User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive154

Manhattan above 59th to 110th Streets

I am not super familiar with New York City's historic listings program. I checked National Register of Historic Places listings in Manhattan above 59th to 110th Streets and it has only entry without a photo (a new listing, Trinity Lutheran Church) so that would be great. My guess is that the other buildings would be worth photos too, but see what Daniel Case says. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would be notable, as they're landmarked by the most populous American city (and in many cases, also NRHP-listed). After all, we have a featured list of Chicago's Landmarks. Go ahead and shoot away. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done most of hte Uper East Side although it was made unexpectedly more difficult as I couldn't take them in a sensible, natural order becuase there were sometimes trucks parked in the way, and that makes it harder to line up the pic with the listing. The list seems to be incomplete though. I wandered past an old house and it was tagged as Eleanor Roosevelt's but not on the list YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons why a house with a plaque saying "Eleanor Roosevelt lived here" might not be landmarked. She might have only lived there for a few months of her somewhat scattered childhood, the owner might have wanted to modify it and successfully fought a landmark designation, or it might have been altered enough already. I suppose a picture of it wouldn't hurt; we or another-language wiki might be able to use them in Eleanor Roosevelt at some point. It might also be a contributing property to the Upper East Side Historic District or something like that.

As you noticed, the minor east-west streets aren't generally notable, unless they or portions thereof are designated historic districts (like some of East 73rd Street). I'm not sure notability would inherit from so many historic buildings on one street ... usually if it does, the area gets designated a historic district (and in fact many of the Upper East Side residential streets are included in that historic district).

Yes, it's probably time to archive my page again. You're not the only person to point that out to me.

Wish I'd known you were in the city ... I might've been able to come down and say hi (or for that matter a lot of the other NYC-area WP people, many of whom live in or much closer to Manhattan than I do). Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually her house is one of the ones listed in the pdf I showed you, of which only a small fraction is on the wikipage, which is tagged as being incomplete. So are all those dozens of specific houses listed in that booklet supposed to be on the wiki list? There are multiple houses in each street in teh book but only a small few are ont eh wiki page YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to put the url in. I can't read the PDF. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and the two for Upeer East Side YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 04:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry I let that get past me. Those long lists in there are the contributing properties. Some may have been separarately landmarked, most may not. Not that there's anything wrong with taking pictures of them ... one of our long-term goals would be to have pictures of all CPs in the Commons category, much like the commons category for the Clinton Avenue Historic District in Albany includes far more photos than anybody would need for the article. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

itinerary

After some - what the us websites say are undesirable locations between Istanbul and Delhi - I found Delhi comparable to one vast ruin with a macdonalds in it :( - to think they have the temerity to actually propose to have a commonwealth games there is close to my current tagging project - death. I had contemplated the darjeeling train journey but my health professional was freaked by the current malaria vector in the east - and my own gut reaction to the air of delhi was to leave immediately - my late father's territory was patiala and jind - and had oconsidered that - my yoga teacher of 20 years ago was indeed bihar (sic) - and my best travelling companions favourite terriotry is katmandhu - so in the end pasarghanj and a visit to taj mahal in a car was the only real adventure. Satu Suro 03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well regardless of the facilities, there will always be some logistical chaos and things getting mixed up. Cricketers have been well treated for a long time now, but often teh admins get very clueless and the lights go out at a ceremony or something YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on signatures

Hello Yellow Monkey, I have noticed your signature and others and I was thinking to opening an RFC about what exactly is acceptable and not acceptable. Please don't take this as anything but an inquiry. I support your signatures, and how you have used your signatures, I simply want to know the boundaries of what is and what is not acceptable for myself. Ikip 10:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've finiished with that drive, mostly YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks a lot for your encouragement! And happy holiday :)! Grenouille vert (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at WP:SA though it's difficult to determine an exact date because the Lý and Trần dynasties used the Lunar calendar. Grenouille vert (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:James Constable/GA1

This one looks ready to wrap up :) Wizardman 23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmins

(ec)On the Brahmins cat, basically all these cats are for categorizing clans and topics but not people; all came up with this overcategorization of people into castes and subcastes, and I was cleaning up some of the pages that were listed under a few, and got to I think like 5-8 Buddhist Monks along with about 15 or so other people from the cat. I've been doing this periodically for a couple of other cats, but first time I got to the Brahmins cat. You think categorizing people this way is needed? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly true for modern people that caste may not be important, although people from minority/immigrant and groups are usually categorised as such in other countries. Having said that, for most of the Buddha's original followers, their Brahmin status is normally mentioned a lot, for the likes of Kaundinya, Moggallana, Sariputra as is the Kshatriya status of the Sakyan royal family, like Anuruddha, Ananda, etc, as well as the few dalits, or the bandit Angulimala who killed 999 people and garlanded their fingers YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point, maybe a separate category for historical personalities -- Brahmin Buddhist monks or something like that? Reason I think something separate is needed is based on today's structure, you'll find Kaundinya and Ashok Kumar Sharma in the same Brahmin cat. If you have a suitable name, I can create the cat (as a subcat of Brahmins) and recat the monks that I removed. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 00:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

chinese in sydney

Thanks for helping out on the chinese in sydney article. It will need to be refactored to fit wikipedia's "voice" - as you have noticed, but I believe that it is a fantastic start of an article to have and I really hope this articles goes far. It would be a fantastic vindication of the Dictionary's choice to allow cc-by-sa texts if we could get this article to a good quality in WP. I presume you saw my blogpost about this? Witty Lama 13:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't read any Wikipedia blogs and barely read 10% of the WMA mailing list and didn't know until PM posted to WT:FAC about it. In any case, per the guidelines for FAC, WP:GA etc, one-source articles, paraphrased or not, will never satisfy the well-researched/comprehensive criteria, and usually aren'y NPOV unless it is just raw stats etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that single-source articles shouldn't be FAs, even GAs. Also, as you've seen, the manual of style for the Dictionary of Sydney is different from our NPOV. Both valid, but different. I've blogged about the relationship between WP and Dictionary of Sydney at my blog here http://www.wittylama.com/2009/12/dictionary-of-sydney/ although that seems to be down right now, instead, try here http://en.planet.wikimedia.org/ and scroll down to December 17. If we can do it properly, I do believe we can get a lot of good content from WP from the Dictionary of Sydney and if we want I can get in touch with the various authors to get a hold of their reading lists for our reference lists. Witty Lama 01:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone to the DoS and the standard of writing is a lot more flamboyant than even in secondary source history books, let alone the placid and sedate style of other encyclopedias. Privatemusings' attempt on the Chinese one seems to have gone down very badly, in part I think because her style is a lot more opinionated than other tertiary sources like encycs and factbooks, and also, the location of her POv on teh spectrum, as it seems to be very strongly tilted towards Rudd/Keating. Some more synical may think of things like Helen Liu. Sure thing though, any more resources is always good, although in the case of FAs and GAs, a wide range of scholarship is needed, and things need to be mixed up, so whether one uses a cut and pasted free domain source or a cut and pasted copyright academic journal from a PDF, or a PDF version of a book, things will still have to be mixed up and paraphrased/restyled etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

This account: Shockerz0 (talk · contribs)? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pages have been blocked. sock locked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another one 86.156.209.254 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) Wikireader41 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check out this user? Errormeek (talk · contribs). Happy holidays! Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a couple days ago: 86.158.176.99 (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did those ones YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA drive

No GA drive this year! Just when I join the party ... always next year :( Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Cirt made a small tweak although it is a bit quiet to the WP:AUSGA and it might be time to rustle up the folks again for Australia Day, although we are far away. I don't have any that are much close, as most of the sub-GA articles of mine are on big topics such as Bob Simpson, Lawry, Tubby Taylor, Border, Qaugh brothers, Benaud and those will take a long time to get comprehensive although I could just cheap it out. Well I guess Miller in 53 adn 56 are available and I had one on the hard drive for a long time about the 55 WI tour. I could write a few on the likes of Eddie Illingworth using Bernard Whimpress's chuckers book, but using 1 page from a book and reading the CA stats for folks who played 4 games before getting no-balled might raise eyebrows of generic small GAs. Lol. Well we could get PM to see if he wants to work on any of those DoS articles and figure them in. And get the banner up on talk pages and so forth. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's come to my attention that your editing patterns/sleeping times are truly bizarre! Emailed. Aaroncrick (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been in US for the last five weeks. In NYC atm, which I thought was fairly obvious with the chats with Ruhrfisch and Daniel Case about Manhattan YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 21:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hell, get off here then! Never noticed your comments to em - not on my watchlist. Hope you continue to survive the weather! brr... Aaroncrick (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please semi-protect Younis Khan and block User talk:180.178.135.161. Adding POV and trying to say he's four foot eleven instead of 5 11. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4'11 Lol. I should alos upload some photos YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sneeky bugger, wondered why you had been editing in the middle of the night! Been there a while! Aaroncrick (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh... Shrine of Remembrance first passed FAC like this in 2004. Would only probably be start-class now. Aaroncrick (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article lock

Hi YellowMonkey, I was wondering if you could lock the Nat & Alex Wolff article because of constant edit reverting and vandalism. Thanx and happy holidays! ATC^{. Talk} 19:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend. - Darwinek (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Darwinek, I hope all is well YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2010! Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.

In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.

Best, Risker (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanfy

Hello. Could you please comment at User talk:Sanfy and expand upon your blocking rationale, as the user is requesting unblock. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a CU block for sockpuppetry. Sanfy used a sock to Afd Mangalorean Catholics. I have that article on my watchlist and have watched Kensplanet working on it, so I wondered what was happening to justify an AfD YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Chandigarh

Wondering if you'd mind if I removed the protection from that article. You semi'd it at the beginning of May, but it looks like some good editors have made some significant edits since then, and more people are now watching it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ok, the vandalism and spamming was geeting to me YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 Idiots cast

Hi YellowMonkey - WP:FILMCAST does not offer stipulations for spoilers in the way that plot does - thus I think that for 3 Idiots Aamir Khan's role should be defined as "Rancho" only - the plot offers the spoiler and there is really no justification to do so in the cast list. Thus I'd like to change it back to Rancho. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I almost never edit any film articles and never watch films usually, so I wasn't aware of any conventions about listing characters with more than one face YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob - MOS:FILM has about a million rules so it's difficult to keep up with all of them. Just wanted to discuss this with you before I made the change since that article is receiving a lot of edits. Thanks for your help in trying to bring it under control. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another request

Sorry to bug you again, but if you have a chance, could you take a look at My Name Is Khan? That article receives a great deal of vandalism and I think it is a candidate for semi-protection. The film isn't out yet but it has received a lot of publicity and I think is notable enough to warrant protection. It was protected for one week last month but the vandalism stared again as soon as the protection was taken off. I would be interested in your opinion on this. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I've added this page to my watchlist, most of the vandalism is from signed in users, I jsut blocked one Weeweesomething. The IP edits over the past few days have actually been ok or even to revert nonsense from two (now) blocked users.-SpacemanSpiff 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask an admin individually they will almost always allow semiprotection, but if you ask at the official WP:RFPP they are pretty strict on avoiding any regulation else they would get flooded. I'm fine with semiprotecting if you don't mind losing the useful IP edits YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The slock would also keep out the logged in vandals, who don't have enough edits to qualify to edit a slocked article YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your input. I created this article about a year ago after it had been deleted a number of times (you can see the history via the first archive on the talk page). If you go through the entire history of the page, you will find a history of vandalism from anon. editors. The only time the article settled down was the one week it had semi-protection. I've kept an eye on it for the past year but it is a lot for one editor. Thanks SpacemanSpiff for adding it to your watchlist. I do feel that there is enough history from anon editors to warrant protection, particularly as this will undoubtedly be an important film when it is released and any SRK film tends to get this kind of vandalism. So I hope semi-protection is a possibility. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd for a month.-SpacemanSpiff 06:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! -Classicfilms (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hey YellowMonkey, looks like you're familiar with the background on this case. Any thoughts on the outstanding CU request? Thanks, Nathan^T 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison handled it. Thanks! Nathan^T 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November and December 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by xenobot 14:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]