User talk:Paul.h

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Samuel Alito Article 2 Conservatory of Flowers 3 Moss v. Bush - Balance 4 Hi 5 Regarding the San Francisco article 6 san fran 7 Clarence Thomas 8 it's--->its 9 San Francisco 1 10 San Francisco 2 11 Earthquake Photo 12 HIV Copyedit 13 Thanks so much 14 Joshua A. Norton 15 California Gold Rush article 16 Peer review 17 0.999... 18 Publication 19 1956 20 Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#History_of_Solidarity 21 FA for 23 October 22 Earthquake photo 23 Dundee Copyedit 24 You helped choose Mark Twain as this week's WP:AID winner 25 San Francisco highway listing 26 Age at Death 27 Berlin 28 San Francisco edits 29 California Gold Rush title of first sectiON 30 your contributions to the discussion on pederasty 31 California Gold Rush FAC support 32 Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess 33 Auden page 34 Invitation

[edit] Samuel Alito Article

I added this discussion topic to the talk:Alito page and wondered what you would have to say:

Controversial Nature of Nomination, Confirmation and Alito in General

I am new to this, but I agree with others that this article does not properly address the controversial nature of Alito. The appointment/confirmation part on the ABA makes it sound as if this was just another appointment. He is one of three Supreme Court nominations to be opposed by the ACLU in its entire history. He is the definition of controversial appointment/justice. While this is addressed more thoroughly in the article on his appointment this is also important to this article. All supporters and opponents should not be listed in this article, but his controversial nature should be made clear. For this reason I added something on the ACLU because the ACLU opposition underlines just how controversial his nomination was. The introduction of the article writes that “He is regarded as a generally conservative jurist.” This simply does not describe his controversial nature. Many democrats would characterize him as a radical ultraconservative along the lines of Robert Bork. This widely held opinion should be addressed in the article. --Wikipediatoperfection 2:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the ACLU bit out for now, but I am going to add back in the name of Robert Bork along with that of Clarence Thomas as former nominees that that he was widely compared to by democrats. --Wikipediatoperfection 2:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservatory of Flowers

I returned the basic facts to Golden Gate Park, to keep the main article from being incomplete. See Talk:Golden Gate Park for the general principle. Will you need to move Conservatory of Flowers to a more explanatory title, now that it's all on its own? Perhaps you don't think that's required. No matter. --Wetman 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to step on anyone's toes. I didn't start the Conservatory of Flowers article; I stumbled across it and thought I'd contribute something. Nor did I cannibalize the history content from Golden Gate Park (as you can tell from the timestamps). I wrote it from scratch and when I looked back at the GG article it seemed there was duplication for no good reason so I condensed it. I'll leave things alone, but I definitely think that the detailed history of the Conservatory of Flowers doesn't need to take up space in the Golden Gate Park article as well as its own article. For instance, the park map lists 37 features and the article only 11, so there is ample opportunity to describe the park and its contents without duplicating historical detail in multiple places. It seems that the main article could get along swimmingly just by mentioning the connection to Lick, the fact that it is the biggest existing Victorian wood and glass greenhouse, it has an outstanding collection of tropical plants and that it was recently renovated and reopened to the public. On the other hand, if you'd like to delete the Conservatory of Flowers article, go ahead. Peace. --Paul 02:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moss v. Bush - Balance

Nice contribution! Now to meet the WP:NPOV requirements, since you are stated one side's POv, you need to state the other side's point of view, giving it equal attention. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 12:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I searched for news on the resolution of the sanctions motion, as it seemed it should have been dismissed by now, which would satisfy NPOV and would be nicely symmetrical with the disposition of Moss .v Bush... but I couldn't find anything definite beyond a vague reference to "now that the threat of sanction had been removed." However, NPOV is an interesting problem in Moss v. Bush, as there is no balancing POV in the article to any of the allegations in the suit. The court asked Moss et. al. to state "circumstances constituting fraud or mistake with particularity" threatening to dismiss the case; but the case was withdrawn before a prejudical ruling could be issued or before any respose to its charges were filed. So the sanctions motion ends up being the only balancing material in the entire one-sided article. It's almost an entire article along the lines of the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" The expansion of the particulars to the sanctions section added some balance where the prior language: "On 18 January 2005, Contestee's Attorney filed a motion for sanction against Contestors." was vague, obtuse, and to most people unenlightening. --Paul 13:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I just wanted to say I see your work on legal biographies and political articles and you are making good edits. You may want to write something about yourself on your User Page, until that page is created you will always show up as a red link on people's watchlists (and red links are scrutinized closer as potential newbie vandals). In any case, Keep up the good work. :-) NoSeptember ^talk 23:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the San Francisco article

I'm cool with the way you treated the metric and U.S. systems. I was upset with a guest who took out the metric measurements altogether. [1] WhisperToMe 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC

[edit] san fran

what streets are "crooked", whether crroked is taken to mean not straight or taken to mean indecent, is POV and therefore not encyclopedic. I meant to leave that as an edit comment, it must have slipped my mind, apologies.--CastAStone|^(talk) 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in a few edits just so you could see how to remove External jumps: I've taken it off of my watchlist, as I don't have time to follow the article closely, and it still needs lots of work, so let me know when it's ready for another look. Regards, Sandy 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarence Thomas

Regarding his presiding over Limbaugh's wedding: the inclusion itself is verifiable, sourced, and not POV: the edit implies no politics by association unless the reader wants there to be some. I think it should stay.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles have the potential to expand ceaselessly precisely because if sourced and NPOV, a trivial fact can rarely be excluded. The thing to do is move on and accept that articles are not restricted to the most relevant facts. Community editorial control does not always produce a well constructed article. Work on a variety of other articles, rather than focusing on this one issue, there are improvements that could be made to all the Supreme Court justice's articles for example. Cheers, NoSeptember ^talk 09:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it's--->its

A correction should be made on your user page. Moncrief 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Done. Thanks.--Paul 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco 1

Great job! I think we still have the Economy and Demographics sections to overhaul. I'm going to go out and try to take a better picture for the main infobox and also a better one to represent the the San Francisco hills in the geography section.--DaveOinSF 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And a Great job! to you, too. The article has had an amazing transformation this past week. Agreed that Economy & Demographics could benefit from a bit more work. One of the editors who contributied to the peer review page has made some additional comments on that page. Happy photography, great day for it.--Paul 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a list of "To Do" items on the talk page. Please add/comment on stuff. Let me know what you think about that when you have the chance.

--DaveOinSF 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of rearranging the the Neighborhoods section on a more geographic basis. As it is now, after the first para., it still reads "this ethnicity lives here, this ethnicity lives there" while not really giving much of a sense of the layout of the city. Also, my thought was to move the Pacific Heights picture to Culture and Contemporary life and then try to add either a map of SF or a picture of another neighborhood to the Neighborhoods section (maybe Mission?). Let me know if you think this is a good idea.--DaveOinSF 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph is good, as it starts in the core, and except for the Mission, the oldest part of the city. I think the Mission should be the second paragraph. After that, I'm not sure you can give a verbal picture of the layout of the city. Perhaps best would be to use historic expansion as the organization of the nieghborhoods section, and find a map of SF with the neighborhoods labeled as the picture. I think Culture and Contemporary life needs a picture of the Performing arts area (the Opera House is probably best) more than it needs another streetscape... but if you want to replace the rainbow flag with a streetscape & add an Opera House pic( one example: Image:SFOperaHouse.jpg, another: Image:SFWMOHLobbySouth.jpg), perhaps that would be best. (Also, I think the 1945 Powell St. Cable car pic we were using for a bit is better than the WW2 pic we have now & its the same era) --Paul 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I can add WMOH to Culture, but we're in danger of a little tooo much of this neo-classical architecture (POFA, POTLOH, City Hall are already up there). If you can bear to dump POTLOH (the picture is slanted anyway), it makes it easier to justify the WMOH. I certainly think the Castro should stay, but I agree a better picture that includes the Castro Theater can would be preferable. As for history, I'm willing to dump the Grateful Dead, move WWII further down the page and add in a photo of the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge. I'm not wedded to the WWII photo, but something to represent the military's contributions in that era would be good. If you can find some servicemembers hanging out on a Cable Car, all the better.

Also, I reorganized Neighborhoods, but I think it's a little long and will trim it some when Ihave the chance.--DaveOinSF 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about a small Alcatraz photo to the Economy section? It's the only major landmark listed in the final sentence in the lead section that is in fact not represented on this page. THe "Economy" section might work because the first para is all about tourism. I'll add it and you can revert if you think it's superfluous.--DaveOinSF 17:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How about replacing the Lombard St. pic with an Alcatraz one? I don't think it really fits in the Economy section, but I don't feel strongly about it. My revert finger isn't twitching. --Paul 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If we replace Lombard St, it should be with something like Twin Peaks or Sutro Tower, something that really illustrates the hilly character of the city. I think Lombard St works there because it does illustrate the hilly geography, but is a readily identifiable landmark to boot. I'm holding my ground on Alcatraz in Economy for the time being. We start off by saying how important tourism is for SF, and Alcatraz is a pretty good symbol of that (for better or for worse...).--DaveOinSF 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How did you figure out that 17K was due to the references? How much would be due to the images? Wikipedia:Article size recommends <50K of "readable prose". If we're at 76K, lose 17K, that drops us to 59K. How much of that is accounted for by pictures and other things that are not "readable prose"? How much "readable prose" is in Seattle and Detroit articles?--DaveOinSF 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I copied the entire page into MSword, deleted everything but "Readable prose" (i.e. - "see also", captions, climatebox, references, TOC, overhead, whatnot) and saved as a text file. It was 39K - our "readable prose" is 39K. --DaveOinSF 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

6254 Words. That's how many words are in the article now.--DaveOinSF 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Brittianica San Francisco article is about 6,800 words.--Paul 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

After all that - chopping Neighborhoods, adding to climate and Demo, we saw TOTAL size increase quite a bit to 81K. Readable prose is STILL 39K, and the number of words actually went DOWN a couple to 6245. I think most of the increase in total size was actually from embedding the climatebox... We could totally cheat on total size by having entire chunks of the article just call up text that's over in a template somewhere.--DaveOinSF 05:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about the Total Size issue with the weatherbox. I could go back to using the template and add a line of text below the box with a reference, but it does look nice the way it is. Anyway, it looks like everything is in place to resubmit. Are you okay with that? --Paul 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I am allowed to vote?--DaveOinSF 06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The rules say yes, if you identify yourself as a contributor. Ha! Anyway, 'tis done. It will be interesting to see what others say.--Paul 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you signed my name, I'll refrain from doing so for now...--DaveOinSF 06:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Experimental way of including pop culture kind of subtly. I added to the tourism section of Economy:

Tourism is the backbone of the San Francisco economy. Its frequent portayal in music, film, and popular culture has made the city and its landmarks recognizable worldwide. It is the city where Tony Bennett left his heart, the Birdman of Alcatraz spent his final years, and where Rice-a-Roni is said to be the favorite treat. The city attracts the ...

--DaveOinSF 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, it's only a sentence; it will be interesting to see if it morphs or grows. I like your use of older examples. One good test of whether something belongs in an encyclopedia or not, is fifty years from now, will anyone know what is being talked about? I think Tony Bennet & Birdman (both 1962 or 44 years ago) will survive to the fifty-year mark. Vertigo and Rice-a-Roni (1958) are both 48 this year.--Paul 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I also like these as 'popular culture' examples because they are all based on reality instead of fiction.--Paul 23:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How much do you want to bet that, if we go away for a while, one week later we'll see "and where Otis Redding sat by the dock of the bay" and "and which Jefferson Starship said was built on rock and roll" or "on whose streets Karl Malden solved crimes" and, god forbid, "where Bob Sagett lived in a Full House". maybe someone will add "Starfleet Academy" to the education section?--DaveOinSF 00:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't bet against "Starfleet Academy." I'll bet I have enough fingers and toes to count down until we see it.--Paul 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And a congratualtions to you too!

Kind of busy with meetings this week, but still have time to check in once in a while... We should nominate it for the front page...

Here's one from the NIST NASA site, so it's public domain: http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect6/originals/Fig6_18.jpg It's Ok, not the greatest resolution, and the color seems a little off to me, but it's not too bad. I can trim some of the rock out of it so it's focused only on the bridge and the downtown.

If we add this, we can toss the Baker Beach photo, and move the painted ladies into Neighborhoods. I don't want to get rid of the Chinatown or Mission mural photo though...

Also, I do like our current FOG photo, but here's another one that's public domain from NIST that's just stunning: http://www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/t2002v/topics/imageExamples/golden_20gate.jpg --DaveOinSF 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC).

After looking at the NASA photo from the Marin headlands some more, I'm gonna have to say we should pass. The resolution is too low for the top right photo. That's probably the best thing about the Pained Ladies photo - it is very sharp and well composed (I like how the greenery semi-frames the photo). Plus, the source image is fairly large. I'll keep searching, but you might just have to take a trip up to Marin this weekend, if the weather is OK.--DaveOinSF 04:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The NASA Marin/SF photo is very close. Perhaps there is a higher resolution version somewhere that can be cropped and color corrected. The fog picture is too pretty. It illustrates the GG Bridge more than San Francisco fog.--Paul 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture of downtown from the east is also a good possibility, but I'd need an airplane or helicopter to duplicate it myself. --Paul 16:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco 2

Wow, I guess there's been a lot of work! Overall, the quality of the article is vastly better than the last time I read it. Great work! I went through and fixed a few minor spelling and punctuation errors myself but there are a few other points I wanted to mention:

• A few of the sections towards the bottom (colleges and universities, culture and contemporary life) read like they still use a bit of a copyedit.
• The third paragraph in the lead sounds somewhat strange to me.
• "Nearby are the equally well known Twin Peaks, a pair of hills..." equally well known as what?
• I noticed that the list of sister cities was removed, was this accidental or was there a reason for this?
• I would add a little more information regarding the 1906 earthquake to the history section. The short paragraph that currently exists seems to start rather suddenly and it seems like there should be a little bit more about one of the defining events in San Francisco's history.
• Would you mind adding a brief mention of Fort Point somewhere in the history section?

I would definitely support another featured article nomination if a few of the above things can be addressed. The only other thing that I can think of that might cause some opposition in another nomination would be the length of the article. Personally, I have no problem with this. I would much rather read a long article that is very comprehensive than one that leaves out relevent information but I've gotten the feeling that many other users don't feel the same way when it comes to featured articles.

Anyways, I should have left for work about 10 minutes ago, great job on the article and let me know what you think about those suggestions. --Nebular110 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, especially the Fort Point one. San Francisco has a really interesting early military history: Ft. Point, The Presidio, Alcatraz & etc. which is not adequately covered. I also think we can expand the Culture & Contemporary life section to paint a fuller picture of what it is like to live in San Francisco today.

The Sister Cites material was moved to a daughter article and referenced in the ==See Also== section when trying to cut down on the article size. --Paul 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Article size: I put this note on the SF talk page:

Yes, I know the article size is creeping up again. It is currently 72K, but other Featured Article cities are of comparable size: Seattle, Washington is 83K; Detroit, Michigan is 69K; Boston, Massachusetts is smaller at 59K. I think this article is better than any of those (Boston's is rather poor, in my opinion, with only 17 21 references) and is anyway a more famous and prominent city (no offense...).--DaveOinSF 19:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When do we want to submit for FA again? We have a very strong case and I think we should preempt criticism of article size by comparing it to the other FA cities.--DaveOinSF 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that a Peer Review editor mentioned that we haven't covered is expanding references to include author and date of article, where available. After that, the article will be "perfect!" and we should re-submit for FA. I've added a to-do to the SF discussion page. --Paul 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to new to suggest about the article. I'm impressed, it is well laid out, well wikified, well referenced, very informative, plenty of pics. I think it is ready for FA. NoSeptember 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks quite good to me too. I'm sure some editors will bring up a few minor points once it is listed at WP:FAC but I can't think of anything major that would prevent it from passing. All of the points that were raised during the last nomination seem to have been corrected. You've got my vote. --Nebular110 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the delete, what are you trying to accomplish? That file has a history that should be preserved. I can merge it back into Archive1 with the combined history. Wouldn't that be better? NoSeptember 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California/archive1, didn't understand quite what the #Redirects were doing & then moved Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California/archive1 to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California/archive2. I finally figured out was was going on, so I removed the #redirect from Archive1 and copied the contents from Archive2 to Archive1. Archive2 is completly superfluous and is a duplicate of Archive1.--Paul 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the top version is a duplicate (but it is what we call a cut and paste move), and the history is in archive2. I'll go ahead and merge them together. It'll work out fine. NoSeptember 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All done :). NoSeptember 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That is exactly what I was trying to do. Are you going to vote on the SF FAC?--Paul 21:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. I've been a bit busy for the last couple weeks, haven't even checked in much. Saw your message about the new GGBridge photo on my talk page. I'll do a mock up page with that as the corner photo. Might be something we'd want more input over. But in any case, looks like the article is going to be on the front page on Friday!--DaveOinSF 06:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Posted another editor's suggestions re: San Francisco on the SF-talk page. Have a look and say what you think.--DaveOinSF 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earthquake Photo

Just warning you, so you're not shocked when you check out the SF page tomorrow:

I increased the size of the Earthquake photo to full width. It's pretty striking, and I think it works. Have an open mind when you check it out.

Gotta get some sleep now.--DaveOinSF 08:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HIV Copyedit

Hi. The article on HIV is currently on FAC review. One of the issues that has arisen is the need for a copyedit. User:Tony1 suggested that you might be willing to have look over it as it does need a pair of fresh eyes. It's a really important article that we want to ride on WP's reach into the developed and developing worlds, and a linguistic edit is required, so don't be put off by the medical content. Your fresh eyes would be of great value at this mature stage of the FAC process. Thanks. --Bob 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks so much

Hi there,

Just wanted to say thanks so much for heliping out on the Bongo (antelope) article I'm working on. I'm new to this so please help out as much as you can!

Thanks so much again, Black Stripe 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You qre quite welcome. Now you make me feel guilty that I did so little!--Paul 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua A. Norton

Jonathan Wild seems to be an article about a similarly obscure figure which has FA status.--Paul 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Gold Rush article

Thanks for your earlier peer review comments about that California Gold Rush article, which were very helpful! If you do have a moment, and could take another look at the article that would be appreciated. There have been a number of useful comments, which have been taken into account, and your further thoughts would be appreciated. Also, if there's a chance that you think that this article might be nominated for Good Article status, and might be able to make that nomination, that would be very much appreciated as well! NorCalHistory 16:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Are you sure that is the right title? The other Peer review subpages seem to use the lower case r for the word "review". Wouldn't Wikipedia:Peer review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956 be the correct title? The link on the main peer review page can be changed to the lower case page if needed, since it links to the upper case page now. Merging the two pages is no problem. I went ahead and changed the link and merged the pages as it appears it should be done. As for the other question, WP:RAA can direct you to the proper pages to request admin assistance. NoSeptember 16:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0.999...

Thanks for commenting on the 0.999... FAC and supporting it! It's now been Featured. Melchoir 23:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publication

Hi! I answered your questions here. - Serinde 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1956

Paul, yes, the revolution reference is indeed pedantic, as was the objection of the reviewer. Please revise as you see fit. Its sole purpose is to turn one users oppose into a support, as offered. Istvan 17:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the stars torn from the caps line back in, but wasnt sure to which reference you were referring. Please let me know and I will drop that in. Istvan 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"No more comrades" contains the cap/stars reference (I fixed the ref). I have to say that this evening's set of edits has not improved the article; in my opinion it has made it worse. Its narrative clarity and color is being replaced by pointless asides and turgidity, and references no longer refer to the events they are suppose to support. If the article moves much more towards "desensationalizing," readers are going to wonder what was wrong with those hot-headed and violent Hungarians.--Paul 09:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

HELP !!!! Ive been approached by someone on the commons that our photos are to be deleted unless we have a permission from the copyright holder. That would be disasterous. Do you have anything in writing from the AHF regarding use on Wiki, or in general? Im pasting the message below:

Hi Istvan, thanks for your message! You wrote that "these images are offered for download to commemorate the event". Well, images on Commons have to be released under a free license, see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. So the images can only be on commons if you have a more extensive permission for the pictures, so it must also be possible for third parties to used them (with or without modifications, even a commercial use must be allowed). So I am afraid that the pictures cannot remain on Commons unless you get a permission by the copright holder. --User:Matt314|Matt314 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Istvan 19:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, I have heard nothing. Here is email address of the fellow I spoke with atilla.kocsis@americanhungarianfederation.org and here's the phone # I found him at: (202) 737-0127. I think a phone call is in order because I have emailed twice and haven't gotten a response either time. Either the address is incorrect, or he has nothing to report. BTW, the PDF of the UN Report has also disappeared. Good luck! It may be necessary to contact the copyright holder of each photo, though I am not certain how you will find that out. --Paul 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, called and left a message, and wrote an email, but dont hold hope of hearing back. Plan B? Is there a way to put the images up on the Wiki instead of the commons? This is a point at which we really need our admin friends (or at least those who would take the time to read an external webpage before behaving destructively). Any news, please share as will I. Istvan 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WHOA! the UN report link works just fine for me. Try clearing the cache, fiddling with your java, settings, etc. before re-doing all the links, or maybe its just one or two corrupted refs? Istvan 01:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WE'RE FA!!!!! pop the pezsgõ !!! lets get our nom up! Istvan 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting the Hungarian revolution page to FA! I've been tuned out a little bit recently - focussing my Wikipedia efforts on, shall we say, less weighty matters... Anyway, congrats!--DaveOinSF 22:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. For some reason I got interested in the '56 Revolution article. I've always been interested in early Cold War history, and enjoyed today's NYT's review of the new biography of Dean Acheson. I hope I can now take a vacation from Wikipedia for a while. But, some Saturday, I am going to stop by the SF History room of the main SF library and do some work on Joshua A. Norton. It really should regain FA status, though it may be hard to pull off.--Paul 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was a latecomer too. :) All deserve honors at this point--I'm so happy we actually pulled it off! K. Lastochka 22:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#History_of_Solidarity

I thought you may be interested in reviewing this FA candidate. Good job on the Hungarian Revolution!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA for 23 October

Well we'd better get our nom up immediately. I notice some noms mention (in the nominating text) a requested date for feature. Since 23 October is the very next one to be chosen, I would suggest that you put up your version of the textbox, and a version of my text as the nom article (which includes the ref to 50th anniversary, bravest act, etc.) (please see NCurse's request to Raul654 - it worked). Would you like to do the honours this time? Ryanjo? I dont want to hog these things. If nobody has put something up in one hour, I will do it. Istvan 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't wholly understand your request. The only difference between my version and yours, is the text. The Textbox is identical.--Paul 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

never mind, it looks fine. One request? Please amend the nomination remark to explicitly request 23 October. There is already on Raul654's talk page, a remark saying that 56 is already in the WP:SA for that day, and tradition has it not to have it both there and feature article. (ugh!) Lets figure out the best way to advocate for 23 October and overcome this WP:SA glitsch. Istvan 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Paul - take a look at the FA queue now.....:) Istvan 04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earthquake photo

That is a much better version, good find! My only advice would be seeing if maybe you could fix the highlights in the upper right corner. If that's blown in the original, obviously, you probably can't, but it's noticable enough to try. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dundee Copyedit

Hi there, I've currently got an article up on FAC here, although it's been requested that it gets a brief final copyedit from someone unfamilar with the text and I was wondering if you could possibly take a look at it. User:Tony1 suggested looking through related FA's that had been recently promoted and the only one that really comes anywhere close is San Francisco, which is where I saw your excellent work in copyediting that particular article.  YDAM TALK 11:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I'm swamped at work today. Perhaps I'll have an hour or two over the weekend to devote. Good luck!--Paul 16:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, Raul doesn't usually promote/fail FAC's until Sunday so that should be fine. If you ever need a favor in return just ask.  YDAM TALK 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Mark Twain as this week's WP:AID winner

_→AzaToth 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco highway listing

Ok, I kinda knew it was duplicating the links mentioned earlier in the section, though for both consistency's sake and for those just reading which highways are in San Francisco (see the other county articles such as Alameda County, California, etc.), I felt there had to be a listing. So I'm thinking of suggesting a Transportation in San Francisco, California article, more in depth about the streets with links to street articles such as Lombard Street and The Embarcadero. I also think the California State Highways WikiProject could help at least with the state highways part. We also need to gather and consolidate some of the other articles on San Francisco streets, like List of streets in San Francisco, Etymologies of street names in San Francisco, California, etc.; they need to be merged. --Geopgeop 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

These are some good ideas. It seems that what is really needed first is a good framework to contain road information. If California State Highways WikiProject hasn't worked out such a scheme, it sounds like a good project for the group.--Paul 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age at Death

Hi, I saw you added the age at death for Mark Twain by using the age template. Since someone's age at death never changes, it is extremely inefficient to use the age template to generate this information every time someone looks at the article. It is suggested that you use {{subst:age...}} instead since this will put the age in permanently and not require it to be recalculated every time the page is loaded. Kaldari 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought of the dynamic server load; makes sense. Why didn't you insert the "subst:" ?--Paul 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin

Hi, Paul ! I´ve seen you are a city expert. You are very welcome to comment on this city-article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Berlin. Is it already mature enough to promote it towards FA-candidate-procedure? Thanks for the assessment! Lear 21 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco edits

WIth all due respect, I don't think you own the article. -RatSkrew 19:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your observation about ownership is true, but your edit is still unsourced.--Paul 19:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The information can be found in the demographics of the United States article and on the Census Bureau website. --RatSkrew 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No it is not found in that article. Hu 03:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You stand corrected, Mr. HU. Image:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.jpg -RatSkrew 03:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The census image you point to is a bit bogus with regard to the Chinese ethnicity of San Francisco. It reflects a rather Euro-centric, white-centric viewpoint that distinguishes between sub-groups of Europeans such as between Finnish and Irish but does not distinguish between the large number of sub-groups within the Chinese. In any case, it is not an important issue and does not deserve to be in the lead paragraph or even in the intro. Furthermore, it is not "Mr. HU", it is simply "Hu". Hu 04:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I read that before unprotecting it, but FAs on the Main Page are never to be semi-protected for very long. Until it was unprotected, we couldn't even be certain that the vandal would return. Please do not act so aggressively. —Cuiviénen 00:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Gold Rush title of first sectiON

Paul - here's the comment during the peer review (now archived) which led to the change in the title of the first section of California Gold Rush -

"What jumped out at me is that there is a section entitled "History" in an article that is about history! This section is really what the bulk of the article should be. If you start subdividing this section, you will probably discover where the gaps in the information are. . . . Lagringa 07:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)"

The intent was to find another title which was more closely descriptive, rather than simply "History" in an article about history.NorCalHistory 06:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that you remind me, I remember that comment, but I disagree. When you look at the article now, that section is the history of the gold rush. History is not a monolithic thing that can't be subdivided. History is a series of events over time, and each of those events consists of a number of more detailed events happening over time, and so on. The big history is a mountain of individual histories. It is silly to argue that you shouldn't talk about the history of a historical event.--Paul 08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your contributions to the discussion on pederasty

You know, I would not mind so much if you could just come out and say you have a personal problem with Auden's pederasty. But trotting out this presumed defense of Auden's philosophy for you to hide behind is far worse. Do as you see fit. Haiduc 00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright: PERSONALLY I don't think that anything useful is gained by including ANYONE in a "pederasty" category. If you want to include Auden in a homosexual category, go ahead it is pretty clearly correct, but I regard a "pederasty" category to be just about as useful as an "insect torturing" category. I think there are certain rules of propriety that should be followed here, and a "pederasty" category, or one for jew baiters, is beyond the pale, and doesn't really add to human knowledge.--Paul 00:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, it is the farthest thing from my mind to attempt to change your view of pederasty. But I do think that the disagreement between us is more one of semantics than of substance. I deplore child abuse at least as much as the next man. But Auden is cut of a different cloth. He had an honorable, loving, erotic, mutual relationship with a youth who welcomed his attentions and remained his friend for life. And Auden had the courage and integrity to sing of it to the whole world, critics be damned. I think we owe him to not mince words. But I understand that many are unaware of the multiple meanings of "pederasty". Would you accept "Category:Pederastic poetry" instead? Haiduc 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in here to add to Paul's point: No, that category would be totally misleading: there is absolutely nothing "pederastic" about Auden's poetry - in fact, until the biographies appeared, most readers would have assumed that the poems were all about adult heterosexual love (as the biographies show that some of the poems, otherwise indistinguishable from the rest, certainly are); that's how Auden's friend Henry Moore illustrated them, in fact. It might help to read the poems before categorizing them (and it isn't clear that this has been done by the person who proposed "pederastic poetry" as a category).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.59.207.217 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 November 2006 UTC.

[edit] California Gold Rush FAC support

Paul -

Thanks for jumping in on that Feather River statistic. Could you let me know what source you used to find that item on p. 230, since the Holliday book I'm using had it on an earlier page - I'd like to add to my stock of Gold Rush books! Again, many thanks! (... and yes, 273 pounds is 124 kilos.) NorCalHistory 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I found it using the "Search Inside this Book" feature on Amazon.com.--Paul 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Paul—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auden page

Is there any chance you might have a moment to take a look at the inline references I've added to the W. H. Auden page? They're all based on your suggestions, and I wonder if you think they conform to Wikipedia standards. No urgency about this, and I know I'm imposing on your time. Macspaunday 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello – Based on your significant contribution to one or more San Francisco Bay Area-related articles and/or stated interests on your homepage, I thought you might be interested in this project:

You have been invited to join the WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Bay Area. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Peter G Werner 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)