User talk:Ebyabe/Archive 5

Idaho-bio-stub

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. In the case of your new creation, stub types ar not made for biographies on a subnational region basis except in cases where a person is significantly tied to a particular place by virtue of their occupation (such as politician-stubs) - instead, they are divided first by nation and then by occupation. the reason for this is that people tend to move around between regions, resulting in considerable use of large numbers of templates. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Morikami Park.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

Oakland Cemetery

I'm curious how you arrived at the ratings you added to the talk page of Oakland Cemetery. Thanks for your time. -- mattb @ 2007-03-01T22:00Z

Thanks

Thanks for the information and comments concerning the NRHP photos. Your list of places needing photos and your road trip discussion is interesting. I'm planning on taking care of the Brevard entries as soon as I have some free time. I'm not real familiar with WikiCommons, I'll have to take a look at that. Fl295 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a question....

Hey, thanks for fixing the template up for me; I wasn't even thinking of adding anything like that, but it sure is helpful. Hopefully, if no one else is working on the WP Del page, I should have it up and running (at least minimally) by the end of the week.

On a side-note, I was reading your userpage and the places you've visited, and I'm sorry to be nosy, but what brought you to Pedricktown? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EaglesFanInTampa (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're quite welcome. I created the templates for all the non-existent state WikiProjects whilst I was assessing articles for WP:NRHP, in hopes they'd eventually be needed. So when one is birthed, I like to update them to be more specifically useful. Some projects don't rate their articles, which is why I didn't add the rating system initially. If you need more help fiddling with the template, gimme a shout and I'll see what I can do. :)

Well, yeah, it's a bit nosy, but I don't mind; it's kind of an occupational hazard with Wikipedia, doncha think? :) Anyway, I took a two-week roadtrip with my mum back in '04. The general route was from here in Florida to the outskirts of the Smokies in North Carolina, then to Nashville, followed by Kentucky and Ohio (Newark particularly, b/c it's where we stopped). Thence through West Virginia and visited an acquaintance in Allentown. After that to Pedricktown, to visit relatives of Mom's, whom we hadn't seen in years. Both my folks are from Philly, and some folks from both sides are in New Jersey as well. After that, it was down the Delmarva Peninsula and over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, then down I-95 back to Florida.

What was that? For me, that was the short answer! *lol* --Ebyabe 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking ahead, I like that. Hey, who knows about the rating system; it might come in handy yet!

The reason I asked about P-town is, as I'm sure you know, it's only 1700 stong, and with not even a traffic light, no one ever vacations there. The thing is, as irony has it, I moved from P-town 4 years ago next Friday (lived on a 200 acre farm on Perkintown Rd. for 20 years) to St. Pete. So, chances are probably 95% that I know whomever you visited since everyone knew everyone else. Small world, isn't it? And to think, I thought I was the only one who knew where that place was. World's shrinking by the day! Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Hey, I was wondering if when you're assessing IL Registered Places, could you just match the WikiProject Illinois assessment to the NRHP one?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now ya tell me; I'm just about done! Well, there's about a dozen left, but that'll do... ;)

Only reason I didn't is b/c I was only rating the NRHP project related info. So something I rate, say, 'stub' for the project might be 'start' (or even 'B') for Illinois, doncha know. Plus you know I tend to rate low, so my 'stub' might be someone else's 'B'. Which is one of the reasons I didn't add 'importance' to the template. The interstate rivalry would be ker-razy! :O

Btw, I know I've not said, but buckets of thanks and appreciation for all the work you've done, and continue to do. And congrats on the GA for the Glidden House. You da man, man! Better watch out, or they make you an administrator (eeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!). Oh, I see you're wikibonked. Well, no surprise there; you deserve a rest. :)

Take a peek at my main userpage, when you get a chance, for the new userbox I did. It's right below the Antarctica Highways WikiProject one. Think you'll appreciate it. ;) --Ebyabe 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And hey, who're you calling a crappy band?! Hope you at least like these guys. :) --Ebyabe 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can tolerate them, unlike Journey. : ). Thanks for the thanks. Eeeek. Adminsitrator. Maybe. I will have several other projected related article up soon, I saw the B classes on several of the historic places articles I did, so I will be working to get them up to GA, from which I don't think they are too far.

Great infobox btw. Hahahaha. I may have to jack that one from your user page. The Department of Fun should be notified immmediately. ;).A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if you could assess a couple of articles for me, Chana School and Oregon Commercial Historic District? All part of my ongoing project to figure out which articles will be easiest to bring up to GA for this and the Illinois project. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 11:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this one: Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources too. Also, about the titles, would Multiple Property Submission work better for all of them instead of confusing the issue with outdated titles? I would like to disinclude it altogether but that really wouldn't work considering the article isn't about every round barn in Illinois, just specific ones.IvoShandor 11:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you would have to ask about those. I've been avoiding those last few, as I'm having trouble deciding whether to rate them "Start" or "B". Just remember, I'm kinda cruel on the ratings, so my "Start" might be another's "B". Look at Jesse Hall, for example. I'm probably gonna rate it a "Start", but WikiProject Columbia rates it a "B". Go figure.

As to the naming, I'd use whatever they're submitted as. I did one a while back, San Jose Estates Thematic Resource Area, as is. Just mention in the article body somewhere about the MPS thing and it should be OK.

Later on, "Ivo". ;) --Ebyabe 13:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: ). Ah yes. Anonymity being important, I figured I should. Also, your harshness is why I wanted you to rate them. : ) IvoShandor 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Jesse Hall is no B.IvoShandor 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New NRHP Collaboration Division

(Message generated via copy and paste, sorry for the impersonal delivery, but I am hitting up all members. So check it!) Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and health

Can you help with the wording and content of the opening paragraphs? futurebird 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like others are doing a better job than I could, but thanks for thinking I could help. I'm actually just going thru and assessing unassessed articles all over the place, on different projects. On to the next ones! :) --Ebyabe 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend

I see that your "boyfriend" is a writer (seems like an interesting book that you might like).

Looks like there's enough good content in the Project to start a Portal:Historic preservation, Portal:Historic Places or Portal:Cultural heritage? What do you think? —Dogears (talk · contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the preview and thought at first "Boyfriend?" Then I realized. I have so many, you see, it's difficult keeping track sometimes. *lol* Thanks, I'll have to look at those; I'm always looking to learn new stuff about Excel.

The Portal idea... it has kinda been in the back of my mind for a while. Just wasn't sure how to go about it. 'Course, I could do what I usually do; find ones that I think are neat, and steal... er, borrow the best stuff from them. I think the portal name would have to be prefaced with U.S, since we're only doing ones in the States.

How 'bout this? I just created a link to a potential sandbox, PortalNRHP. I'll mention it on the main site. People can play around with various portal ideas, and once we have something nice and pretty and useful, we can put it in mainspace.

Like we need more to do. *heehee* --Ebyabe 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join Aviation WikiProject

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Aviation WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation. This includes aircraft, airports, airlines and other topics.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are new to this...

Just kidding. Thanks for the Categories clarification. It certainly makes more sense than listing all of the larger categories in addition to the more specific ones. I mostly just wanted to replace the useless page List of Chicago music venues which was redundant. Jcc1 08:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (Jeremy)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Coincidentally, I lived in Miami from 1984-1992, where I graduated from Coral Gables High School. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcc1 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My folks and I moved away in '81. I visited friends down there, on-and-off, for a number of years after, but haven't been down there in ages. The closest I came recently was about five years ago, seeing my old high school in Hollywood. Even that made me not regret living in South Florida anymore. So sad. :(

National Park establishment dates

I just noticed that you reverted all of the recent edits made by the IP 64.163.55.18. It appears to me that some, but not all of those changes were actually legitimate. For instance, here on the Guadalupe National Park website, it shows the dedication as being September 1972. I agree with reverting the edits to Carlsbad Caverns, but I haven't checked the others- perhaps you should double-check the dates yourself and assume good faith. johnpseudo 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

Hi, Ebyabe. You recently assessed a few articles within the scope of WikiProject Abortion. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to do so, and also to note that, thanks to your contributions, our small WikiProject has now completed its goal of assessing all of our articles. Thanks a tonne! -Severa (!!!) 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized

Is it helpful to this project for me to just be adding stub tags and cleanup tags, for example, as I did here Cellular Microarray or Cellmark, or would adding full category be vastly preferable where applicable? I guess what I'm asking is does a stub tag count as a category, or does removing the uncategorized tag and adding a stub notice just put the article right back into the uncategorized list? Cornell Rockey 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple is answer is no.

Oh, to which question? That would help, wouldn't it. :)

Stub categories don't count. There's a whole separate category for uncategorized stubs. That is, articles that only have categories b/c they have stub tags. If you want to add stubs, that's not a bad idea, actually, since most of the uncategorized articles are stubs. But do add at least one real category before removing the uncategorized tag.

If you need help in figuring out apropos categories, drop me a line here. Nyarlathotep knows I've categorized a crapload-and-a-half of the things, doncha know. :) --Ebyabe 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. I will added categories to all pages now as I attempt to help this wikiproject along.

As for why I asked you, you were the first person I clicked on from the list of members of this project who was not on a wikibreak. I also saw that you are quite the editor (20,000 edits, holy shit) and were likely to get back to me before I did any more damage.

Thanks again, and may his noodly appendages bless us all. Cornell Rockey 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unassessed organized labour articles

I was planning on poking away at the articles in Category:Unassessed organized labour articles today, and I couldn't find them. With a little detective work it turns out you are the culprit! Thanks for your great work in cleaning up the backlog. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mali Empire Grade

Hi and thanks for your input on the Mali Empire page. I've done a majority of the work on the page and am happy for the grade it recieved. If it is not too much trouble, could you bring me up to snuff on exactly what info I would need to include or clarify to make the article a GA (good article). I'm still pretty new at this game but have learned a lot in a little bit of time. I read the grading system and believe I know at least some of the things that must be corrected on the page (the references for one thing). Is it possible for you to fill me in on any other problems. I couldn't find any gaps in info, POV or original research.

Thanks in advance Scott Free 20:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction conventions photos

I understand your motivation for moving the pics, but each was intended to be in the section it was illustrating, rather than clumped together like that. Thanks for trying to help. --Orange Mike 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense edits

== I cannot figure out why you are making nonsense edits on the bee and beekeeping pages. Are you using some kind of template for something else? Please stop. Pollinator 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP collaboration

{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places current collaboration}} IvoShandor 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

You added a B-Class assessment to Postage stamps of Ireland today and I wondered if you have any constructive advise on improving it. I did a lot of work on this article last year and would love to see a philatelic article get a GA or A class level. It might be a great boost to the philately project. Thanks, ww2censor 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I checked your talk page first; I like keeping conversations on one page as well. I'm dizzy enough as it is without flipping between talk pages! :)

First off, I'm just going through various projects and assessing, just for fun. Mostly I'm doing a cursory-ish skim. I actually tend to rate low b/c of that, so sometimes the ones that I put in a 'start' for might be closer to 'B' and such. Lucky for you, huh?

In fact, I was tempted to rate the postal article a 'start'. But the length and references and pictures and nice format nudged it to a 'B'. The stamp images were particularly gorgeous. Told you I was superficial. :)

I'd say the big thing you need is inline references. For GA status, they're pretty much a must. Also run the whole article through spell and grammar check in the word processor of your choice, if you've not already. Sometimes it's easy to miss little glitchy things when you get to close too your writing, and that's why God invented spellcheck. Get rid of as many of the red links as you can, too. Either write stubs, or just delink them, or a combination thereof; whichever works best. Sometimes folks overthink the wikilinking, doncha know.

I mostly hang out around WP:NRHP; this assessment-mania of mine has been a bit of a diversion. I'm going to recommend you contact one of our members, IvoShandor. He's been doing an amazing job getting articles of his to GA status. He should be able to give you some excellent advice.

Good luck with getting the GA. I'll be off to bed now, then assess the rest of the Ireland articles tomorrow. Figured since I'm mostly Irish-descended and it's so soon after St. Patrick's Day, it was the thing to do. What project's articles after that, hmm? Woodworking, Big Brother, Morocco, Mythology, Christian Music, Islam; so many options! Later, and Erin Go Bragh! --Ebyabe 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though if this was assessed a start page I do wonder what an GA version would look like as it is already quite long and IMHO gives a well balanced view of the topic. More detail wold mean a much longer article, but hopefully you really just mean improving what is there already. I can certainly deal with the redlinks in one way or another. Cheers ww2censor 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you need more detail; what's there appears to be more than sufficient. And yeah, it's pretty close to a GA actually, imho. It's mostly the lack of inline citations; that's one of my 'things', and I know they're considered important for any article above a "B". Luck! --Ebyabe 12:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on putting some inline citations in as soon as I get the time. I do that nowadays but this was my first major article and I was not as well versed as now. Besides which most of the references were philatelic literature as opposed to weblinks that are so much easier for me to do. IvoShandor is going to give it a look too. Thanks ww2censor 13:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodworking Project Ratings

Have noticed a few assessments you have made of late. This is a bit of a bugbear of mine. Take scratch awl for example. Rating it as a stub implies that there's a lot more that could be written about it, but frankly if it's ever more than a two or three paragraph subject, then I would be looking to pare it back. There is only so much you can say about a steel spike with a wooden handle that you use to scratch markings in a bit of wood. Possibly the only reason I can see for it being anything other than an A is that it cites no references. Otherwise it "provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic..." and is "... of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content."

So I'm just wondering what criteria you are using in these ratings (yes there are quite a few in the woodworking project that I feel the same way about) and if it's more than just a cursory look at the relative length (I'm sure it's more than that, isn't it ;)), then perhaps you could help out by highlighting the deficiencies as you see them on their respective talk pages. Or even better, cut loose on them yourself. SilentC 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As you say, probably better a low rating than no rating. Just get a bit miffed at having all my hard work dismissed with a stub rating!! I find those rating guidelines difficult to apply so haven't bothered with them up till now. Cheers SilentC 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lacrosse

A question about your recent change to this template. Did you see a problem with the case-sensitivity? The switch statements checking for class and importance both use {{lc:{{{class}}}}} -- the lc should convert the class variable to lowercase, so you only need to list the lowercase options. I'm pretty sure I tested it to make sure that, for example, "class=stub" and "class=Stub" both worked, so I'm just wondering if you were having a problem or if you just changed it based on looking at the code. Thanks --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me in the right direction w/AWB?

FYI --Keesiewonder ^talk 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for reverting vandalism to my user page. :) BTW, I have some Fort Myers historic place pictures sitting on my computer at home somewhere. March 31 I'm going to see the New York Mets play and that will probably be the last baseball I see for a while - then I'll likely get back into taking historic place pictures instead. Thanks again! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome; it was the least I could do. And I need to go on a roadtrip soon, 'cause I've been spent too many of these gorgeous weekends hunkered down in front of my computer! :) --Ebyabe 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnalia

You rated the saturnalia article "start class" recently; could you give some suggestions for improvement? Novium 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) thank you Novium 23:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox NRHP

Hi, I saw your infobox, and unfortunately I'm not very good with the workings of wikicoding. Could I bother you to create a derivative for the Portuguese Historic place registry? I can provide you with the fields that are registered, so it would look consistent with the info available and your infobox.Galf 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox_IPPAR

Registry of the Instituto Português do Património Arquitectónico ID Designation/name; Other Designations; category/type of property;

Location lat/log; District/Council/Civil Parish; Address;

Protection Current status; Protection category; Decree; ZEP (special protection zone); "non aedificandi" zone; Coverage by ZEP or ZP (special or ordinary protection zones); World Heritage Site

Is this enough to get you started? if you have any questions let me know. This are the fields that are available from the Registry Galf 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I saw the infobox and it looks nice. I'd do away with the map, though and replace it with a photo, the IPPAR provides free usage of their media. Also, some of the fields don't match the ones I had listed above. I should have mede it into a table or something. This fields i gave above are the exact ones from their database, and would be very easy to fill directly, the protections zones, etc, would be available in that format. this is one entry on their database [1] It's in portuguese but gives an idea of what's available. the Coordinates aren't available on the site, but I'm gessing someday someone will get them, from google earth or in place. Galf 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Springs Massacre

Hey! How goes it. I was wondering if I could acquire your assistance. I have this article Rock Springs Massacre which is just about ready for GA, in my opinion. It has its second peer review, still open, and is now getting ready to go through its final proofread with the League of Copyeditors. However, one user has expressed POV concerns about the article. Could you give it an independent assessment and note any specifics or just change the wording. I contend that the background is necessary to understand the event and to omit the background or the events that occurred after it would be a disservice to the reality. Either way. Let me know what you think, I want to flesh this thing out, and this kind of thing requires more than one opinion. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the intro part be sourced? Like the riot being racially motivated, for example. Or is that OK if it's referenced in the body of the article? I dunno how that works. I think overall it's at least a B, prolly a GA. Goodness knows it's better referenced than some GA's I've seen. Though it's not always about quantity, but quality, as I've been discovering in my wild assessment-mania of late. A short well-written article can be a B, depending on the subject (woodworking or obscure ancient Greek philosophers, say. See some of the comments above to see what I mean. Anymore, more later. --Ebyabe 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone tells me that references should be avoided in the intro and put in the main body as the intro should summarize the text. Refs should be used in the intro only for outstanding claims, apparently. I have noticed your mad assessment, that's pretty hardcore.IvoShandor 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I kinda went a little mad and poured my brain out on the National Register of Historic Places page. I think I may have juiced it up enough for GA all by my lonesome, check it. IvoShandor 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good GOD!!! You're like a whole WikiProject or three yourself! You've definitely got the reference part down, that's for darn sure.

The assessing thing is a bit crazy, yeah. But learning about all sortsa stuff in dribs and drabs. And getting asked for advice on how to improve articles. I should just tell them, "Look at any article that IvoShandor has worked on." 'Cause baby, you da man!!! :) --Ebyabe 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Thanks! I try. I never thought there was so much to know about the Register itself, I put the main history article up in my user space, right now its just a mirror of the section, but soon the section will be a summary and then it will be better because the article is getting long now. Thank God for WP:SUMMARY. Keep an eye on the article, it will get better and better, one day to FA! (That's like a 19th century campaign slogan or something). IvoShandor 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]