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
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.
SatuSuro03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)reply
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.
Ikip10:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)reply
(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. -
SpacemanSpiff23:47, 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. -
SpacemanSpiff00:00, 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?
WittyLama13:50, 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.
WittyLama01:32, 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
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
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.
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
Hi YellowMonkey -
WP:FILMCAST does not offer stipulations for spoilers in the way that plot does - thus I think that for 3 IdiotsAamir 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
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.-
SpacemanSpiff01:10, 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
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
Happy Christmas and new year from WikiProject Eurovision.
This is the second edition of the newsletter to be in a
bimonthly format. This will probably continue at least up until the next Eurovision Song Contest when the project is more active.
Editors are reminded that some articles covered WikiProject Eurovision are subject to the
biographies of living persons policy. This does not just include biography articles such as
Alexander Rybak, but any article with material related to living persons. Such information is highly sensitive, and unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately. Material which may seen trivial to editors, such as a false claim of participation in a contest, can potentially be highly sensitive to the living persons involved.
Eurovision articles on this project have been repeatedly subject to a form of
sneaky vandalism. This involves unregistered users adding false information to articles such as
Eurovision Song Contest 2010 (while unprotected). These false claims are then made to look legitimate through the use of "fake references" with false titles and links,
example.
Cuchufleta (
talk·contribs) was
blocked indefinitely for creating multiple
hoax articles with the same editing technique. Editors are advised to look out for further disruption of this kind, as it seems to be originating from a determined individial or an organised group. More information can be found at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#User:Cuchufleta.
Eurovision News
The EBU released their
participants list for the
2010 Eurovision Song Contest on 31 December 2009. 39 countries will take part. Five of these qualify directly to the final, with the 34 remaining countries each competing in one of two semi-finals (seventeen per semi-final).
Five countries have declared they will be withdrawing from the contest in 2010. The
Czech Republic are withdrawing due to three semi-final failures and a lack of interest from
Czech viewers.
Andorra,
Hungary,
Lithuania, and
Montenegro have all declared they are withdrawing for financial reasons.
Georgia is the only country that has declared it will be returning to the contest.
No debuts are planned either with
Liechtenstein's only broadcaster
1FLTV having ruled out joining the
European Broadcasting Union (EBU) for December 2009. This made a debut by the country for the 2010 Contest no longer possible.
Despite the 2010 Contest being many months away countries are now actively declaring which artists and songs will be representing them at the contest. A table for this can be found at
Eurovision Song Contest 2010#Participants. Nearly all of the declared participants now have dedicated
entry articles.
Welcome to the fifteenth edition of the WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter!
Another decade has past for the Eurovision Song Contest. The
naughties will probably be remembered as a decade of both success and controversy for the contest.
Televoting reached its peak in the early 2000s. This gave the contest a more democratic edge, but by 2008 it was widely believed to have made Eurovision resemble a political and geographic football match rather than a song contest. The EBU took action in
2009 by reducing televoting to having only a 50% weighting in the results of each contest.
Many new countries have joined the contest in the last decade, bringing the number of participants to a new high. Among this some countries withdrew while others returned, though one of the major missing countries,
Italy, did not make a return as was hoped by many.
There was not a shortage of controversy either. Two participants
went to war, and the buzz over the planned participation of
Kosovo put Eurovision in the middle of a
political storm. One also cannot forget that this decade saw the introduction of two spin-off contests - the
Junior Eurovision Song Contest and the
Eurovision Dance Contest. It is still not fully clear on how these fit into this project, perhaps we will work that out during the
tens.