medals? There's people who have way more than me...I'm practically a noob!- Boston (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Me and you need a little chat! Any chance you could email me ? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
For well over 50 fabulous "Did you know?" entries, and many other great content additions to Wikipedia, I award you the 50 DYK Medal. Congratulations on all your hard work, you're a valued member of the community and I suspect that your reputation will continue from this point onwards. Keep up the great work! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I am delighted and, most of all, surprised! (c;
I very much agree with this opinion stated by Jimbo Wales earlier this year:
We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been my experience that the worst people on Wikipedia tend to follow the law pretty close to the letter while using the spirit of cooperative participation as toilet paper. Don't be one of those people. - Boston (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
On 15 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alex Perelson, 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 have left a note. That editor has fewer than 20 edits, and seems unfamiliar with basic WP style. He has also removed an infobox from a page because it duplicated material in the text (which is what an infobox summary is supposed to do). He seems more inexperienced than malicious. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought the same until I noticed some of Aaxxll's edit summaries seem to contain Wikipedia jargon. The last time he/she removed all the references and footnotes from Hawayo Takata the edit summary left was "Revert - Links were added WITHOUT extra content - Such 'references' are NOT needed - I suggest independent reviewer". Since they asked for extra input, I sought it out. Thank you very much for giving the matter some attention. - Boston (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
For Christ's Sake, don't tell your parents you're a bear! It will only confuse them. - John Waters.
Yeah, I decided to throw that one back as it didn't quite gell with the other hooks in the update. Already had one animal one in that update anyhow.
Don't worry, it will probably get used in the next one, it's a nice comical hook so it's in no danger of being overlooked :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind note and for pardoning my somewhat crass and over eager inquiry. Saying you threw it back is a good choice of words when discussing a small fish! - Boston (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The page view data comes from a counter created by a user named Henrik. It can be found at http://stats.grok.se/ For example, it shows that your Boston Magazine article was viewed 1,107 times in the month of April alone: http://stats.grok.se/en/200804/Boston_magazine It's a useful tool to determine how many people are paying attention to what you edit.Cbl62 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I am betting of all articles I've authored, sexual cannibalism tops the hit list. Thanks much. - Boston (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
On 16 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rum Swizzle, 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.
Btw, your more recent photo seems to indicate that you've lost weight? :-p --BorgQueen (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? (c: - Boston (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see photos dated 2005 and 2006. Wow time has passed...whatever was lost, if anything, has certainly been regained! Thanks for everything, DQ. - Boston (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your useful edits to Stictocephala bisonia. I wasn't to pleased to discover that User:Westermarck, had unilaterally moved the article without discussion (or rather, in direct opposition to the only other opinion expressed, that of the article's author: me). You seem to have some experience with science articles. How do you feel about a unilateral move like this? - Boston (User:Boston) 21:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately my experience with scientific articles is through Cosmology mainly, I only ran into your article through DYK. That being said, I personally prefer the name the appears in scientific discussion of the subject, rather then the lay-person name (the only time I've ever run into this though was Champagne Supernova (astronomy) vs SN 2003fg). While I would have liked to see some discussion on the subject of the move, I unfortunately think WP:COMMONNAME would support his side in the end. However, if you want to open discussion on the talk page I'll share my views there. Best of luck! (Also, nice article! I learned something from it!) --Falcorian(talk) 21:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. Indeed, I think his/her choice may be supported (thought not definitively) by policy but still frown upon the way it was done. Thanks also for the compliment. I have noticed your work in the past and it is very interesting as well. - Boston (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be much appreciated if you could add countries in the categories - and also get a hang of the fact they need to be aligned with projects as well - cheers - project free articles are potentially lost in the ether over time SatuSuro 04:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. - Boston (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine I'd clean em all up for you but about to get off for a few hours - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumbawa_Tiger is a good example - no sweat but if you are doing bulk again soon - it would help - also i realise some insects dont go by national boundaries :) and other projects might not yet have insect categories - so its a bit of a drag checking which way other projects might have named their insect items - anyways thanks for the new arts anyways - always welcome as so few project eds have the capacity to get that info ! SatuSuro 04:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify if you're saying Sumbawa Tiger is a good example of what to do or a good example of what not to do? My recent group of contributions are all linked to List of mantis genera and species. I haven't done any butterfly articles and very few of my mantis articles have regional project tags. - Boston (talk)
Apologies - it was more the general thing of indonesia project tag on the discussion talk page if they are indonesian based/oriented - and if they are insects just the regional category ie indonesia - sumbawa tiger perhaps wasnt a good eg after all - sorry i am not up on the division of genera and breakdown and separation of insects - if mantis arts dont have regional project tags - then in time they will need em - imho SatuSuro 06:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
On 21 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article spray pool, 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.
You must know alot about praying matises and other bugs! I was patrolling new pages and looked at the pages you were making, alot of bug info, good job. :) ~~Sealim~~ (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
~~Sealim~~ (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you very much, ~~Sealim~~! Yeah, I have been making hundreds of mantis stubs and full-length articles like a huge geek! Thanks a ton for the WikiLove and best wishes. - Boston (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and your welcome! ;) I see that! I will be placing deletion tags right now...Toodles! SealimMan 19:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's my worry whenever I get a new message! - Boston (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought of that but was concerned that there might already be a consensus against making individual country categories for insects. - Boston (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Honestly, the use of the ending "-id" is, technically and universally, restricted to members of families - it is the adjectival form of the "-idae" ending. The adjectival form of both a subfamily ending ("-inae") and a tribal ending ("-ini") is "-ine", and superfamily endings ("-oidea") become "-oid", etc. Adjectival forms also are never capitalized; it's all basic rules. Members of the family Empusidae are therefore "empusids" and CANNOT be called "mantids", since they are no longer in the family Mantidae, which was the only family of mantises about 20 years back, and just because there are still a million out-of-date resources that only list Mantidae (and none of the other families) does not mean it's okay to keep calling these other groups "mantids". Both aspects are easily verifiable, not OR; the first aspect is a basic fact of how scientific names are converted into adjectives, the second is the easily-verifiable fact that the 8 new ex-mantid families ARE only recently recognized as such. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not so much that I don't believe you, it's just that someone else argued that section was false. Since it isn't cited, I chopped it. Can you find a discussion of this terminology somewhere so that if can be cited and the text re-introduced? - Boston (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be great to force that entire article to be wikified and referenced. - Boston (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It's such a fundamental thing that no one ever bothers to discuss it; just read any technical entomology text, and look for places where adjectival forms are used. You are going to find exactly the pattern I describe above (e.g. Michener, C.D. (2006). The Bees of the World. Johns Hopkins University Press. on p. 74-76 - "megachilids", "euglossines", "melittids", "dufoureines", "colletids", "pasitines" etc.), but you are very unlikely to find an explanation. One of the only ones (and even it is not fully explicit) is right here in WP: Hominid. You can find examples, all over, from "hominids" to "crinoids". It's convention, going back decades, in all fields of zoology. Yes, there are people who ignore the convention (easy enough to confirm by doing google searches on the variant names), especially in areas that are rife with amateurs (e.g., dinosaurs), but you're always going to encounter people who don't worry about whether what they write is technically correct. That doesn't mean Wikipedia has to do things incorrectly, too. Dyanega (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I understand and believe your point on this matter. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't stress out on one point in an article that needs so much work. - Boston (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I did NOT move it to a stub. Give me a few minutes, thanks. A little patience, maybe? Dyanega (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see the note I just left you. A little civility, maybe? - Boston (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to be civil, by taking a little extra time to mention on the talk page what project guideline necessitated the move. Dyanega (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Something along the lines of "I am still editing it, please be patient" would have been a more appropriate response. Perhaps you've misread some previous communication from me as smarmy or sarcastic and that's setting the tone. If so, that's unfortunate as I do appreciate your advice on and contributions to articles I have started. - Boston (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it came across as uncivil, and certainly don't want to put you off - you've contributed a great deal, and done a good job, and I'd like to encourage you to keep at it. One thing I notice, and one which is not difficult to get the hang of, is that you might try using a "template" taxobox that has all the necessary elements, and using it as a basis for the taxobox of each article you create/edit, to ensure that they are all standardized; there is a lot of variation in the present mantis-related taxoboxes, and it shouldn't be too hard to get them all into a single consistent appearance. Part of this is including the "genus_authority" field (or "species_authority"), so you don't have to give the name of the author in the text of the article, and having the "subdivision_ranks" field, even if the species list is not included in the taxobox itself. You'll see that I've made changes along those lines to several different articles in the last hour or so. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your words, no hard feelings. Except for the first few mantis articles, I've included a taxobox with the authority but I'll pay more attention to keeping the templates consistent and correct. I greatly appreciate the addition of information that wasn’t easy for me to find such as tribes, sub-families, etc. I’ve two specific questions maybe you (or someone you know) can address:
If you know of any online references to the synonymy of Sphodromantis and Hierodula please let me know. I am not questioning the fact, I’d just be very eager to read a discussion of this for my own edification.
As I recall, it was Beier's 1935 work, which - for decades - was the standard. The online key that David Oliveira wrote, and now hosted by Gordon Ramel, is linked already on a number of the WP articles, and I think it lists the synonymies. I have Hierodula in my database with:
There’s a Statiliasp. in cultivation in North America and Europe that people are calling S. parva. Do you have any clue of what this might also be known as? It’s apparently not included in Ehrmann, 2000 (Mantodea: Gottesanbeterinnen der Welt. Natur und Tier, Münster). I have two ooths in my possession and would like to know more. - Boston (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my database does not include species lists outside of NA, so either of us would have to do the same online detective work to try to solve this one. Does Ehrmann even include the genus? It is, after all, most likely to be a species-level synonymy, so that would be the first thing to check for; only if that doesn't pan out would you start checking related genera to see if the species has been moved from one genus to another. Dyanega (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it probably has something to do with the latter. The fact that parva is a common species names complicates matters. If it was something more distinct such as tianmushanensis or madagascariensis the trail might be easier to follow. - Boston (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Now I think you can imagine some of the frustration that professional taxonomists feel when they have to deal with groups for which there are "too many cooks". There is a strong European tradition to develop taxonomic classifications based largely on external characteristics and similarity (phenetics), whereas the general approach of the taxonomic community outside of Europe is to favor phylogenetic classifications, recognizing only monophyletic taxa ("natural groups"), and incorporating lines of evidence such as DNA sequences; the former approach pays no genuine consideration to whether or not taxa in a classification are natural groups or actually related to one another - it is basically hoped that a competent taxonomist will intuitively arrive at groups that are natural, but it is not a criterion they use to define them. This unfortunately results in radically different classifications from person to person, and taxonomists such as Ehrmann exemplify this traditionalist, non-phylogenetic approach, which is often incompatible with phylogenetics. Most such publications never are peer-reviewed in the sense that they were never examined by phylogenetic taxonomists prior to print; both "circles" of taxonomy tend to be rather "inbred" in that each only reviews papers and publishes in venues used by other members of the same circle. This creates considerable tension and conflict within the taxonomic community and - understandably - creates massive confusion for laymen who try to make sense out of the competing arguments, all from people who proclaim themselves to be experts. It is vastly worse when dealing with butterflies, but similar problems are evident in mantises, ground beetles (incl. tiger beetles), and other groups popular with collectors or hobbyists. It is an unfortunate aspect of Wikipedia that only one formal classification hierarchy can be used effectively, because it guarantees that someone, somewhere, will be either confused or offended when they find that the classification that they use is NOT the one they find in Wikipedia. When experts disagree, then Wikipedia effectively becomes a battleground, and this is not what Wikipedia is really meant for - yet there is no avoiding it. So, in the present case, the ToL mantis pages are based upon Ehrmann's classification, yet it is pointed out quite explicitly ([1]) that his classification is incompatible with phylogenetics; Grimaldi's phylogenetic analysis yielded a completely different topology, and it is also pointed out: "Ehrmann (2002) revised the classification of Mantodea, recognizing several new families and subfamilies, and many new genera. Svenson and Whiting's (2004) molecular phylogenetic analysis revealed the paraphyly of several of these families, subfamilies, and genera." Since it is generally agreed that paraphyly is VERY BAD, people generally do everything they can to avoid using classifications based on paraphyletic groups - and yet, the ToL pages use such groups (e.g. 4 of the subfamilies on [2] are flagged as being paraphyletic)! Therefore, if we were to use the ToL pages as the sole source of classification here, it would represent what Wikipedia policy defines as "bias" - it promotes one side of a controversial issue, without even acknowledging the other side. For the most part, this sort of thing is tolerable so long as the viewpoint that WP presents is the majority viewpoint, and there is at least some mention that a minority viewpoint exists. If you look throughout the insect articles in WP, you can find numerous examples where I have done my part to "resolve" situations with very different alternative classifications by adopting one classification (usually the phylogenetic one) and only mentioning the alternative, because that is how the taxonomic community (the community of experts in such matters) generally leans, at least in English-speaking countries. My general approach is based on what I believe is the most logical approach an editor can take: use the classification that is the least likely to require revision in the future (yes, WP has a policy against treating WP as a "crystal ball" but this is not the same thing). In the present case, it is pointed out right there in the ToL that Ehrmann's groups are paraphyletic, which means that they will NOT last very long; the next genuine phylogenetic revision of the Mantodea will presumably result in the elimination of many (if not all) of Ehrmann's new names, so if Wikipedia adopts them, then it will mean a lot more work to revert things back. Similarly, if you were to go to the foreign-language Wikipedias, you'll find all sorts of different classifications for certain groups of insects (most commonly, the pattern is to break up large families into lots and lots of small families). That puts me - and any other editor who tries to work with taxonomy in Wikipedia - in a position to be criticized by those who by accident or design happen to rely upon different authorities, or simply accept the word of whomever the last publishing author was. So, please don't take offense if I change some of the classification notes you've made, such as the genus Acanthops - it is normally placed in Hymenopodidae, while Ehrmann gives it its own new family ("Acanthopidae"), and evidently you found yet another source that placed it in Mantoididae. That's one of those cases where the phylogenetic evidence clearly indicates that pulling the family Acanthopidae out of Hymenopodidae makes Hymenopodidae paraphyletic, so there is no reason to expect that Acanthopidae will ever be accepted as a valid family by any phylogenetic taxonomists. You'll note that the family-level names here in Wikipedia presently match those of Grimaldi's phylogeny, and not Ehrmann's list as given by the ToL (which happens to be used in Wikispecies, which I'm sure they will regret). I'm sure that by this point, you're thinking that this all sounds incredibly esoteric, and it is - but it is also important, and the underlying controversy (phylogeneticists versus traditionalists) is so fundamental that it not only stands to generate a mess here in Wikipedia (regardless of anyone's attempts to find an acceptable compromise), but also tear the taxonomic community apart completely. We have already lost one "faction" that has split off from the rest of the community (see Phylocode), and we could well split almost down the middle yet, depending on how things develop with various initiatives to compile authoritative global species lists and taxonomic catalogues (efforts which become incredibly contentious when there are disparate classifications presently in use). Folks such as yourself are caught on the sidelines, and my point here is largely to explain that there is, in effect, a war going on, and once you understand that, it will put you in a better position to be a good editor - because part of being a good editor is to draw upon a variety of sources, especially when there is disagreement. We really do need more good editors, after all. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the informative epistle and the caveats therein. I know taxonomical disagreements here (like esoteric disputes everywhere on the project) have often grown heated. I’d be a poor participant in such debate as I’m not too confident in discussing taxa in general, especially above genus level. Indeed, if one were to examine my edits closely, one would almost certainly find inconsistencies indicative of me having drawn from various sources without having a stance of my own. As such, if I happen to create or edit an article so as to convey a classification you disagree with, feel free to change it with scant or no explanation. I don’t feel strongly about these matters and your "day job" dispositions me to trust you more than myself in their adjudication. In the meanwhile, I'll continue my efforts per your advice and try not to get lax with my inline citations so, at least, the process by which I edit is somewhat transparent. Anyway, soon enough I'll be done writing about mantises for a while and it will be windmills, or medievalsausage-making or something else equally beyond my expertise. - Boston (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I restored the track listing. While I agree Singles are predominantly about one particular songs, they are also physical items with more than one track, and not listing those is clearly unencyclopedic. We have several singles FA (e.g. Just Like Heaven (song)), and all have track lists, often several. Circeus (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. But perhaps you should add an explanatory sentence about this referring to the physical single and differentiating it from Let's Face It? - Boston (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yo, Boston, I sympathise with this comment of yours in the Martin Zweig AfD (the less said about your other comment, the better). I had been toying with the idea of writing an essay aimed at inclusionists/eventualists, to the effect that "if you !vote for keep all the time/argue for potential/criticise "needs cleanup" deletion rationales, it would be nice if you yourself worked on the nominated article to get it into the shape you've argued it could be in." I wrote the stub of it here (I'm not sure what to call it; "The eventualist's duty" sounds a little strong). If you are interested in collaborating, I'd be more than happy to have you on board in writing the essay. If not, then I'd like to hear whatever thoughts you have on the subject, if you'd care to share them. Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Please drop me a note when the essay gets further along and I'll be happy to scrutinize it and share my comments and suggestions. Best wishes for a sunny summer weekend (or windy winter weekend if you're in the Southern Hemisphere!) - Boston (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do, and likewise. Ciao, Skomorokh 15:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
On 1 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article archedictyon, 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.
ArcheWHAT??? I almost forgot I wrote that. Thanks for the DYK notice. Hopefully its appearance on the main page will prompt some editors with entomological expertise to scrutinize it and make improvements where necessary. This is one article in which I barely knew what I was talking about! - Boston (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I've always felt grand should be used (as it is with direct ancestry/descentry). GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You're referring to the redundant phrase "direct descendant?" I brought up that point at a party last night. I gues I'm not much at parties! - Boston (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i also created Henry C. Nevins Home for Aged and Incurables stub article. It is down the street from Nevins Memorial Library. Those are the only two hits on "Nevins" in the NRHP that i can find (besides a "Nevins Bridge" in Indiana that appears to be unrelated). Also, FYI, I checked and find no hits on "Blackburn". I linked to this Home for Aged and Incurables from the library article. Feel free to work in mention of this Home for Aged and Incurables into your Harriet Nevins article, or elsewhere, or not.
I wish the NRHP nomination documents for MA sites were available on-line, as they are for NYS and some other states' sites. NRHP nomination documents often include biographies of significant persons associated with a given site, so i imagine there is useful info in them about the lives of Henry C. Nevins and about Harriet Nevins. You can obtain these documents anyhow, by email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov, to be sent to you by postal mail, at no charge, although they say it takes about 2 weeks for u to get them. Perhaps you should try putting in requests for the library and the Home, anyhow, to get info that might be added to Harriet Nevins article later? Cheers, doncram (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice. I appreciate this information. It's great that you discovered the existance of and created an article about the old age home. I thought about contacting the library but in similar situations I've sometimes encountered people who are either anti-Wiki or who are unaware of it and react with a somewhat flustered "explain to me ten more times what this is for" attitude so it might be more trouble for me than it's worth. I'm eager to incorporate the info about the nursing home into the Nevins' articles. Thanks very much. - Boston (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, without knowing when David died I'm confused about which legacies were a gift from both of them and which were from her as a memorial to him. I am going to try a phonecall to the library and follow up with emails as needed. I sort of forgot libraries have reference librarians whose job it is to dispense info, not to grill the someone as to why the query is being made! - Boston (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
According to a 4 August 2008 communication from Sharon Morley, Reference Librarian at Nevins Memorial Library:
David Nevins Sr. was born in Salem NH on December 12, 1839 To John
and Achsah Swan Nevins. When he reached 21, he moved to New Bedford
and sold supplies to the crews of the whaling vessels. In 1818,
Nevins married Eliza Coffin. She was the daughter wealthy ship
merchant Jared Coffin of Nantucket.
Nevins later went in to business importing cloth. In 1842,
protective taxes began hurting the textile importing business, so
Nevins switched to manufacturing textiles instead. In 1859, he
purchased the ill-fated Pemberton Mill, and in 1864, he purchased
the Methuen Cotton Company on the Spicket River.
Mr. & Mrs. David Nevins Sr. and their two sons returned to the
Methuen area in the early to mid 1860's. David Sr. Died in 1881 at
the age of 72. His wife and sons had the Nevins Memorial Library
built as a memorial to him.
David Nevin's sons, David Jr. and Henry Coffin Nevins took over the
manufacturing businesses when their father Died.
David Jr. born JULY 30, 1839 ran the textile mills which by that
time included India Bagging Company and Bengal Bagging Company in
Salem, MA.
Henry c. born on January 10, 1843 became the agent of the family's
textile brokerage firm called Nevins and Company.
Not only did the company sell the cloth from the Nevins' family
mills, but by this time it was importing textiles from abroad.
David Jr. Died in 1898 and Henry in 1892.
David Nevins Sr. born-Dec.12, 1809-died-March 19, 1881
Eliza Coffin Nevins born June 1, 1817 - died Dec. 30, 1895
David Nevins Jr. Born Jul 30, 1839 - Died Aug 24, 1898
Henry Coffin Nevins Born Jan. 10, 1843-Died June 25, 1892
Within 24 hours I will make sure all the Nevins-related articles we've discussed are in synch with this new information. - Boston (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to the pronounciation of Colbert's surname, it says (and is referenced) that:
Colbert sometimes comedically claims his surname is French, but his family is actually of Irish descent. Originally, the name was pronounced [ˈkoʊɫ.bɚt]; Stephen Colbert's father, James, wanted to pronounce the name [koʊɫˈbεɹ], but maintained the [ˈkoʊɫ.bɚt] pronunciation out of respect for his own father (Stephen's grandfather). However, James offered his children the option to pronounce the name whichever way they preferred. Stephen started using [koʊɫˈbεɹ] later in life when he transferred to Northwestern University, taking advantage of the opportunity to reinvent himself in a new place where no one knew him.
I'm therefore guessing that he still pronounces it with the silent "T".
At any rate, it doesn't seem an issue for the purpose of the point I raised about Aptostichus stephencolberti. Thanks for your response. - Boston (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Gatoclass. - Boston (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
On 8 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MSPCA-Angell, 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! - Boston (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
On 10 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thyrocopa, 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 much. Boston (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baudet de Poitou, 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 very much BQ. - Boston (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harriet Nevins, 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.
Thank you much. I am working furiously toward the 100 DYK mark. That's DYK #80 for me. - Boston (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
On 13 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Nevins, Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I've posted a note there you might be interested in. See, if you're planning to do SUL with the Boston account, note that the Russian Wikipedia account has 10 edits, but is blocked indefinitely since 11 June 2008 for personal attacks. The Swedish Wikipedia account may also be a problem, as it has 40 edits. Maxim (☎) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Please go ahead and add it to DYK if you can think of a suitable hook; I seem to be running into a mental block and can't think of a good one. Thanks, –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will and will make sure you're credited appropriately. Ulysses Prentiss Hedrick might need a little more text to qualify; I haven't checked yet. Thanks again. - Boston (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. :) The article currently contains 1523 bytes of "main body prose", so it just barely qualifies as is. I'll try to see whether I can find a few other sources to use to expand the article a little bit more. –Black Falcon(Talk) 20:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The hook looks good. Thanks again, –Black Falcon(Talk) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The hook I suggested is a little long considering I am probably the most vocal advocate of shorter hooks. Oh well! - Boston (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
On 13 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Choctaw Hog, 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 14 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pink tide, 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.
Hello. :) I was just admiring your DYKs and noticed a possible error in the one featuring Castletownroche. It seems to indicate that he was apprehended by the "garda"? But which one? Surely he was apprehended by either the gardaí or An Garda Síochána? Perhaps you simply made an error in transferring it but my curiosity got the better of me and I was just wondering if it featured on the Main Page in that form? --Candlewicke (Talk) 03:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Simply an error. No one with enough familiarity with things Irish noticed it. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll fix it on my my DYK page. - Boston (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Park, 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, I appreciate the message. - Boston (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colleen Cavanaugh, 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 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pomeranian Goose, 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 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brookesia minima, 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.
-Thank you! - Boston (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait ... you're not done!
On 16 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Silver Marten, 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 again. - Boston (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
On 17 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pemberton Mill, 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.
No you didn't make an edit conflict. ;) By the way, could you review Joe Connor again? I added an alternate hook, and PeterSymonds (talk·contribs) said it is okay, but he suggested you approve it yourself. Thanks! Now I have to finish with the next update... -- RyRy (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the original hooks is actually tighter (I also thought for a moment that only 350 times was sarcasm) but it's no worry either way; choose the one you want . Congrats on the milestone. - Boston (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, PeterSymonds asked that you put the tick yourself. ;) Oh, and great job on all those DYKs above. Wow! -- RyRy (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll add Joe Connor to a later DYK update if someone else doesn't. We've already got a sports one in this lot. - Boston (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. -- RyRy (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
On 18 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amedei Porcelana, 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.
No problem, I replaced the copyright tag with an unreferenced tag. It is a good start-class article and appears to be well-written. The problem is, it still lacks the references to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thanks for the message, --Jh12 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. I spend about 95% of my effort writing articles for DYK but try to contribute to "process" on occassion as well. Congratulations on your article and keep up the good work. - Boston (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't mind the taxobox errors all that much (I make stupid copy-pasting errors all. the. frickin'. time. over at Wiktionary), but if you could take a bit more time to add a relevant category or two to your new articles, that would be swell ;-) Circeus (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. Often, maybe even most of the time, I do. I'll watch that more carefully though! Haste makes waste and all that. Thanks. - Boston (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This can be explained by the "critical response" section. I don't revert what other people do. However, I might recommend that you rephrase it to say: "It has the distinction of being the work that Johnson and his critics agreed is his greatest failure". Johnson did dislike the work afterwards, as did most of his critics. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
In case there's confusion, I added the [citation needed] prompt but don't object to the wording. The statement as given now, as well as your alternative suggestion, do both require an in-line citation. - Boston (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This is what MOS says on the issue: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." However, there is no material available to suggest that Johnson et al thought that the play was good or a commercial success, so I don't know if it falls under "controversial" enough to warrant duplicate citations. However, if you raise the concern, then it automatically suggests that it could. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something or perhaps you're overthinking this (or both) -- Why not just add the citations if they can be added? - 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I added. :) I'm just trying to work out the process so that it can be followed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding those in-line references. I am happy to help you understand if I can. Basically, whenever there's a statement like (for example) "...is widely-considered a delicacy" or "...was regarded as his greatest failure/success" or anything like that, it's a good idea to show an inline citation to make it clear that the point of view being discussed is verifiable and is not just the editor's own POV or own conclusion. I'm not sure where this is explained in the MOS or similar documents, but after a time you'll probably come to instantly recognize where these are needed. Happy editing. - Boston (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Its not really my understanding, because I know what you were saying. :) I just want to make sure that others in the future realize the process, so there wont be any problems. Paper work, I guess you could say? Anyway, thanks for looking out for the page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. - Boston (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yeah I have slipped in a few unreferenced statements. It's encouraging that somebody's noticing though! Thanks. Dunno if Irish singing is your thing (it is mine, in case you haven't noticed) but if so, I'd love your feedback on some of my articles particularly Frank Harte. Cheers. --Seamasmac (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
On 21 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bazil Ashmawy, 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 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kazabazua River, 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.
Thx for the barnstar - I again feel like "a city on a hill" ... feels good. I shall think of my barnstar as a civic roll (with bacon!) cheers Victuallers (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
85 real ones ... the rest are noms. Am I correct in thinking you are "previously known as House of Scandal"? Oh ... got to go.. Victuallers (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, House of Scandal til recently. 85 is still very impressive! - Boston (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dinosaur Footprints, which you recently 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 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wasque, which you recently 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 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Petticoat Hill, 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.
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you much. Boston (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Photuris pennsylvanica, has been added to the Wikipedia Portal, Portal:Pennsylvania. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.
For the exceptional amount you have contributed to the wild and wacky world of WP:DYK (how many more "W"s can you have in a sentence?), I present you the coveted 100 DYK medal. Keep up your excellant work. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you much! Boston (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chamaeleo melleri, 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.
Writing at the speed of light. ;) - Mailer Diablo 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, for a while I was cranking out a few day and I had them backlogged in my sandbox. I've slowed down in the last few days and may be getting Wikipedia out of my system for a while! - Boston (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi colleague. I've been campaigning for what I call "shorter, sharper hooks" for 2 years and will probably continue to do so. I respect your work on DYK and respectfully understand that other editors will have opinions differing from mine. Please don't take it personally when I identify how I would change hooks you suggest. I'm not implying you do take it personally...I'm only saying this to promote wikilove and all the stuff! We can disagree about this forever and I'll still be happy to work with you. Best wishes and happy editing. - Boston (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
PS - I'm a great admirer of your "unwritten rules" and a few weeks ago was actually wondering why you didn't say anything about brevity of hooks along the lines of "shorter is generally better." Now I know why! (smile) - Boston (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Boston. Thank you for the msg. I hope you didn't think that I was upset or anything. I like your work, too. Like you, I prefer shorter, sharper hooks. However, IMO, "sharper" is more important than "shorter". Shorter is indeed generally better, but it's good to have a little extra info so that any general readers (esp. those not familiar with the topic) can appreciate the hook better, and add a little colour and hue so as to paint a nicer picture, so to speak. Hooks that are too short and lack context would appear to be esoteric, and readers would (or at least I would) just give up and move on to the next hook. You will probably disagree about this and I'll still be happy to work with you in DYK, too. It's probably best for us to just leave our comments on T:TDYK and let the hook selectors decide what ends up on MainPage. Oh, btw, User:Art LaPella is not my sock. :-) Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think you were a sock...that was just a mindless error on my part because I was watching Lord of the Rings and trying to articulate at the same time! Nor did I think you were upset; I just thought some preventative medicine wouldn't hurt. As for the actual matter under discussion, I guess we both value brevity, only to much different degrees. The cases where I've suggested a cutting a hook way back and someone adds some of it back is exemplary of collaborative editing at its best. Thanks for the note and best wishes. - Boston (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It should read "and John Boyle O'Reilly, many of which were written in Irish?" Thank you for proofreading and catching my omission. Enjoy the day!Scanlan (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
On 26 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iranistan, 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 27 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article sang piao xiao, 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.
You know, I much preferred the old user name, this one is so...vanilla...why'd you change anyway? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The old user name made a wrong first impression. Also, HoS is a screen name I have been using since 1995 and I still use on various sites and I just wanted to disassociate the encyclopedic me from the more carnal me. It's nice for someone to have noticed the name change enough to comment though! Thanks for that and for the DYK note. - Boston (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandia Hairstreak, 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.
Terrific new article - and I am curious. Huffing and puffing my way through Fauna of Scotland I decided it had too many red links and bashed in a few new species articles which led me down various highways and byways. I red linked "Pteridomania" on two or three of them as it seemed like a credible topic. Was its appearance shortly thereafter a co-incidence, or did the red links prompt something? Also, I note the article does not mention the devastating effects on rare species in upland Britain. It'd be easy enough to cut and paste a few anecdotes from Woodsia alpina (the story about Williams is farcical), Woodsia ilvensis, Trichomanes speciosum, Cystopteris dickieana. BenMacDui 10:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive appraisal; likewise, you do a great job on the topics you handle. I recall intending to mention the negative effects of pteridomania on certain native species, but since I didn't follow through the addition of material explaining that (all neat and cited, of course) would be great. As best I remember, my creation of the pteridomania article was prompted by the red link in the Cystopteris dickieana article. Some red links are too tempting to not write about. For me, pteridomania was one and, more recently, "Chinese Hand Laundry Alliance was another. Boston (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Splendid stuff. I'll bash something into Pteridomania soon. If it doesn't appear by the weekend, give me a nudge. BenMacDui 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your interesting Scottish flora articles which prompted me to create the Pteridomania article. Peace. - Boston (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Boston (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dexter Drumlin, 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.
Wow, you've been a DYK machine lately. Great job - keep it up! I'm surprised to see an article on a drumlin - it's always good to see geology articles. --Royalbroil 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. Boston (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
On 4 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri Lhote, 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.
and btw great work on that article of Henri Lhote, I didn't realise all that stuff about him when I set up the translation a few days ago. The credit is to you! Cheers, Eebahgum (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll share credit. BTW...my version of the Henri Lhote article was already in my sandbox when you posted the article. Did I make a Henri Lhote-related edit on mainspace that prompted you? I'm just curious. - Boston (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! Nope, I just translated two articles on Rock art of south Oran (Algeria) and Rock art of the Djelfa region from the French WP, and the author (Michel-Georges Bernard) had made extensive reference to Lhote, so I brought in the short WP:fr article on him too. I had been working on some prehistorians such as Hugo Obermaier and Cueva de La Pasiega so I was looking about for some more related subjects. You, on the other hand, were thinking about flying saucers! I jest. Best wishes from UK, Eebahgum (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. My first thought after your response was that you must have done some edit in mainspace that I saw instead of the other way around as I suggested. However, I recall coming to Henri Lhote from Arbre du Ténéré, and I got there from List of trees, so it really is a coincidence. Happy editing. Boston (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
On 7 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suta dwyeri, 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 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commodore Nutt, 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.
just kidding, heading had you fooled didn't it? Good work :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read the header and waiting those moments for the page to load you did have me fooled! I thought your were a dumb and overzealous bot. Thanks for the note. Boston (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
On 9 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caesarsboom, 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 11 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lucien Price, 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! Boston (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the hook for hose strap. Please see if it is okay now. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
That works fine. I greatly appreciate that my comment was taken under consideration so close to the 11th hour. Thank you. Boston (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
On 14 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mobile Tigers, 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.
When you add refs to articles, could you please hide the external links by putting them within the title? Ie, instead of writing [http://example.com] Example (which appears as [3] Example), write [http://example.com Example] (which appears as Example).
To make things easier, you can also use citation templates, which do all the formatting for you. Thanks, —Politizertalk/contribs 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I noticed your post on a user's talk page, which was promptly deleted, and it crossed my mind to ask: Do you know what the policy is on regularly jumping back and forth between editing as a registered user and an IP address? There's certainly an open admission, but the regular deletion of talk page comments and jumping back and forth both seem a bit curious to me, and I don't know nearly enough about these things to even have an opinion beyond "intriguing". --Aepoutre (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not much of a wikilawyer. The best I can do is refer you to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry so that you might digest the material there and see whether it is applicable to whatever specific behavior you've identified. Best wishes. Boston (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick question: Why have you twice now, placed a template on this article indicating that it lacks reliable third party referencing, when in actuality, it already contains a substantiating citation from a standard reference in the field of the study of new religious groups? [4] Granted, the article could use further expansion and the addition of other reliable references, but isn't basic "notability" addressed by the groups inclusion in a basic source on the subject? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Your question is an excellent one. I'm concerned that Melton may be being used here as a reference for other points discussed in the article rather than as verification of the notability of the subject of the article itself -- a common Wikipedia ploy. If Sons Aumen Israel actually has an entry in Encyclopedia of American Religions then notability would be established to my satisfaction (although necessarily to the satisfaction of Wikipedia policy which usually requires three sources). In the meanwhile, I am extremely suspicious of an article about a religion started by four people in 1981 for which the sole online reference provided is the group's own website. Boston (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
With All Due Respect.
I am not sure that is is such a good advise.
I think you're on the right track adding fact tags. However, when something just smacks of original research, someone's opinion, or just seems like a dumb thing to include in an article, I advise you to just remove it. Be bold! Happy editing - House of Scandal (talk) 03:17, 3 August
People are not familiar with everytning, and when they do not recognize something they will remove it.
Warrington (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern but my advice is in line with Wikipedia policy (W:be bold). Please note that I did not recommend anyone remove context merely because "hey do not recognize something" as you say. Rather I recommend that original research, point of view and irrelevancies be removed from articles. That isn't just good advice, it's policy. Best wishes. Boston (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I think I understand perfectly how you were thinking.
But I wonder if others did it.[5]. (Damper is a traditional Australian wheat flour based outback soda bread, traditionally baked in the coals of a campfire. Damper is an iconic Australian dish, and Christmas Damper is bread moulded into a wreath, or a star, served with butter, jam, honey or golden syrup. ).
Have a NICE DAY!
Warrington (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
,_mating.jpg)
