User talk:Crisco 1492/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

DYK for Berlian Hutauruk

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

LarvalBase

Hi Crisco. Thanks for your DYK review, which I agree with. I had the misfortune to set up a raft of DYKs just as the goal posts changed. I think the article is barely notable, and I can't find sources to expand it. So I've withdrawn it by deleting it from the nominations page. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know/Roman amphitheatre

Hi, thanks for reviewing this, but the result of your review is not clear from how you closed it. Are there any problems? Regards,  Sandstein  14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for copying over my DYK comments. I did take a little time trying to find the right venue, but clearly failed miserably. Your prompt intervention was appreciated Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fakfak

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Script for checking DYK nominated articles

Hi,

Will you please help me if you can. Until recently I was using this script to check DYK nominated articles: javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck();

This script does not work anymore. Is there another similar script we could use? If there is please tell me where can I find it. It would be useful to replace above mentioned script in this page: Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You may want to try creating User:Antidiskriminator/vector.js and adding the script there (if you use the vector skin). I use it too (importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js');), and mine works fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I tried but nothing happened. It worked for me also until few weeks ago. Can you check if I did it right please?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Try deleting the "dykCheck();" at the end, and don't forget to bypass your cache. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It works! Thank you very much!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, the script is still working for me. I have to load it onto the URL bar twice for it work. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 11:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It worked for me also until a couple of weeks ago. I also had to load it twice onto URL bar. Now, after I added it in User:Antidiskriminator/vector.js it works fine under my Toolbox.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Crisco 1492. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

αδζ ψακ φρψερ 12:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Discrimination against Chinese Indonesians

Calmer Waters 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK nom at Mayuranathaswami Temple, Mayiladuthurai

I could not find your alternate suggestion at T:TDYK-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to say thank you for helping to correct what I seemly could not at Template talk:Did you know/Know Hope Collective, Know Hope Collective (album). I had all but give up even trying to put a prep area together last night. I had wanted to help out again, but it just seems like it is getting so, well ... not really all that inviting to someone who just wants to help out, knows the rules and how to do it, but can't get their head around all the documentation/templates. I worry for DYK. I don't believe it has retained the learning curve ability to make good future reviewers from new contributors and as those who have become adept at contributing well drop off, those that want DYK done may very well get their wish. Anyways thanks again. Kindly Calmer Waters 20:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Regarding DYK, the templates seem to only require some slight fixes. Right now the biggest problem we're facing (besides the low number of articles approved) appears to be difficulty closing. Regarding Know Hope specifically, it appears that it could have just been removed like we used to do; I don't recall any discussion which ended up with us being required to create new subpages for each old discussion that resulted in a pass or fail. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

duplicationdetector

I've been trying to gain some insight into this tool you applied to determine the possibility of copyvio, which I guess is called duplication detector, but I am running into the cyber equivalent of the slough of despond, or at least the deep end of the pool. Can you suggest where I might find a basic intro? Alawa (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I will experiment. That was exactly the starting point that I needed and your advice is welcomed too. Alawa (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Here it is

Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas. Apparently my article resembles trivia, is not substantive enough for DYK, is being compared to a featured article in terms of content, and none of my interesting hooks will work because there isn't a long description about any of them. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK review template

Hi Crisco, just looking for some clarification regarding your comment: do you mean at most one signature within the template itself, or one signature somewhere (e.g., no signatures in the template but a signature below it, similar to the example at WT:DYK#Version 3: doodads only)? Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Philidor DYK

Thanks for looking at the Paul Philidor DYK. The reference you mentioned was incomplete so I have fixed it, and as requested a more succinct hook has been provided. violet/riga [talk] 07:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Further issue(s) fixed. violet/riga [talk] 12:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tapis (Indonesian weaving style)

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kuda Lumping

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Garuda Contingent

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK Review

I replied on the nomination page. It is impossible to specifically cite the fact that the submarine never got a kill. I guess someone with an very literal view of WP:OR could call it original research. None of the sources I found specifically stated that Phoenix hadn't gotten a kill; however, none of them recorded a kill in the events related to Phoenix. Even the ones that recorded the times that Phoenix had fired torpedoes didn't mention that she never got a kill. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think that the lead is a little bland right now. Do you think there is something else we could use as the lead? Possibly something related to one of these hooks.
Alt 1)... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) fired upon multiple ships in World War II before she was sunk, but didn't hit any of them?
This isn't specifically cited in one sentence, but it is cited over the course of different citations.
Alt 2)... that the 18th Royal Navy warship with the name Phoenix, HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured), was destroyed by Albatros in World War II?
Do you have any other ideas? If we stick with the current one, I would like to modify it slightly to
Alternate hook for the current hook)... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) was the 18th Royal Navy warship named after the mythical Phoenix?
One final question, should Royal Navy be wikilinked? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I like your ALT (shoot and miss), and Royal Navy should probably be wikilinked. If it is still in Prep, go ahead. Just leave a wikilink to this discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Its in the queue, I'll contact an administrator. Should I add anything about the name of the ship at all or would that add too much. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Too clarify, you think this alt should be used?

... that HMS Phoenix (N96) (pictured) fired upon multiple ships in World War II before she was sunk, but didn't hit any of them? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the ALT I think is best. I prefer one fact per hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This is where I wish you were an administrator. I know I have 5 hours but it worries me that after 15 minutes nobody has even commented. I might use the adminhelp template. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I never knew we had that; don't worry, this time of day it generally takes a while. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a follow up to this story [1]. Materialscientist (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re nominators

Responding to your point at MRG's page, I fully understand. However, depending on your time frame, it might be wise to get to know some of the editors on the list. If your time frame is months, as in a few, rather than days or weeks, you might approach one or two and say you would be interested in running some time, and would they be willing to pay attention to you over the next few weeks, so they could be in a position to nominate or decline. I don't know all the signers, but I would predict that Worm, Kudpung, Wifone and JulianColton would respond positively to such a request. I don't know enough about the others, but if I were to see a nomination by any of them, or OE, Pedro , HJ or SoWhy, I would start with a very positive presumption. (That said, I've never supported an RfA because someone I respect supports or even nominates. I've been less active at RfA recently, because I don't feel comfortable supporting unless I spend at east a couple hours reviewing, and those blocks of time seem hard to come by these days. BTW, those interested in Copyvios already have a leg up in my book. Don't tell her, but MRG is one of my heroes (and I don't have many)--SPhilbrickT 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, she's not stalking me. I don't do enough work with copyvio to consider mentioning it in an RFA, but I am certain that SandyGeorgia would bring it up if she commented at an RFA for me (see the huge thread here for the reason); I feel comfortable enough with my history to not worry about it. If I were to go for an RFA, my main focuses would be AFD and DYK, with copyvios and helping newbies upon request or it coming to my attention. Thanks for the response, I may try talking to Worm or Kudpung when DYK is a little more stable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Your link went to the archive and I see your name a lot, so I almost came to ask you which thread. Then I got to the Wayne Christian thread. Sorry to hear you were involved in that one.
I'll make a suggestion, take it or leave it. First, time helps. recent concerns weigh more heavily than ancient ones. Even more important, evidence that you've learned is valued. My first instinct, as when I tried to do a protected edit of a template and screwed it up, is to vow to stay away from such landmines. My second instinct, which I haven't yet done in this instance, but have in others, is to conclude that if I could make a mistake, so could others, so is there a way to improve the process, or do I simply need to be more careful when doing X. I don't know whether it would be easy to do, or event he best approach, but if you were to find a way to help make sure that such errors don't re-occur, it would accrue to your benefit, and maybe even turn a negative into a positive. This is a case where effort counts - if you made a good faith effort to explore alternatives, even if you didn't find a process solution, but just emphasized education of the issues, you might earn some net support. (My apologies if you are already doing this and I haven't seen it, while I had some involvement in DYK a year or so ago, I've been away. I came back last week, and didn't recognize the place, and couldn't figure out what to do, so I moved back tho things I can do.)--SPhilbrickT 17:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've been trying to pay more attention to paraphrasing issues. The reduplication detector is now bookmarked, and every article I review goes through it with at least one of the most heavily cited sources. I've also been participating in the discussions at WT:DYK, but not as much as Gatoclass, Rjanag, SandyGeorgia, Tony1 and cmadler; I've been trying to keep the more mundane aspects of DYK in shipshape, like building preps and doing reviews. Thanks for the suggestion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Jeeze, sorry, I should have read some of these threads first. Even if these hadn't existed, I probably should have talked to you but I let User:HJ Mitchell know that you have had some good contributions with this edit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, thanks Ryan. I was rather snippy with Sandy (which I am not proud of), but as I was not the reviewer for that fiasco I feel like it doesn't reflect badly on my understanding of policy. I am currently working on improving my understanding of the close paraphrasing issue, and MRG, TK, and a few other editors have been quite kind in assisting me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Some questions about yourself

Greetings, Crisco. I see that you've been active on Wikipedia for a long time doing a lot to help out. I have some questions for you, if you're willing to answer.

  • Have you ever been nominated to be an administrator in the past?
  • Have you ever had a behavioural RFC opened about you, or had your actions mentioned at AN/I?
  • Do you have any opinions about the recent controversy regarding plagiarism and copyright violations at DYK?
  • How do you feel about our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria?
  • Do you have any other accounts on the English Wikipedia?

You don't have to answer any of these if you don't want to, but I think it will help me know more about your activities (past and future) on Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, and thank you for asking. I will gladly respond.
  • I have never had an RFA, although I have looked at previous nominations (i.e. for January and a couple others)
  • I've never had an RFC, although I did request feedback on my own behaviour after dealing with another user regarding a copyright issue (found here); there was no incivility issue found on my part. I have only commented at ANI, never been mentioned.
  • Now that things are beginning to settle down, I have thought a bit about the issue. Both parties, DYK and the reporters, share the blame. DYK hasn't checked copyright issues thoroughly enough, which is why this happened (I was the one who moved the Wayne Christian article to prep). The reporters of the issue also share some blame, as by reporting in a less-than-polite manner they have alienated many people who would otherwise be willing to help out; now there seem to be fewer people doing reviews, which means copyright checks may not be done as well as they could be.
  • To be fair, I feel that the non-free content criteria could use a bit more development; they are one of the most important guidelines. Different editors have vastly different interpretations of them, including the bare minimum encyclopedic value necessary. Having the criteria be a bit more clear, perhaps with specific examples, would be great.
  • No. There is a Crisco, but s/he and I are unrelated.
Once again, I thank you for asking and hope that I have answered in enough detail. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your answers. They are rather encouraging. I had not known that you were caught smack dab in the center of the DYK drama. You comported yourself quite well in such a difficult situation, refraining from reactivity in a way that I wish all Wikipedians could emulate. I'm not sure if you would want to apply for the old mop and flamethrower this soon after such an incident, but if you did, I would support your nomination. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of giving it a little bit, seeing as DYK's ails are keeping me quite busy right now and everyone should have time to cool down. Thanks for the support, and the interest. :-) Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom Tower DYK image?

Hi, is the image of Kingdom Tower not allowed in the DYK because it is non free and can only be used on the article itself? Because I noticed you took it off the template but never said anything. I know having the image show would increase its exposure a ton, but if it's not allowed, that's understandable. Thanks. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images are not allowed for DYK. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly; I never touched the image though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I placed note tags around it. It was against policy for the image to be on the template talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that's what I figured, I just wanted to double check. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A. T. Mahmud

While digging through my own archives, I found A. T. Mahmud, which I created as a stub upon his death. Maybe you would have more immediately available sources to expand it. There's also Suara Karya, a newspaper originally published by Golkar. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I don't have very many books on journalism here. I'll probably look online. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Mahmud is done. I ec'd there, so you may want to check. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I fixed the image copyright tag too. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Why doesn't biog-pic get applied through the upload form? :-s Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Because it's not one of the dropdown menu options. The original tag you applied can only be used on something like File:Great Tycoon, by Oscar Motuloh.jpg. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Suara Karya is done too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hurrah! It looks nice. For that, I'm going to give you:
The Teamwork Barnstar
For the willingness to work on articles others have seemingly abandoned because they are WP:BUSY, and for reminding them that comprehensiveness of Wikipedia does not depend on one person's availability. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


DYK reviewing

I've got a quick question about a review I did for a DYK (and many thanks for the work you do on this). It was Template talk:Did you know/Wacław Gluth-Nowowiejski, which you promoted. I think I might have used the wrong symbol there, as I thought a couple of things needed discussing or changing first, but as they were minor I assumed the promotor would have looked and made the changes themselves? I'm referring mainly to the hook comments I made (the wording is not so critical, but the overlinking I pointed out was later fixed here and I made another change here. Looking closer, I see you had delinked World War II, so maybe you did see the comments and silently made some changes and not others? If so, did you consider the alternative hook wording I had suggested, and was there a better place for me to suggest that? What I also want to know is whether I should have used a different symbol, or asked the nominator directly for input about some of that? Possibly the changes made to the hook as it progressed to the queue is a feature of the system, but maybe it would be better if the hook was settled at the time of promotion? I'm going to ask Tony1 (who removed the other example of overlinking) and Volunteer Marek (the article nominator) to comment here (as the nomination subpage is now closed), as they might have some thoughts on the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's going to have to move fast, it is in Queue 1 now. I suggest posting at WT:DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've copied this to WT:DYK. Regarding the symbol, it is probably better to not use a tick until all issues are settled. Regarding length, I considered it okay, as if DYK is too short the main page will look unbalanced. I delinked WWII as I knew it was generally not linked, but I missed the misspelling. Sorry! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I actually saw Carcharoth's comments and wanted to respond to them but the nom page looked "closed" (in fact I think it said something like "discussion is closed") so I went to sleep instead then didn't think about it today. One thing I would change - and thanks to Carcharoth for pointing this out - is that it should be "short comic" rather than "comic book" (basically it was one comic among others in a comic book anthology/magazine kind of thingy). I can't make the change in the que either as I'm not an admin. But yeah, basically I was left wondering myself as what the proper way to address these was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've copied the above to WT:DYK. More people look there, so a fix will be achieved faster if we discuss there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK advice

Hello again, Crisco. Although I've been a Wikipedian for nine years now, I've (surprisingly) not had much experience with DYK. You seem to be a specialist in this area, so I thought I'd ask your advice. I've been working with an enthusiastic newcomer on an article she created, Anneliese von Oettingen. I don't think there are notability issues, and I'm sure there are no plagiarism issues. Would this be a good candidate, do you think? What should I look out for, or what should be done in the article before submitting? Is there a time limit for how soon after creation it can be submitted? Thanks for your help, – Quadell (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Based on a quick look at the article, it seems to pass the DYK criteria as is. Length is good (min 1,500 characters of readable prose [i.e. outside of tables and lists]), date of creation is fine (usually maximum of 5 days, sometimes extended up to 8 at reviewer's discretion) and I've seen enough of your work to trust that there are no copyright or plagiarism issues. It may come under fire for relying heavily on a self-published piece, but it doesn't affect notability (as you've said).
To submit, you should look for an interesting fact from the article (that she was featured in Sports Illustrated for working with football players, perhaps?), then fill in the form as outlined at T:TDYK. You'd be the nominator, while Kate would be listed as creator (for the new form, you should probably write that you are the nom in the Comments section). Good luck! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I've submitted it (though it appears the instructions are out of date. They say to add {{Template talk:Did you know/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}} to the page, but the nomination was created at Template:Did you know nominations/Anneliese von Oettingen instead.) Anyway, I fixed my inclusion, and the process seems to be moving ahead nicely.
But now it says that I need to review a nomination. This is suddenly quite complicated. I read the 1600-word reviewing guide, but I'm still not clear what is permissible. For instance, Monte Dolack says (in the article, not the hook) "His design was a then-fashionable contemporary art work (similar to a Jackson Pollock image) which a teacher in 2006 later described as 'flat-out ugly'." I don't know if that's acceptable or not. Or for O Tú o Ninguna, the statements in the second and third sentences are not sourced. If I were doing a GA review, I'd require that the sourcing be tightened, but I just don't know what's a customary level of diligence for DYK articles. And I know that if I approve an article and it turns out I made a mistake, there will be hell to pay. It feels like if I don't already have a lot of experience with the DYK process, or I don't have perhaps four hours to spend on learning the review process (largely through examples) over the next couple of days, I'm not welcome to submit an article to DYK. And that's me, a very experienced Wikipedian -- I'd hate to think what a new Wikipedian like KateJardiniere would think of the process if she were attempting it herself. I'm afraid that this will lead to a very insular DYK group that excludes non-specialists from participating, and I'm not sure that's what we want.
Okay, but enough of my soap-boxing. In the examples I gave above, do I need to be that thorough in my review? If I review a nomination in good faith, would you be willing to re-review it, to tell me if I was too lenient or too strict? Thanks again for you help, – Quadell (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • To be honest, the quid pro quo review is only for self nominations by users with more than 5 DYK credits (I think it's written somewhere, but I forget; it should probably be made more explicit). But since you are already doing a review, I'll give you a little feedback. For the Dolack article, we'd probably AGF on it as it is cited, albeit to an offline reference. For the Mexican song, I'm having trouble with the currently cited Billboard source so I cannot double check.
Basically, what you are looking for in the article is its length (1500 chars or more, not missing anything obvious), date of creation (maximum 5 days prior to nomination, generally), accordance to policy (no copyvio, NPOV), sourcing (RS, one source per paragraph at least, excluding plot and lead) and readability (no glaring issues, like atrocious grammar or whatnot). In the hook, you want to make sure it is short enough (no more than 200 chars with spaces), interesting enough, cited (has a footnote directly after the hook fact), and that any images suggested are viable for the main page (interesting at 100px; PP, OTRS, or CC). You seem to have a good understanding of it (not too lenient, not too strict); after you have written the review I will double check just in case. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. I reviewed at Template talk:Did you know/O Tú o Ninguna. I also reviewed one of your noms, Template talk:Did you know/Balada Shalawat, just for the fun of it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. I have replaced the original hook with another ALT at the album article (better supported by the article). For the song article, you may want to leave some more specific commentary, as "sourcing really needs to be tightened up" may be considered worrisome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Marcomannia

Thanks. That moved faster than I expected (Toposa people is still stuck from July 24). I may keep tinkering with it. The archaeological sites need better descriptions.

I see the recent changes to the DYK process. Making each nomination its own page is useful, if only because changes show on a watchlist. I don't particularly like the checklist, which seems a bit forbidding, but it does just formalize what should have been checked anyway and is not hard to fill out, so no real problem. There is still a lot that cannot be checked, like copyvios from offline books and selective bias, but I suppose we should check what we can. But something else has changed, and I don't know what it is. There seems to be almost a mood of hostility to new submissions. DYK does not seem to be a welcoming place for newbies. Maybe this is just a phase... Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Indonesian literature (and media)

I've revamped the section. Let me know what you think. It's the best I could do while being concise yet also comprehensive. Otherwise, I think it'll be ready for FAC in a week or two. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look later. First day of class today, so as Radioactive Man says... "Up and atom." Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good summary; good idea to avoid naming prominent authors. Perhaps something on how some Chinese-Indonesian authors during the New Order avoided self-identifying as Chinese (including Marga T and Mira W). I used this as a source when expanding Marga T's article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if that fact is already in one of the sources I used. Now I'm trying to prevent the bibliography section from becoming massive. >.< —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I know, bibliography creep is a pain. Happy Salma's article is like half bibliography. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:7 Hati 7 Cinta 7 Wanita.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:7 Hati 7 Cinta 7 Wanita.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

List of places of worship in Rother

Hi Crisco; thanks for your review. I have responded at the template page. FLC is a long-term aim, but I need to write quite a few subsidiary articles for the notable churches first. Expect to see some of those at DYK in the future! Kind regards, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know/Hasan Ahmet Sari

Many thanks for the DYK review and the related comments, to which I have replied on the above page. Deserter1 08:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Book Cover image

Hello Crisco 1492!

I was wondering are book cover images allowed on Wikipedia? If so, would this be allowed? Thank You! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

With a fair-use rationale and in compliance with our fair use guideline. For example, you could use that book cover (or preferably one which only shows the cover, like in Sitti Nurbaya) to illustrate an article about the book. However, using it to illustrate an article about the model would not be allowed. For the rationale, you'd want to use Template:Non-free use rationale book cover. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
What if I were to use the image in the article of the model - but in a section that spicifically mentions it? ex. "Blah blah wrote a book called___________ in ____ 2011, about______________________"....and then on the side I have the image of the book? Possible? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably not, as it would not contribute extensively to an encyclopedic understanding of it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Editing is getting so much difficult, I swear.. :( Anyway, Thank You! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright is confusing, and even specialists get confused at times. Wikipedia takes a conservative stance on copyright for that reason; what one editor thinks is fair use could be considered an infringement by the copyright owner. Text is somewhat easier, but you still need to be careful. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
People aren't generous enough to share...that's the issue. They probably never even heard of "Sharing is caring" lol Anyway barring that...this is a little random, but would it be possible if you (when you have time) to give me constructive critism (+suggestions) from this article that I'm making (article about the the person on the book cover image ^^). I don't often create articles, and before I get this assessed to see whether or not the article will be able to be created, I would like it to be assessed by someone I know. Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks fairly good. The lead should not have references as it reiterates information from the body of the article. Couple points:
  1. Chestbrah's arrest should be saved for later in the article; he wasn't arrested in their early life.
  2. Do another proofread. Some sentences have the wrong tense agreement or are difficult to parse (understand).
Other than that it looks good. You should try to nominate it at Did you know once it is in main space. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank You so much! I'm changing a few things as suggested, as we speak :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crisco_1492/Archive_5&oldid=1147982941"