User talk:Art LaPella/Archive 3

A-FB

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Dear Art LaPella, please accept this Anti-Flame Barnstar for keeping cool in a prolonged conflict of interest debate, as well as your exemplary attempts at resolving it with Wiki best interest in mind. Poeticbent talk 16:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On a separate note, would you please take a fresh look at this? Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 16:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll move it to my userpage awards section. I unlinked Deputy Minister because that's a disambiguation page, and I didn't find an article that explains a Deputy Minister that isn't a Deputy Prime Minister. A link somewhere to Realism (arts) would explain why it's called "realism". Art LaPella (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Easter parade (cultural event)

You changed the meaning of a statement in the article. Previously it said that Christ's walks are seen as the earliest predecessors of the Easter parade. Now it says that church commemmorations of Christ's walks are seen as such. I wrote the original statement, using the Collins book as a source. I might have made a mistake, but I'm pretty sure I didn't. I've returned the Collins book to the library, so I can't easily check the fact. Was your change based on a source, or just on the fact that somebody didn't like the previous version? (She found it "unintentionally amusing" or something like that.) Lou Sander (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On further review, I think I understand what's going on here. (I hadn't seen the comments on the Template talk page, but only those on the article's talk page.)

I think accuracy and readability would be served if your change were undone and (in the article) "These parades are often commemorated..." were changed to "These processions are often commemorated...." They were called "processions" when first mentioned in a previous sentence, and some fool editor (me) called them "parades" later on.

Jesus did processions. Fashionable New Yorkers did parades. Lou Sander (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You have read the book and I haven't, so I will make your recommended change and bow out. But I don't think that version satisfies Gatoclass's objection. Art LaPella (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Josef Smrkovský

I would like to humbly ask you if you could check and re-write the text in native speaker´s English... My Czenglish could be a problem. I agree with your version on DYK. Thank you. Aloysius (talk) 5:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Some questions:

"If someone thinks we are manoeuvred by the Soviets they are badly off base..." "manoeuvred" means "used" or "manipulated". If this statement "proved incorrect", then the Soviets did use or manipulate him, but his punishment seems to show that he was not acting for the Soviets. I think "we are manoeuvred" is probably a mis-translation for "we will be invaded" or "we are frightened" or something.

Another puzzling quote: "was buried under police control". Does that mean he was under police control when he died and the police may or may not have killed him, or does that mean the police controlled the burial ceremony? Art LaPella (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK-Smrkovsky

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |- | |On 27 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Josef Smrkovský, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |} --Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't; I just helped the real author with his English, on both the hook and the article. See the previous section above. Art LaPella (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If I credited you wrongly, it's because you were listed as the creator of the article on the DYK update page, and I'm not responsible for that. I suggest you find the responsible party and bring it up with them instead. Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, I've redone the credit now, thanks for drawing it to my attention. Gatoclass (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang Seng Index Stocks Categories

No, the two categories are different. Don't consider them as one category. Category:Hang Seng China-Affiliated Corporations Index Constitute Stock is red chip while Category:Hang Seng Index Constituent Stocks is blue chip in Hong Kong Stock Market. Ricky@36 (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"reexaminated"

Good catch there[1]. I can't believe that I managed to misspell it in spite of the fact that was I trying to make a word by word copy of the source, which had the correct spelling. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

St. George Orthodox Church, Chandanapally

Thanks for copy editing and cleanup of the article St. George Orthodox Church, Chandanapally - Tinucherian (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for proofreading. William I of Schenectady (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK archiving bot: Update

The bot is still in its early development stages; you might be interested in the discussion here. Waltham, The Duke of 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The "heuristic" leaves us guessing. Art LaPella (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask tomorrow; it's 06:52 and I must get some sleep.

Now that I think of it... You could keep the discussion running while I am away. We have petitioned for the bot together, haven't we? You are as entitled to participating in the development process as I am. Waltham, The Duke of 03:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point I really can't think of anything to say to a volunteer. I make a much better nerd than a politician! Art LaPella (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I am only appealing to your superior knowledge of the DYK system; you don't have to be a politician in order to have a conversation with someone, more so to simply comment on how the bot should operate... Waltham, The Duke of 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Making the archives monthly sounds harmless (although I have never archived). No other technical proposals have been expressed (my programming experience would help if they had). As for inducing Gimmetrow to continue, well, mumble mumble. Art LaPella (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not what I meant... Well, not exactly. Never mind, it's all a matter of ideas. We shall soon have our bot, which is what matters. See you around... Waltham, The Duke of 00:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the thread is in place...

Gimmetrow asked me what I thought reaction would be to recreating all the DYK archives by month (e.g. Wikipedia:Recent additions/June 2008). I replied that a re-organisation would probably be welcome, but that monthly archives would be too long and that weekly or ten-day archives should be considered. What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 05:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Daddy Cool at DYK

Thanks for your proofreading, this is my first go at noming a DYK. With the 259 character hook, do I just edit the existing nom or do I resubmit with less characters?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Either is fine. If you edit, then write an answer like "Shortened" below my criticism, so that others will know my criticism has been answered. Art LaPella (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Placed edit below your criticism, hopefully its OK now.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. In a few days, others will check for other things including references. Art LaPella (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The DYK Medal

		The DYK Medal
		I award this medal to Art LaPella for his active particpation and contributions in the DYK selection process in Template talk:Did you know -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

BVande (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK help

Hi Art LaPella,

I would like to help with the maintenance of the DYK submission page, including choosing those of correct style, etc.

However, I am not an admin. May I do this?

I ask you as you seem active in that area. If I become an admin I will become active in the DYK area.

Thanks,

BG7 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I had been proofreading the unprotected page Template talk:Did you know for months, and that was related to the main reason they made me an admin: so I could fix DYK and other protected Main Page problems without having to ask an admin. Template:Did you know/Next update is also unprotected. Although DYK is only visible for six hours, each edition is seen by more people than almost any article has been seen since it was written, so DYK (and other Main Page sections) get more scrutiny and should get even more. Art LaPella (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, ok! Would you mind shadowing my edits for a few days, so I know i'm doing ok? Also, can I pick succesfully approved DYKs for the next page?

Thanks,

BG7 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean shadowing edits to Template talk:Did you know, I automatically notice anything that happens there. According to discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, there is precedent for non-administrators moving hooks to Template:Did you know/Next update, although I've never done that—my contribution is a more mechanical level kind of proofreading. Yes, I'll explain anything I notice you overlooking. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I've also been talking to Wizardman, and he's just helped me fill the next update, and there seemed to be no problems!

I'll assess some now!

BG7 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

I found 2 cases of wrong information in WP within an hour.

I started a page to tabulate it so that we could find out if these were AGF good faith errors or sneaky vandalism. Some people are strongly opposed to this, even to the point of reverting a report of an error (this is a clear case of wrong information, not POV opinion).

I am willing to just drop the matter but that means my effort to help WP has failed. BVande (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you found 2 cases of wrong information. I'm not glad that a new editor (only 60 edits) already wants to redesign how all of Wikipedia handles vandalism. Your edit to Johnny Unitas appears to be correct, except that you didn't preview to see how it would appear, requiring this correction. But there is a much lower chance that you already know how to improve the procedure described at Wikipedia:Vandalism without more experience. In this case, getting confrontational over a single factoid from 2005 would cause more hassle than benefit. Art LaPella (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art. I'm not sure if you're already aware or not, but the above user has been indef'd as a sock of Dereks1x per CU. Since you did the this id verification thing, I thought I'd let you know. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Dereks1x, but I did get snail mail with a copy of a driver's license, showing enough to prove it has to be someone named B. Vande something, and asserting use of the username BVande. Art LaPella (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wierd. I'm not sure if that should affect the block, since my understanding is that Derek seems to enjoy creating false user accounts, but I'l mention it to the blocking admin. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Is the Buckland Windmill article long enough to nom for DYK? Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I count 1811 characters, which is enough. According to Template talk:Did you know#Instructions (as modified by precedents), I started copying from the first paragraph beginning with "Buckland" (not the article title) and ending with "fantail.(3)", excluding the picture and caption. I then copied it to Microsoft Word, and (temporarily) removed the Table of Contents, the section headers, and edit buttons, for the purpose of counting characters.

The latitude and longitude are wrong. If you click that link, it leads to a satellite image of a tree with no visible windmill nearby, about 5 km north of Buckland near Tadworth. According to [2], it's "2 miles west of Reigate" which places it much closer to Buckland. Art LaPella (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorted, I'd forgot to change the grid ref, previous one was for Tadworth Windmill. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The University of Florida Barnstar
		For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the University of Florida.

• You have been awarded this Barnstar for your working pertaining to the List of University of Florida alumni page. Great Job! Jccort (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll copy it to my front page. Actually, I was just cleaning up any articles I found by searching for the misspelling "JC Penny". Art LaPella (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vratislav Brabenec

Hello and thank you for the help on Smrkovský! I have had some family trouble since then and so I am coming with my thanks a bit later. And it is not just thanks but also another appeal - yesterday I went to a gig of the Plastic People of the Universe and one of the member who is the main member today has had no article here so I tried to fix the hole - but I need a little help again. If you be so good. Thanks much more than at the beginning;) Aloysius (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Here are some parts I didn't understand:

1. "post officer". Does that mean "post office worker", "supervisor at a post office", or "officer at a military post"?

2. "...he practised the lay..." Is that a typo for "he practised law", that is, he was a lawyer? Or does that mean he was a layman, that is, before he studied theology he didn't do anything unusually religious? If so, then I would remove the whole phrase. It may be important to say that he studied theology, but why is it interesting that he didn't do anything religious before that? Art LaPella (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

1. I have changed that.

2. I meant he practiced gardening so I used "lay" as "field of work" or "subject" - just to explain what he was doing between secondary school and university - what is suitable there? Thnx (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I made another edit. [3] lists 33 definitions of "lay" (including lay(1), lay(2), lay(3), and lay(4)), but "field of work" or "subject" isn't on the lists, nor do I recall hearing the word used that way. Art LaPella (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Leona's tonsilitis

Your proof-reading had me scurrying to my OED - I've never seen it spelled with double 'l' (I'm English). I've changed it back to the English spelling, and amended the tonsilitis entry to add the variations in spelling. Thanks. Leonapedia (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops I'm going to have to learn to read a dictionary better ... I stand corrected. I've just looked it up in both the shorter OED (rather than the pocket one I first reached for) and inChambers. Guess I've been spelling it wrong all these years. Sorry, mea culpa! Leonapedia (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to my first impression that 2 L's were needed, I just went by dictionary.com and onelook.com, which say one L is unusual and doesn't mention a difference for British English. If anything, British English often uses (U.S.-centrically-)extra L's in words like the Britishism "travelled". Art LaPella (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

Hello and thank you for the suggestion to shorten VAR2 of the 3rd June Haridasa Thakur entry in the DYK talk page. I have revised it to 175 characters, can you please let me know if entry as it stands acceptable here. Thanks for reviewing it. Wikidās-ॐ 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your DYK hook. The new hook is short enough (although it's more than 175 because we include spaces when counting). The hook sounds as if English isn't your native language, so I added a slight rewrite. The rewrite is acceptable to me, but others will soon inspect the article's citations and other details. Art LaPella (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your rewrite is excellent. Wikidās ॐ 05:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hauenštejn

This time I went to a trip that inspired me:) Can you please check my English? Thank you for your time! You have helped me to two DYK nominations, great job! Aloysius (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are as quick as a wink. Thank you for having a look at the hook, as well! Aloysius (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Vincenz Priessnitz

Thank you for my fourth point:-) If you are still not bored I have got something else for our pillion team. Are you interested in hydrotherapy? :o) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloysius (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Does "...set its part as a sanatorium" mean that the whole building became a sanatorium, or only part of it?

Priessnitz shouldn't be called the founder of nature cure. Every primitive culture has probably tried something similar; [example deleted because the spam filter wouldn't let me save this archive page when linking to that website] for an example much older than Priessnitz. I would say he promoted a nature cure, but he wasn't the founder unless you mean founder of a specific system based on a nature cure. Art LaPella (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just a part...

So I changed it to "promoter of", is it ok?

Thank you! Aloysius talk 06:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's OK. Art LaPella (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Chiefess

It is a Hawaiian phrase look at this [4] KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I didn't find it in any dictionary except Wiktionary. I suppose we could just link it like [[wikt:chiefess|chiefess]]. Art LaPella (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now made that edit. Art LaPella (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ernst Weiss

Hello, another piece of need of dote of help form my excellent English speaker. Once I made friends with a lady from Spokane via e-mail:) She came a year later and spent three weeks in the Czech Republic with me as a guide:-)) Don´t you wanna come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloysius (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine getting a lady to come across the street via e-mail! I thought about changing Eyewitness (Der Augenzeuge) to Eyewitness (Der Augenzeuge) because foreign words are usually italicized, but that would be 2 italicizations together, and anyway I think the usual convention would be Der Augenzeuge (Eyewitness). Or (The Eyewitness), since "der" is German for "the", unless "Eyewitness" is the name of an English edition. Is the redlink Prague Circle the same as the Prague Linguistic Circle? If so, we should either add the word "Linguistic" or pipe the link like this: [[Prague Linguistic Circle|Prague Circle]] . Art LaPella (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the Eyewitness stuff;) The Prague Circle is a different one, this one is a circle of German-speaking writers living in Prague. The lady became my penpal and because she used to work in Germany and was coming to Europe quite often, it was not such a somersault for her:-)--Aloysius (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Temperature difference

Thank you for your edit at Mars. You are quite right about temperature difference. I am glad you saw that. Thank goodness for the Wiki way. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You meant cushion plant. Art LaPella (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yes I do. Thanks again. Lightmouse (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you know

• ... that Miroslav Macháček spent four months in an insane asylum because he criticised communist approach in the National Theatre in 1975 (two years before Charta 77)? :-) --Aloysius (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Does "he had a critical speech in the theatre" mean "he made a critical speech in the theatre" or "he was the subject of a critical speech in the theatre"? Art LaPella (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It means "he made", I have changed that. Aren´t you tired or bored of my articles? I would not like to bother you, automatically as it could seem now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloysius (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I edit articles foreign sounding articles anyway, with or without you. Art LaPella (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hello Art. Can I request one copyedit job from you? I would like to submit an article to DYK. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, where is it? Art LaPella (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here. Feel free to ask if something would be unclear. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) I have updated the DYK suggestions page. - Darwinek (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you know

• ... that Jiří Sovák played the role of a man who predicted Velvet Revolution in Academy award winning movie Kolya (1996)? --Aloysius (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Art LaPella (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:R2D

I've actually picked it up from an editor who bypasses redirects on a regular basis, like this. If this is against policy, could you remind him as well? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed another admin bypassed redirect on DYK template. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comma

In the first hook of the current DYK, should there be a comma after Barcelona, Spain or shouldn't? --BorgQueen (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing MainPage so many times!

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		Congratulations, Art LaPella! According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you have just become the first person to make 1000+ edits at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. This indicates that you, in response to the many reports posted there, have been using your mop a lot to clean up Main Page. Here's a medal for you in appreciation for your hard work in keeping the face of Wikipedia neat and tidy and error-free. Thank you. Happy editing! --PFHLai (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll copy it to my user page. Art LaPella (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

And did you know that Mangalitsa is a lard-type pig breed that was the most prominent swine breed in Hungary until 1950? :-) --Aloysius (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I unlinked Franciscan Monastery because that phrase now links to a specific Franciscan monastery in Hungary. Art LaPella (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link once more - and if you do not mind you can have a look at Franciscan Monastery in Kadaň to check my English. Is it better to use "in" or "at" Kadaň (methink both is possible)? Thanks. --Aloysius (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, "in" would be OK, but I was rewriting something there anyway, and I think "at" is more likely to be used for locating something that would otherwise be hard to find. Also, "in" can mean "inside", and a monastery is likely to be away from city distractions. I changed the word "fires" because for one thing the military sense of the word "fire" doesn't become "fires" as a plural, and even as "fire" it could be confused with the non-military sense of the word. I made it "gunfire" but maybe "cannon fire" is what happened. Art LaPella (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwritten DYK rules

I may have an edge DYK case for you, though knowing my luck this has happened before. See here, where I've submitted a rescued PROD that I cleaned up. Most rescued PRODs are rescued before deletion, but I dragged this one kicking and screaming from the dumpster. As I say there, it is not techically a "fivefold" expansion, so I'm wondering if it counts as a "creation"? I can't really claim credit for all of it, because about half the article is still the old article. But the undeletion feels like a creation if you know what I mean! Anyway, I was looking at your unwritten rules, and I noticed: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was, no matter whether you kept any of it and (?) no matter if it was up for deletion." - I'm hoping the "?" might give me a way in here! :-) Can you remeber why you put a "?" there? I suppose I could have created the article and kept quiet (but that would have been dishonest and using the previous text requires attribution and undeletion of the previous history), but I actually restored and then rewrote the article. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, here or over there at the DYK submissions page, if you have time. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another quote from the Unwritten Rules is "The question marks show where even I'm not sure if that's what the real unwritten rule is". I was trying to record unwritten rules that I have seen others use on the submissions page, not to announce my authority. So I suggest you ask that question at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Art LaPella (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. Thanks. Sorry if you felt I was appealing to any authority - I was really after opinion, and as you say, the DYK talk page is best for that. Anyway, I think I'll wait and see what happens this time round and then bring it up there, otherwise it might look like I'm trying to change the rules just for this case. I know it is a long shot in any case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your "(Un)written” DYK Rules and found them to be of value. I was once on a personal campaign to remove the unneeded "that" from the start of hooks. Interestingly, there was almost a unanimous concensus saying it was something undesireable, yet we stuck with it out of tradition or whatever. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the hooks presently on the Main Page, and only the one that starts "that in 2003, ..." would be a little harder to follow without the "that". I also notice that when the "that" is missing, more often than not someone adds the word later on. Art LaPella (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK:James Cameron (activist)

Surely am tired today! Sorry about that - corrected the title and the other link; now all works.--Parkwells (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on Wikipedia:Redirects

For whatever reason I've been making that same spelling mistake through 53 years, and never seem to catch it myself more than around half the time. Other idiosyncracies, I've managed to totally eliminate over the years... yet that little gaff still haunts me. I think it rooted in my native dialect's way of pronunciation. Fortunately, I do most my edits these days on firefox which catches stuff as I go, that one was using IE7 (as I am at the moment for similar reasons), which for unrelated reasons, I was using on the commons when I had to do a sequence of related edits here. So thanks! // FrankB 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

a few questions about DYK

First of all, I read your page on DYK - pretty darn helpful, if I say so myself. Thanks for making it a bit easier for navigating the process.
Secondly, I wanted to ask if you could tell me how to check article sizes. Example, a while ago, I added a DYK for Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, and someone noted the article was 12k long. Now, I know that I can simply enter edit mode ont he current version to know the article size (37k), but someone noted that the pre-worked size was 12k. I'm not sure how they arrived at that figure. It helps me to understand, so I can figure this out for myself next time.
Secondly, Mastrchf91, who usually examines and judges DYK entries, helped me fix two entries from The Gunpowder Plot: Exploding The Legend in TemplateTalk, entered in the 14th. He has told me that he doesn't feel he can officially look at them and be impartial (I actually respect the admin and his decision in that, btw). Could I trouble you to look at them and evaluate them for inclusion as DYK? I wouldn't want them to languish as newer day entries pile atop the 14th.- Hexhand (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Template talk:Did you know#Instructions says: "1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)."
• It also says: "The character counts indicated on "Revision history" pages are not accurate for DYK purposes as they include categories, infoboxes and similar text in articles ... "
• The previous quote is at the end of a paragraph that starts "To count ... ", which describes alternatives to counting characters one at a time with your finger (theoretically possible but not recommended).
• Further clarification from the Unwritten Rules: "The prose portion of the article, which must be 1500 characters, excludes headers, images and captions, and edit buttons, but includes reference link numbers like [6]." The next line says: "Fivefold expansion means fivefold expansion of the prose portion, as defined for the 1500 character minimum rule, not fivefold expansion of the entire article."
• I can't explain the 12k figure. I found a long discussion underneath the hook, but I didn't find that figure. Prosesize.js says 17k now. That excludes the table of contents, infobox, templates, images and captions, bulleted list items in 7 different sections of the article, references, external links, categories, headers, and smaller details.
• "evaluate them for inclusion as DYK" probably means you want me to give a green check mark. I have never issued a green check mark, or copied hooks to the Next Update. I have plenty of work doing basic proofreading of hooks, which is what I think we need most, and I have never mastered all the details of citations and everything.
• Others do those check marks, and they usually do the bottom of the list as it is about to expire. You won't find any check marks near your hook. Usually but not now, there will be check marks down near the "Expiring hooks" header. Yes I know that sounds bad, see User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules#Other recurring issues. The latest relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know is probably still there. Art LaPella (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my enquiry, Art. As I am unaware of how may subpages your account contains, I should point out that I was referring to your Unwritten Rules subpage in my initial post.

Addressing the largest point first, i guess I would ask you to evaluate the size of the article before I laid hands upon it (which would be this version); if my figure was based upon total additions - which you note is an inaccurate method - it is quite likely that the article in the linked version might not actually be a net of 12k, as previously noted by another editor.

Additionally, I am aware of what the fivefold expansion refers to. However, in a situation wherein the page full of cruft and bloat, and a series of sanity edits removes that cruft and replaces it with far more concise info the net result would be a negative expansion. However, the Sun Prairie article isn't an example of that, and we can discuss that issue in another venue (like, for example, here).

Lastly, I think it would be presumptive to expect a green light. The wisdom in DYK and elsewhere is that if it looks like something is being ignored, its because it probably is. Waiting until right before it expires doesn't allow the nominator to address any concerns present. However, if you do not vote in these things (as you stated), then I am yelling at the milk for spilling, and not the cause of the spill. - Hexhand (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• The only question I found in the above was "to evaluate...this version". 3878 characters. I didn't understand the rest of that paragraph, especially the obscure typo "which you not is an inaccurate method". Art LaPella (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was indeed obscure. The phrase would have been, had I added the absent and silent 'e' would have been: "which you note is an inaccurate method".

So, the earlier version was 3878 characters (how many kb does that turn out to be?) I did count the text in the bulleted text in both versions, which seem to put the current version five times larger than the older version. Would you concur?

The part of of my post you apparently didn't understand questioned the value of the seeming arbitrary figure of five-fold expansion. Never mind about that; it is a question for another place. - Hexhand (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• A kb is a kilobyte, 1000 or 1024 bytes. Prosesize.js doesn't specify, but in that context I would guess 1000. Thus 3878 is 3.878 kb.
• If you counted the "text in the bulleted text", then you didn't exclude "lists" as specified in the rules, which prosesize.js also excludes. Or did you mean you counted it in order to subtract it? As best I remember, I installed prosesize.js according to its instructions in 5 or 10 minutes.
• Comparing 3878 to 17k makes 4.4x expansion. I think the fivefold rule is interpreted to mean more like fourfold in practice.
• But that's using the July 2-3 version, which is 14 days old now. The five day rule also stretches, but not that far. Perhaps you meant to say that the article used to qualify last week. As it is, the version from July 8 to July 11 is 4384 bytes. 17k/4384=3.9 which is at least a gray area. Art LaPella (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot seem to find prosize.js. It sounds useful; could you provide a link to it? - Hexhand (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js. You can stop reading at the "Sample output" header; the rest just tells you what is going to happen after you get it to work. Art LaPella (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another DYK question!

So, I saw your note about my 19 July nom for Emergency Powers Act 1939. Do I understand that besides the blockquote, the rules also will exclude the regulation of the law portion too, making only 1388 chars right now if we exclude both? If that is so I will make an attempt to expand it to comply if you think it worthwhile. 100+ chars should not be too hard to add except I put away all my sources earlier today, so will have to dig them all again to see what else there is to write. (I post in one place to keep a discussion together, so am watching this page, for a while).TIA Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Prosesize.js, which can be installed in minutes or I think I can do it for you, shows 1325 characters. Perhaps you included the See also section; prosesize.js didn't. Calling it "the rules" is an exaggeration. The legal term is precedent. I have tried to record those precedents, hence the name Unwritten Rules. Only today did I even add the exclusion of quotes to the previously Unwritten Rules, and now I'm also excluding the "See also" section from the Unwritten Rules, which also wasn't made explicit. As for being worthwhile, I usually confine myself to mechanical matters like character counting. But the hook fact appears to be properly cited, which is the main item that will be reviewed before others grant the green check of approval. Art LaPella (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I just use a text editing software word count facility and if I also remove the cite numbers, I get 1329 (close enough), excluding both quotes, and I did not include the see also section. So I need to add a minimum of 175 chars; I think I can do that. BTW the rules I was referring to was those of the act, not your unwritten rules. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the act (WP:DYK) says "main body prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)". Exactly what else is and isn't ignored is harder to determine. Art LaPella (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK question

I will be very glad to answer about ZSU-37 SPAAG but I as far as I remember I didn't submit the DYK for ZSU-37 article, I only participated in writing this article. I also can't find where did you post your comment. Could you, please, post it here or provide me with an exact link? Regards, --Vladimir Historian (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Search Wikipedia talk:Did you know for SPAAG. I wrote you because your name was on the hook. The problem has been fixed by MoRsE. Art LaPella (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

July 24 DYK on Beth Israel

Hi Art. Thanks for pointing out that I hadn't bolded the name of the new article. I've fixed that, and updated the description. Does that satisfy your concerns? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Would the more recently created Congregation Beth Israel (New Orleans, Louisiana) meet the length requirements? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the comments

I didn't know about the piped thing being okay, as the rules (and your sage advice in 'Unwritten') don't specify, but thanks for clarifying. I had wondered how difficult article names got face time.
Another question. After expanding the article to include instances of drug contamination (as well as hepatitis-C) in the UK, I added a new DYK (nom) on the 26th, to reflect the new info on the new article. Did I make an error in how, when and where I placed it? - Hexhand (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

At present the UK material has been removed from your article, so you probably know that the UK version of your hook can't be used with the existing version of the article. I thought an article like yours belongs under "Articles created or expanded on July 23" because that's when it was created, but I haven't really studied that rule enough to know if it's enforced the way one would expect, and therefore I don't try to enforce or explain it. There's always Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Art LaPella (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

List of numbered highways in Utah

I had already replied when you had left the note on my talk page. I have seen big lists such as the one I nominated up on DYK before, which is why I nominated it, despite what it says in the rules regarding lists not counting. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know List of U.S. Routes in Washington was listed, but my quick count shows 1,450 characters in it... --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Any additional thoughts? I don't want to see this crash and burn if I can help it. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead has been expanded to more than 1500 characters. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

I honestly have no idea what happened. The only think I was editing there was the Latin name addition. I actually noticed at least part of the problem, and fixed the Ajuga genevensis entry myself. Circeus (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

thx

Cheers ... could you tick it so it saves others the effort and clears up the doubt. Respect. Victuallers (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK Fred Hardy

Art LaPella, Hi. Fred Hardy version that you have submitted is excellent. I have suggested a variation on it, and I would like to ask you to remove the X next to your comment on it being repeated. I have checked and according to most times zones it was 30th of July that the article was created, it is clear from the history. You help is greatly appreciated. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I responded here. Art LaPella (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deroplatys desiccata

Thanks for your minor but very useful edits to Deroplatys desiccata. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilfred Noyce

Thanks for the spellings; to reassure you, you are in accord with the book. Ericoides (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Barnstar of Recovery

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Dear Art LaPella. Please accept this Recovery Barnstar in gratitude for your work at helping to save Anna Borkowska from W:CP report. Thank you! Poeticbent talk 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Art. I've revamped the article to dissipate any further suspicion of copyright infringement. Would you like to take a look at it again? Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Actually, I didn't know there was a copyright problem until after I clicked "Save", which made a copyright warning appear. But thanks for the barnstar. I'll copy in to my user page. Art LaPella (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bypassing redirect

Here we go again. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Virginids DYK

Hi. I have replied to your concern. The article is now over 8,000 bytes but I haven't measured the prose. Are there any other improvements I need to make? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pagsanjan Falls stamp error

I posted the following note on Gatoclasses talk page but he seems to be offline now and maybe so for today, so I don't know if you would like to get involved or comment the point I made to him concerning his edit and hook change.
--Quote-- I happened to notice your edit to the article adding the "coveted" note, which has now been adapted into the DYK hook. I specifically did not include that info because it is definitely not a NPOV and with a current Scott catalogue value of $26 the statement is really not supported. Several of the other stamps on the List of postage stamps are more coveted than this one, especially if we consider valuation.

ww2censor (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the "coveted" statement in the reference, and I don't know what rare stamps usually cost. But if you're sure Gatoclass and the reference are wrong, you may undo his edit in the article, and you may also edit the unprotected page Template:Did you know/Next update. You have a few hours before the (alleged) misinformation gets to the Main Page. Of course, such reverts should refer to the information on Gatoclass's talk page and any other online sources you know of. Art LaPella (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

John Webb's Mill, Thaxted

I've rewritten this article (which was an unnoticed copyvio - Thaxted ref) and expanded it. Has it been expanded enough for me to nom for DYK? Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but a couple more sentences would remove any doubt, assuming you mean that the version of June 11 was a copyvio. The question mark in "Unwritten" Rule A3 means even I'm not sure what the consensus is in case of Articles for Deletion, and similarly for a copyvio. So if the June 11 version counts as written, the expansion (according to prosesize.js) is 2856/617=4.6x, although that's close enough to be a gray area, especially when it isn't clear if the 617 should count at all.

Compare The old version with the Website it was taken from, pretty much a cut and paste job. The article was not flagged as a copyvio though, nor was it flagged for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I said assuming it's a copyvio, so at this point you can predict their reaction about as well as I can. Art LaPella (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Thanks, I do a cleanup check when I have finished the update anyhow :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bah. I meant to do that, but I had so many distractions while trying to prepare that update (well over half a dozen talk page messages, not to mention other dramas) that I just plain forgot. Sorry! :/ Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Barthélemy de Lesseps

Art, thank you for you comment in the DYK submission. I've corrected the mistake. Peter4Truth (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Swedish nationalism and fascism

Just to say thanks for spotting and correcting the typo previously in the above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		To Art LaPella, with a thousand thanks for being a fantastic Wikipedia editor. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just long overdue, and I guess this edit was appreciated from afar recently. Thanks! -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I copied it to my user page. Art LaPella (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Brittleton

The DYK nomination for this article is currently expiring (it can be found near the top of the August 16 heading). The hook has been verified (AGF) and the hook is short and (I believe) interesting. Is there any chance of you including it in one of the updates today? Thanks — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I have never included any hook in an update; others do that. 2. It's verified without any objections, so it's almost sure to be included today or tomorrow. 3. Many so-called "expiring" hooks haven't even been evaluated yet. See "Unwritten" rule number H1. Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I see your name that much on the suggestions page that I must have assumed that you were also one of the editors that regularly add hooks to the next update template. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing this. Alas, had I spent more time on that keyboard, rather than the one I'm using right now, maybe I could have been a professional. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I would also be entitled to some level of a piano userbox. Art LaPella (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules

Hi, Art LaPella. I just read User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules and it is quite helpful. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

František Gellner

Hello, after a longer time, would you be so kind and me so lucky?;) --Aloysius (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. What is "a member of an editor's office"? An office is a room, not a club with members. Perhaps he was an editor or a reporter, or maybe "worked at an editor's office" describes it better. Art LaPella (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm trying to translate some verses by Gellner. Can you tell me if these lines sound English? Or even help me to improve?

I won't die of taxing toil
Won't choke on pauper's peas
Nor will I melt in boiling oil
I'll die of syphilis

or
I won't die of taxing toil
My bones will never freeze

Nor will I melt in boiling oil
I'll die of French disease

or something between... or something completely different:)

My little darling, don't you cry
Don't try the dead to vivify

Today let's make us meet
on our creamy sheet.

Morrow, what's morrow? May one say?
In coffins morrow shall us lay.

or
/In coffins shall we morrow lay./?

Thanks for help... --Aloysius (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My poetry sounds like this:

Must all poems be as one?

Must every dawn be wondrous?

Must every clash be grandly won,

And must all farts be thund'rous?

The problems in changing words around are 1) I don't have the original (which wouldn't help me unless it was in German or English) and 2) odd syntax is normal in poetry, even if English is the author's native language.

That said, let's start with "pauper's peas". In a poem, perhaps you can say "pauper's peas" as shorthand for "the simple food a pauper could afford, since they presumably didn't have food stamps". But it isn't obvious. "Syphilis" doesn't rhyme with "peas". "French disease" does, but I've only heard that euphemism once, long ago in school, as an example of how people used to avoid plain talk about anything sexual. Like most Wikipedia editors, I probably remember phrases like that better than readers do, especially since that episode in school was about 1967. "STD's" would rhyme, and be better recognized.

"Don't try the dead to vivify" is a backwards way to say "Don't try to vivify (revive) the dead", but again, that's what poetry is like.

"Today let's make us meet" is probably too weird. I suggest a two-syllable word such as "gladly" in place of "make us". "on our creamy sheet" is OK since "creamy" is sometimes used to mean a color, and "cream" is (more rarely) used as a slang term for an orgasm. The meter doesn't match the previous line, so I would change "on" to "upon".

"Morrow, what's morrow? May one say?" Changing "what's" to "what is" keeps the meter flowing, but that makes one foot more than the next line. Is this the whole poem, or just excerpts? The number of feet keeps changing. "In coffins morrow shall us lay" – it definitely has to be "we" instead of "us" because it's the nominative case. In modern language the line would be "We shall lay in coffins tomorrow", but once again, poetic language isn't supposed to sound normal. So I don't know which of your versions is better, except that it has to be "we" not "us".

This was a very nice lesson! Thanks for it! So, now I try to modify my versions to bring them more to originals which in Czech sound very archaic but very song-like as well (so that even present students like his poems and know them by heart).

The first is just beginning of a longer poem. The original says "I won't die of labour /line 1/ I won't perish of poverty /line 2/ I won't choke on a rope /line 3/ I will die of syphilis /line 4/" but all Czech words have more syllables so if you want to translate the rythm you must enrich the English translation - and for English poetry as we were taught alliteration is typical so I always try to use it as you can see.

I won't die of taxing toil

Won't choke on pauper's pea

Nor will I melt in boiling oil

I'll die of STD

Or would you prefer the plural? I like the version with French disease because people should be interested in what the word means and thus what the author meant by that. I guess poetry is for curious people or/and more or less intelectuals who don't mind such words. STD makes the poem really modern which I like, too (though in Gellner's time nobody could translate it lake that). However, am I not violating the original much?

The second poem is whole and is his most known and recited by people. The original reads "My dear, dear, do not cry /line 1/ life is not otherguess /line 2/ Today, today let's be happy /line 3/ on our white bed /line 4/ Tomorrow, what tomorrow, who knows? /line 5/ Tomorrow we will lie down in coffins /line 6/."

My little darling, don't you cry

Don't try the life to modify

Today let's passionately meet

on our creasy creamy sheet.

Morrow, what is morrow? May one say?

Morrow in coffins shall we lay.
--Aloysius (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

By now you know as much about it as I do, although now that I see the original I wonder why you changed it to the obscure "Won't choke on pauper's pea", when the original "Won't die of poverty" would also fit. Art LaPella (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something else – the last word "lay". The word is used that way so often I didn't notice a problem until now, but in formal grammar as taught in school (click here and search for "usage note"), it should be "lie" not "lay". "Lie" doesn't rhyme, so it might be better to leave it that way, or you could rewrite it – for instance "Time does fly!" instead of "May one say?". Art LaPella (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook

I changed the hook for the DYK nom of Isabel Gonzalez. Check it out now. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a shorter hook for the DYK nom of Casey Nicholaw. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK article split debate

Hi Art. Since Ottava has brought up an example to back his interpretation of consensus I thought it might be handy to give some which (I feel) show the opposite. I'm certain it happens all the tie, but the suggestions history page is a pain to search through, and it's been a while since I've had the free time to vet many articles myself. Any chance you can think of a few occasions where articles have been rejected as splits? Many thanks, Olaf Davis | Talk 08:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but I have more tolerance for that kind of pain (and less tolerance for Wikipedia politics). My findings on the Did You Know consensus on this issue are as follows: When in danger, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Here are some articles rejected as splits, or otherwise confirm that such a consensus exists:

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8].

But here's a conflicting example:[9], compare to [10]. And another one:[11], compare to [12]. And I'm not sure who this example favors.

Even if the consensus were more unanimously against Ottava, it seems unlikely that any such statistics will slow him down because his response to other examples has amounted to Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But you might try it anyway, just to make it more clear what the problem is. Perhaps rules would help, or perhaps they would just be something else to argue about. Art LaPella (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Art, I appreciate the digging! Thank goodness we all enjoy different bits of the work, eh? I'm about to head off, will think about what to do with these diffs. It does seem increasingly plausible that they won't help a jot, though...Olaf Davis | Talk 18:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Washington State Route 339 DYK

Could you look at this under 6Sep listings. The person who reviewed it didn't seem convinced, but he proposed an alt hook with out adding a tick. The law that specifies it is listed in the infobox, if you could possibly tick it? Thanks! --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, ticks are added by others, not me (see this). For another thing, you seem unaware of "Unwritten" rule H1. Doncram's objection has been satisfied and your hook will probably be approved. Art LaPella (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, you had ticked one of my old ones, but thanks for the update :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I have never issued a green check mark, although I use the other symbols. Art LaPella (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of International Food Safety Network

An article that you have been involved in editing, International Food Safety Network, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Food Safety Network. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You must mean this proofreading edit. I have no opinion about keeping the article. Art LaPella (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes rule does not exist

Hi, I'm just copying to here what I wrote in response to you on the DYK page:

• Washington Irving's quote is prose! ;) But seriously, I think you've misunderstood the spirit of the rules: at the top here it says DYKs must "contain more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)." The other page you mention says: "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables)." They are exactly the same except for the words "text" and "prose". They exclude the same things - and the latter specifying prose does not go on to add "... and quotes and poetry". It is quite obviously aiming to repeat the rule, but has been carelessly worded and failed to repeat the word 'text'. The spirit of the rule is no "padding via lists, tables, cats..." Quotes are explicitly not intended. Lastly, just think: the quote gives context and explains what Irving meant, in his own words. This is desirable. Otherwise, an editor could remove the quote, but keep the content using "prose" and saying "Irving thought..." This is also not desirable, but would adhere to the prose law, which again I say, is not really what the rule was intended for. It is intended to avoid pages with little readable text being padded with tables, lists... The quote here is in context, and describes what needs to be described. It goes by the spirit of both rules - text and prose. Does that not seem logical?
• Secondly, only your page lists 'block quotes' as a rule - but I fail to see where you get that from. It is lacking in the two rule pages that you link to and seems to be your own addition through a misapplication of the rules. No offence meant:) Malick78 (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see JayHenry has already explained this, although I can't remember the last time a block quote was counted. If I had my way, we would go by the article's history page character count and raise the limit to compensate, but I'm talking about the consensus, not my opinion. As "Unwritten" rule H4 puts it: "These "unwritten" rules are intended to describe the consensus, not to prescribe it." I'm sorry you had so much trouble figuring out our rules. Once again, that's why our 3 sets of rules should be combined to prevent such misunderstandings. Art LaPella (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Consulting the expert

Do you think this is correct? --BorgQueen (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. I did recall you mentioned on this before but I just wanted to confirm if anything has changed... Thanks again! --BorgQueen (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lex Luthor DYK

Hi there, remember me? From the DYK talk page. Anyways, about the Lex Luthor fact, I was wondering if you could approve it. Candlewicke has put an "X" next to it, but it isn't ineligible. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 13:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I have often objected to ineligible hooks, I leave approval to others who better understand the citation issues etc. See #Washington State Route 339 DYK, #a few questions about DYK, #Tom Brittleton, and User:Victuallers/Archive4#Did You Know question. Art LaPella (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is (sort of) related to the above so I haven't made a new section. You made a comment about needing a way to see if a page was moved from a sandbox without taking a person's word for it? Sorry if I have misunderstood. However, what you can do is look in the history to see what page the move edit summary says it was moved from. In the case of Lex Luthor (Smallville), the history shows that it was moved from User:Bignole/Lex_Luthor, you can then use the Special:Log to check it; Example - shows that this page was moved on the 14th of September to Lex Luthor (Smallville). If the edit summary had been forged, then no move would appear in the log. Hope this helps. Take care, ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 15:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I found it! Art LaPella (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Art, now that the move has been verified, can you please tick it? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never once used a or a , and you didn't respond to what I wrote at the beginning of this section. My user page states: "If you want approval for a Template talk:Did You Know hook, I leave that to people who better understand the complete approval process including citations." Art LaPella (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Devil's Dictionary and Civility

Hi there. I recently found User:Art LaPella/Devil's Dictionary of Wikipedia Policy (from looking at User:FayssalF/Civility_pages). The bit on civility was quite interesting: "We rely on administrators' common sense not to rely on the civility policy as written or Wikipedia wouldn't work at all, but it does get confusing whenever someone tries to interpret the policy as written." - is that genuine or is it one of the bits of the pages that shouldn't be taken seriously? :-) Seriously, from that comment, I think you might be interested in the current discussions at WT:CIV (latest discussions at the bottom of the page, but worth scrolling up a number of sections as well). Carcharoth (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence is "genuine" although it might be a bit joyfully reckless. My experience with the civility policy comes mainly from the pseudoscience war, where incivility is routine. Those warned or sanctioned by administrators often respond that the warning or sanction is itself uncivil, which is perfectly true if equivalent civility is required regardless of the provocation. This helps explain how the same arguments continue for years, often unrelated to reality. Art LaPella (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have now sounded off at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Proposal. Art LaPella (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

Many thanks for helping me and my spaghetti brain with Trawsgoed Crosswood DYK

∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook for James W. Cannon

Could you please take another look? I have revised the proposed hook to be under 200 characters long. This is my first experience with a DYK hook and I did not know about the 200 character limit. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As my User:Art LaPella/Long hook link explains, it is enough to supply a shorter hook, as you have done. Reviewers have often seen hook length problems, and they will recognize that a long hook is corrected by shortening it. The length problem is corrected. Other review will be done later, as described by "Unwritten" Rule H1. Art LaPella (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook for United States Navy Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle

Got your reply. Thanks. I don't know why I'm still a bit confused in solving the fivefold eligibility of a wikipedia article. I probably will need some guidance via images/pictures/whatnot to get it clear as I can't seem to follow. Sorry Ominae (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK hooks for Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge created/expanded on 21 Sep

Hi, this might be a bit late, but a few days ago I have tried to address your concerns regarding the hooks I had submitted. Could you review the hooks again? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has already been accepted, so there's nothing left to review. The Niagara hook is now at Template:Did you know/Next update. It will almost certainly move on to the Main Page within the next few hours. So by the time you read this, your hook could be at Next update, on the Main Page, or it may have moved on to the archives by then. Art LaPella (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comment    Juthani1   ^tcs 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK problem reply

Thanks for the reply. I initially thought that expanding the article five times is the requirements aside from being a new article from the fivefold rule.

For the case of Patlabor: The Movie 2, you'd have to compare the one I did on Sept. 25 with this right? Let me know if I'm on the right track or something. Ominae (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jouke de Vries

Some user new to our project wrote an article on a Frisian-Dutch politician named Jouke de Vries. He wanted to take it to DYK as it seems but someone failed it. It was the first Frisian related DYK-candidate ever (even though we have several articles of huge importance to wikipedia within our scope, this was\is the only one recent enough for us to get on the main page. Could you help us improve the article? You see, we only have a single non-Frisian member at WikiProject Friesland so we aren't so good in Enlish. You care to help us out here? Thanks in advanche, -The Bold Guy- (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, but the main problem is that the article isn't long enough for Did You Know. The article is likely to be approved (by others) if it were almost twice as long as it is. Art LaPella (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll see to it it'll be twice as long either tonight or or early tomorrow. Thanks. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

2 or 3 days left before it expires. Art LaPella (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it; I was very busy at the moment, I still am. Is the article now long enough to be a DYK-article? Please answer me very soon for I do not know when this opportunity expires. Maybe you could still improve some of the prose? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be almost long enough, but it's too late; it was removed here. Sorry. Art LaPella (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Fixed it. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cow protection movement

I reduced the characters down to 189. Thanks for your help. Docku:“what up?” 00:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to literally say "movement ... that happened" with an ellipsis in mid-sentence. I will suggest an alternate version on that page. Art LaPella (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)