Jump to content

User talk:Nasty Housecat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello Vaughanchris! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Miscellaneous

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! JamesBWatson (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some specific questions about the article School for Creative and Performing Arts and do not know where to find help:

  1. I think that the title and first section of the article should be changed slightly. How are such things done?
  2. The discussion page of the article lists several "projects" this article is part of that have rated its quality and completeness. I have edited it extensively and the ratings should be revised. How do such things happen?
  3. There is a note on the article that more citations are required. I have address all the "citation needed" comments and added more of my own. How does the "citations needed" note get removed?

Vaughanchris (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want the article to have a different title instead of School for Creative and Performing Arts, press the move tab on the top of the article, and enter the title you want. However, I don't think the article title should be changed. The policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions is that article titles should be the most common English-language name, and that's what it has now. To change the first section, just press "edit this page" at the top and make the changes you want. If you have a more specific question on how to make a change, put the {{helpme}} tag and I or someone else will help you.
Those ratings are article assessments. Anyone can change an assessment, but it is suggested that you discuss the change first with the participants of each WikiProject, by going to the talk pages of each WikiProject listed.
The note is a maintenance template. It was added by an editor, and it can be removed by any editor, including you. If you think you've addressed the issue in the template, you can remove {{refimprove}} from the top of the article, as long as you explain why you're removing it, either in the edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao talk 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Avery Coonley School, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.averycoonley.org/?page=campus http://www.averycoonley.org/?page=ACSCurriculum http://www.averycoonley.org/?page=acshistory, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:The Avery Coonley School saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that School for Creative and Performing Arts is also a copyright concern, with material duplicated from http://scpa.cps-k12.org/about/factsheet.html and http://scpa.cps-k12.org/about/DownloadCenter/documents/SCPA9-12Application09-10_000.pdf as well as possibly others. It has also been blanked pending investigation. There is a little more detail at Talk:School for Creative and Performing Arts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot even temporarily take copyrighted text without permission from the copyright owners. At the bottom of every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." For the protection of the project as well as to preserve the rights of copyright owners, we have to act swiftly on these.
While you may use limited quotations in accordance with the non-free content guideline and policy (which requires clearly marking copied text and giving full attribution), almost everything you place on Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Facts are not copyrightable, but their method of presentation (including language and structure) can be. There is some potentially useful information about writing to avoid copyright infringement at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. While engineered to avoid plagiarism rather than copyright violations, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches may also help, since some of the same issues apply.
I'm sorry that this problem was not detected earlier in your contributions. I'm sure it's disheartening to see this pop up after you've put so much time into these articles, but unfortunately our only options are to either get permission from the copyright holders to use the text or to remove the copyrighted material and start over.
Please let me know if I can clarify this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to help clarify what content you believe may be yours and what not, you can use the article's talk pages or leave your notes at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Both of these articles are listed under Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 November 29. At the end of seven days, an administrator will determine proper closure. If you would prefer, I'd be happy to ask another administrator to handle that. One thing you do need to take into account is that content can't be minimally altered. If it remains a derivative work, we can't use it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I am limited on how much time I can spend on Wikipedia this evening (in my timezone). I'll put the rest of the School for Creative and Performing Arts through the mechanical evaluation tool to see if other problem areas appear or how extensive those might be. Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and roll back the other article as you suggest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The article's front now links to a temporary page which can be used to store new content as you generate it. I will not deny that it can be a real pain to rewrite mostly factual material. :/ There are two things that I think it helps to remember. First, unless you have multiple sources, you are likely to lose detail. The closer you try to stick to your source, the harder it is to write in your own language. Second, it's a losing battle to try to write material in your own words if you follow the structure of the original, sentence by sentence. I will usually read a whole passage and try to extricate the most important points. I also find it helpful to restructure the material, sometimes flipping the syntax around. For example, using the paragraph I highlighted at the talk page from the handbook, I might go for something like this:

The faculty of the art departments evaluate student progress through a "Proficiency Review Process" twice a year, in the second and final quarters. The assigned ratings of Excellent, Passing, Warning and Failure are meant to be developmental at all levels, giving the students the experience of artistic review, but for students beginning in 7th grade also carry expectations for achievement of at least a Passing rating.

I am out of time, so that's rather off the top of my head, but it may give you an idea of the kind of thing I mean. I don't even have time to review to be sure I've separated sufficiently, which I would usually do now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

←Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I've seen your note indicating that you've prepared alternative text for School for Creative and Performing Arts. I will evaluate it as soon as I can find the time. I've got to finish clearing the articles that have come ripe for admin closure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems today first, but will prioritize checking that one. If I don't get to it today, I will do my best to evaluate it tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've finished reviewing. You've certainly done a lot of work there; that article reflects a lot of research. As far as copyright concerns, I'm afraid that the mechanical detector picked up a few lingering issues, and my visual scan detected a few more. I'm going to invite another administrator who works copyright issues extensively to take a look so I can get his opinion on how extensive he feels these concerns may be and how they may best be addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume Moonriddengirl is watching this thread. Still getting used to talk pages. Thanks for reviewing, but sorry to hear I did not clear all of it up. I did my best. I re-wrote almost all of it, block quoted or quoted the stuff I felt important to take verbatim, and cited all of it the best I could. Obviously I missed something. I have to hope the lingering issues are not serious enough to constitute a real problem for the project. I will have defer to the admins on policy. If you can point out the issues to me, I will keep working on it. As you noted, I've done a lot of work already.

With respect to the Avery Coonley pages, despite my initial total loss of appetite for the effort, I have gone so far as to obtain approval from the school to use their content -- and specifically their images -- under the appropriate license. They have a ton of additional history and photography that will make a great article that they will let me use, as well. They will provide written permission but I want to make sure I understand what form that needs to take. I may or may not take another shot at that after my disastrous first attempt, but if I do, I prefer to avert disaster next time. Any advice appreciated. Thanks. Vaughanchris (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am watching, yes. :) (Talk pages are confusing. Different people handle them in different ways. And I don't even follow my own approach consistently. I replied to you here because you are new and I thought it would be easier for you.)
I can definitely see the effort that you put into it. I think that the lingering issues may be resolvable. Just to give you one example, you have in your temp version:

The Local School Decision-Making Committee (LSDMC) functions as one of the primary decision-making bodies for SCPA. The functions of the LSDMC are to "develop a vision and mission statement, set goals for the school, approve the local school budget, make recommendations to the Principal regarding other school issues, develop and approve the local school code of conduct."

Part of this is in quotation marks, but the pdf's language (at page 16) i:

The Local School Decision-Making Committee (LSDMC) functions as one of the primary decision-making bodies for SCPA. The functions of the LSDMC are as follows: 1. To develop a vision and mission statement 2. To set goals for the school 3. To approve the local school budget 4. To make recommendations to the Principal regarding other school issues 5. To develop and approve the local school code of conduct.

As you can see, the material outside of your quotation marks is copied, too.
It's great that you've gotten permission. We have a "form letter" at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If they personalize this and send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from an address clearly connected to the original publication, we should be able to incorporate their donated text. Since I work the e-mail queue where those letters go, I'll point out a few common problems that can prevent that licensing be accepted on first go:
  • The article that the text is in should be identified, preferably with the URL: <http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Avery_Coonley_School>
  • The website or specific website page being released should be identified with the URL.
  • The e-mail address that sends the release must be clearly connected to the school. If the domain name is not obvious, the e-mail address can be temporarily added to the website (such as at a "Contact" page). In that case, it's a good idea to provide the URL where the e-mail address can be found.
  • The license must explicitly release the material under CC-BY-SA version 3.0. We still get letters that say, "I agree to publish that work under the free license (SPECIFY THE TYPE OF LICENSE HERE)" :) We can't accept any other license for text--for example, we can't accept permission to use it on Wikipedia or for non-commercial use only.
Let me know if you have any questions at all about that, and I'll try to clarify.
You can have them forward the release to you and then send it to us, but it is generally preferred if they send it directly. If you do forward it to us, be sure that you forward the headers so we can see the e-mail address of the person who provided it to you, and it is best that you CC the individual who provided the permission.
I hope that you will not give up. There can be a steep learning curve, but it's far better that you've encountered this particular hurdle as early as you have. We've had close paraphrasing issues with contributors who've created literally hundreds of articles, and cleanup of those is difficult and distressing all around. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have mastered indentation in a thread, I think, so at least I am making progress. :-) WRT the SCPA article, what now? Is there any way to flag for me the areas of lingerning concern? Even the specific sections? I have to assume (and pray) most of the article is okay now. I can continue to flail away at it (I made a few more adjustments today), but hate to keep missing the mark. I'd like to do it right this time and be done. If I can prove to myself I can stay out of trouble, I have some other articles I'd like to take a crack at. Finally, when I think I have it properly sanitized, do I just post a note on the article talk to trigger another review?Vaughanchris (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've gotten feedback, and it presents some ongoing challenges. I really hope it won't discourage you. I'm afraid you might have found it easier to just go ahead and try taking a crack at one of those other articles. :/ Here's the basic problem with the Talk:School for Creative and Performing Arts/Temp situation. US Copyright law reserves to the copyright holders the right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work." [1] This is why the template that blanks the article says "it is best to write the article from scratch". Piecemeal alteration of copyrighted content can be difficult to overcome, because what you wind up doing is creating an unauthorized derivative work. These are the issues that I have currently identified through the mechanical detector and through visual scan. I can't access some of the sources, which are available in snippet view only on google books, so I can't verify that these are not also issues.
The best way to fix this problem would have been to copy over this version and begin building it with freshly written content. Although you have worked very hard on this, that is probably still the best approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been making edits here and there the last few days to the temp page that addressed most of the issues you note here. Based on your comments, I have now addressed all of the issues called out, as well as any other areas that could possibly be perceived as issues. I would ask that you review these changes and approve the article. Or, barring that, to delete any new or unresolved issues and unblank the rest. I am genuinely confused by the suggestion that the article is "piecemeal alteration of copyrighted content." I have used (and cited) over 25 different sources throughout the article, none of which are substantially similar to the article itself. I believe what I have heard you say is that scattered short sentences or phrases may have been too closely copied or paraphrased, not that the entire article, or any one part it, is a derivative work. Many of the issues you identified most recently are recitations of fact (the areas of study, the composition of the committee, lists of achievements, etc.) I'm happy to revise or delete them to comply, but I cannot imagine these, or any of the issues discussed, rise to the level of a "substantial amount of protected expression." I believe I have resolved all the close paraphrase issues and am hopeful that will resolve the conflicts. Regarding the google books links, I tried them and they took me to the full Cincinnati Magazine articles and not to snippets. Not sure what happened there. Vaughanchris (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Things don't always move quickly here. Please be patient. I am waiting further response from another admin on the issue. It may be a day or two before that further response is forthcoming. In the meantime, I'll note that the threshold of creativity for legal protection of material under US copyright is very low, and Wikipedia's policy for including non-free content is very specific. Material such as "to propose an arts campus adjacent to Music Hall to house SCPA" cannot be copied from another source unless you put it in quotation marks, and we don't use quotes unless there is good reason. There isn't good reason, when we could easily put such facts in our own words. Changes like this are far too superficial: "to develop artistic talent over the course of our nine-year program so that 12th-grade students are prepared to audition successfully at the college level" from the [2] into "to develop artistic talent over the course of nine-years so that graduating students are prepared to audition successfully at the college level". In addition to covering specific language, copyright also protects creative structure--not only the words, but the creative selection of facts and their order of presentation. Syntax is protected. This is one of the reasons why you cannot translate somebody else's copyrighted work into a different language and publish it, even though every word is changed.
I have not reviewed the latest versions of your rewrite, as this takes several hours and first I need to address the basic point. This article has constituted a problem under our copyright policy at various and sequential points in its development. As I explained, rewriting is supposed to be done from scratch. It wasn't, and the evolution of that text from clear derivative remains. What I'm checking now to see is if, once content is clear, it would be acceptable to delete all intervening edits and only incorporate the latest text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not impatient. I am trying to fix the problem, but now wonder if I am making it worse. I am relying for guidance on this but I think it is not serving me well. If there is a better source of guidance, please tell me. I will leave the article alone until I have further instructions.Vaughanchris (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of being impatient. I didn't mean it to sound that way; I'm just asking for your patience now as we wait for further response. I hope that the essay would serve you well. The complicating factor here is the history--what's already in the article. In any event, I do hope we'll have some direction soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
By far the best way to avoid doubts about close paraphrasing is not to do it at all, but to rewrite from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

←I have no idea what's happened to the administrator I had asked to help review your latest draft. He had personal issues, and i hope that his long absence doesn't indicate anything dire. I have gone ahead and deleted all intervening edits, leaving only your most recent. I believe that your current text is compliant with WP:C, but there is a chance that additional administrator review will determine that we can't use the text because of the method in which it was generated. If all else fails, we may check with our attorney. If you should encounter copyright problems in the future, please rewrite from scratch to avoid these issues. As JamesBWatson said, that really is the best approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have asked SCPA to send a standard permission email licensing the website content and expect that to be forthcoming. That should also help alleviate further concerns. I have gotten quite the education in copyright issues from this and will certainly know better next time. Wish me luck.Vaughanchris (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Certainly I do. :) And if you should need assistance with copyright issues on Wikipedia, please feel free to come by my talk page. If I don't know the answer, I typically know who to talk to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Coonley Playhouse.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Coonley Playhouse.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, source information is also missing on File:ACS Sketch.jpg, File:Cottage School.jpg and File:Old Woodward.PNG. Please provide more information on where these images came from so that we can verify their copyright status. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
There are also problems with File:Finding Wisdom.jpg and File:Schools of To-morrow.jpg, I'm afraid. These are both claimed under fair use rationales, but as you'll notice if you read the template you put on the pages, they are only to be used for critical commentary about the books themselves. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


File permission problem with File:ACS Building.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ACS Building.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A permission letter licensing the entire source site was emailed as required on 12/11/09. Confirmation of receipt was returned on 12/14/09. Please check again. Thanks. Vaughanchris (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed that one, but we do need verification for File:Old Woodward.PNG. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have access to OTRS, nor do most administrators, every image and article with copyrighted material needs to have the appropriate permission tag on it confirmed by an OTRS user otherwise it will be assumed permission has not been given. Thank you Moonriddengirl and Vaughanchris for helping to sort this out. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've asked the creator of Old Woodward to send it. In the future, is the OTRS Pending tag sufficient for these kinds of images while confirmation is in the works? How are these things handled?Vaughanchris (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, placing {{OTRS pending}} is a very good idea. And if for any chance, the image should be deleted before OTRS confirmation, it's nothing to worry about. Once OTRS clearance is received, it should be restored, as long as the e-mail fully identifies the image. (Occasionally we get letters from people who forget to tell us what image or article they're talking about.) Typically, OTRS clearance takes about a week. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

School for Creative and Performing Arts

Kudos to you on the work you're doing on this article. The school definitely deserved a better article; I'm glad it's getting one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. I may have taken it as far as I can take it at this point. I really need some help from someone closer to the school these days to help flesh out the current state, as well as someone from the 90's and 00's to help edit the more recent history. From the article talk page you are (or were) working for the school. If you or someone you can think of wants to help, pleas let me know. I'd love to see this rated a GA someday. Vaughanchris (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token ace4c7e9d888841f0a7f9bb5074254a2

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

License

Well, since they CC'ed you, you know that they have explicitly assigned the license to you, which makes things easier. :) It means that I can put the OTRS release on your page (as I've done) and you can reference it yourself. To do so, when you upload an image, please put on the image page:
Permission confirmed by [[Ticket:2009121110051779]]; see [[en:User:Vaughanchris]] for details.

That will look like this:
Permission confirmed by Ticket:2009121110051779; see en:User:Vaughanchris for details.

The "en" prefix is not needed when you're on English Wikipedia, but it is useful if you upload images to Wikimedia Commons. You should. :) Wikipedia's images are typically non-free images used under "fair use rationale."

Please let me know if you need clarification.

And, while I'm here, you might want to put your TUSC token on your user page, and let me know if you'd ever like help setting up a talk page archive. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Per your suggestion, I have moved all my free license images to Commons, with the exception of File:SCPA Wiz in DC.jpg, which is still pending OTRS, although the other image approved in the same email has been properly tagged. Perhaps it was overlooked? I have a copy of the permission email. Is this something you can fix (or point me to who can?Vaughanchris (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me the filename of another image released by that same mail? That'll let me look up the e-mail in the system, which may make it quickly resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:SCPA_Building_Front_2009.jpg (now on commons)Vaughanchris (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The OTRS agent declined permission on that one because the photographer is evidently "Daniel Spohr". He asked Husman to clarify on 12/24, but Husman has not responded. At this point, it may be best to delete the image as permission has not been verified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Argh. That was my mistake. I mislabled the photo when I uploaded it. Mike confirms it is his. I will ask Mike to reply to the OTRS email.Vaughanchris (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Once that's handled, the agent should label it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images to commons

Thanks, but in the future, could you please upload the full-scale image, not its thumbnail. I think I re-uploaded the original versions (after I deleted them at en.wiki), but if you spot anything I missed, please let me know. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I did not even think about that. Thank you for correcting it for me.Vaughanchris (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Avery Coonley Logo.PNG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Avery Coonley Logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brisbane Boys' College GA Review

Hi there. I don't think I am totally familiar with the GA Review process. If I comment on a GA nom again I will check the relevant pages beforehand. Yes, my review is complete and please add some comments since I have never worked on article all the way to a GA. I definitely don't think the article qualifies as a GA at the moment. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

how are you

are you ok, i am fine.if you think this is a bit strange, i have been writing to all the people who get insulted for doing thier work, i just wanted to know how your doing,i am doing ok my sister is moving out soon i am quite sad but overall i am happy. please respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.253.143 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of The Avery Coonley School

I reviewed this article. It's pretty solid but has a few issues. Check out the review; I placed the article on hold for now; the issues shouldn't be too difficult to address. Good luck! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review. I think the issues you point out are all good catches and I've fixed them now. Let me know if you think it is up to standard now. Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Flaming Smelts

On what talk page did you discuss deleting the Flaming Smelts? Just curious. I can pull a citation for that mascot.

Hi, btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danopticon (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Shimer College#Smelts?. I never heard of it either, but if there is a reference, feel free to respond there. And hi.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Avery Coonley School

A while ago you requested that I re-assess this article for you. Unfortunately I could not get back to you due to exams, so apologies for that. However, well done on getting this to GA. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

University of Miami

Thank you for agreeing to review the article. Please feel free to ask me questions or to point out deficiencies. I am committed to getting this article to GA standards. Racepacket (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In doing the review, there are a number of minor issues that could be resolved quickly (broken links, layout issues, citations required, image permissions, etc.) And I can share those with you. The big issue is the same one that held up passing GA the last time, namely, the over-reliance on the university website for references. Aside from all the rankings citations, over 75% of the references are to UM content, and most of those are to the website. I have to agree with the previous reviewer that the lack of reliable third-party sources would prevent the article from passing GA at this point.
This is the fourth GA nomination for this article. I am happy to put the article on hold, which would give you seven days to rectify the issues, if you feel that will be enough time to locate that many new sources. Or, if you strongly disagree with my assessment, I will gladly request a second opinion. I will hold off posting the assessment for a day or two to see what your thoughts might be. Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to look for more non-University sources. However, on some of these factual issues, such as the statistics regarding composition of the student body, size of the endowment, etc., the University is the best source. Some colleges have the benefit of a professional, independent, daily student newspaper or a local commerical newspaper which gives a school extensive coverage. However, UM does gain extensive coverage in the Miami newspapers. Some of the references are to official documents which are posted on the website rather than being products of some low-level website editor. Perhaps you could get a second opinion, because I believe that any boosterism or puffing which may result from over-dependence of a University website has been removed. Thanks Racepacket (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will request a second opinion. Just to be clear, however, the critique is not that the article is non-neutral as a result of its dependence on UM sources. It is that it's verifiability could be called into question. It is possible a second opinion might see this differently. I will post the full assessment on the article talk page, which will explain the other minor issues I mentioned. 69.209.237.75 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You raise an important concern. However, I think that the mix of references to Time Magazine, a book about the CIA, the Miami Herald, the NCAA, a disertation, Inside Higher Education, etc. give a variety of viewpoints. I have also just added three more external sources. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
As you probably saw, the second option on your GA nomination concurred with the original assessment. See Nehrams2020's comments. I do see that you are working very hard to address the issues, including the references. I will put the nomination on hold to give you every possible chance to do that. I would also suggest you whatever you can to put the disputes between yourself and Ryūlóng to rest ASAP. Even if all the other issues are addressed, it still had to be stable to pass GA. Good editing. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't every day a school article gets up to GA or beyond ...

The Schools Barnstar
I award this barnstar to Nasty Housecat for exceptional editing that led to The Avery Coonley School getting promoted to GA status. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Nasty Housecat (I bet there's a story behind this username!), I just wanted to let you know that I archived the FAC nomination for The Avery Coonley School because it had already garnered two opposes. A bot will run later today to clean up the article talk page. Please don't be discouraged - it's often difficult for nominators to get a promotion for their first nomination (and articles on schools usually take several nominations to be successful). It looks like you received some good feedback, and I hope that you continue to work on the article and bring it back to FAC in the future. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Avery Coonley School

I noticed Avery Coonley School got archived from FAC before I had come back to comment—sorry for the delay. Perhaps I can leave some notes at the talk page soon before you bring it to FAC again (if you want to do so)? Malleus may also be willing to do this. Ucucha 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would welcome any comments you might have. To be honest, I was less hopeful about the nomination itself than getting feedback that might help it become a successful FAC in the future. So I would look forward to any feedback you may have. Malleus suggested I take it to peer review again and ask him to comment there. Perhaps you would be willing to do the same? Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would probably be a good way to do it. Please let me know when you start the peer review. Ucucha 18:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to take a look at it - I also suggest a peer review (if it is not already there, forgot to check). It may take me a few days to get to it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My personal preference is to link once in the lead and then at the first occurrence in the text. Others link once per article. I think most people will also allow links in captions and tables and references. As long as it is fairly consistent, it should be a big deal - it is just one of those things I notice when reading. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up - I will take a look at it in detail and weigh in on the FAC, though it will take me a few days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Benet Academy

Hi Nasty Housecat! I've seen your work on the Avery Coonley article, and I'd like some advice on what I should do to the Benet article now that it's a Good Article. Should I get an A-Class review, peer review, or FA nomination? Do you have any suggestions of your own as to how I can improve the article? Benny the mascot (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The Avery Coonley article is my main project right now. As you will notice, it failed FAC the first time around (but I am about to put it up again). So if you want advice from someone who has not actually succeeded at FAC, here is what I learned along the way:
  • You will need copyediting help. I don't care who you are. The quality of the prose is the biggest dealbreaker, and there is no way a normal human will understand all of the MOS minutiae. Look on the Peer Review page or the Guild of Copyeditors and find someone who has serious FAC experience and get them to help you.
  • Do another peer review. This time be specific about what you want comments on, or you will get more copy comments, which are fine, but not what you need. You should ask for comments on the references, on comprehensiveness, and the other FAC criteria. Try to find folks who have done that kind of review (or commented on schools articles) and ask them to do a peer review for you. I have never had any luck until I asked people directly, and I have never had anyone say no when I did.
  • There are only a handful of FA school articles: the ones I gave you and Plano High School. Study those, study their talk pages, study their GAs and FAC archives. You can learn a lot just looking at that stuff.
  • I don't think there really is an A-Class review process on the Schools Project. The folks there have already looked at your article anyway, and seem not to get involved with GA or FA reviews. There is an A-Class process on the Chicago project. You could try that. I don't know if they know schools, but then again, the people at FAC don't know schools, either, so that could be a good thing to do.
  • Finally, you can do what I did: just put it up for FAC and close your eyes. It did not pass (and I did not really it expect to) but I got great comments, asked the opposes to peer review for me (they agreed), and I attracted interest from someone with a lot of experience who has been incredible about helping me improve it and finding other specialists to comment. I learned a ton from that experience. The FAC coordinator told me it is rare for anyone to get through FAC the first time they try and schools articles usually take several passes. Bear that in mind.
  • With respect to the article, of course I think it is very good, but for the next level I would focus on the prose quality and the depth of research. You cover all the main points but you could go into a lot more depth. There have to be some great stories around the early history, the conflict with the neighbors, the Great Depression, the win streaks, etc. Find some color commentary. Use some quotes. They are looking for "compelling". That's a very high standard, I have discovered.

Congrats on the GA and good luck with the next step, whatever you decide that will be. If you ever think I can help, you know how to find me.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the additional advice! Based on what you've said, I think I'll go for another peer review when the 14 day minimum waiting period finishes. In the meantime, I'll do more research and add additional commentary. Good luck on the Avery Coonley article! Benny the mascot (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism FAC

Hello, I would appreciate working with you to improve the parts of the article that you think need to change. Since you are an expert in the field, let me just give you a little bit of background on what I was trying to accomplish with that section (so we have a common reference point). I wanted, mainly, to highlight the diversity of liberal thought, which is something that comes up over and over in nearly all the sources, including the one I mentioned to you. I was afraid that if I was too harsh and absolutist with the commentary—like "Liberalism is this, this, this. Liberals believe this because of this. Liberals believe that because of that"—I would run the risk of alienating people who thought I was inaccurately distilling liberalism down to a specific version. I'm sure you appreciate that this is a complicated subject and I tried to be diligent in my analysis of the sources, all of which are excellent. But what I have also noticed in my research on this subject over the years is that different scholars like to emphasize different parts of liberalism. To some scholars, liberalism is x, and to others it's y. As I said, it's very difficult to come up with a coherent philosophical story, although Major themes and Dominant ideas were supposed to achieve something along those lines in their references to Young and Gray. I think that the part about Gray mentioning the fundamental aspects of liberal thought was fairly good in the sense it does bring some centrality and cohesion to that entire section. Any more cohesion, I'm afraid, would shade into oversimplification (or might get accused of it at the very least).UberCryxic (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've responded on the FAC page as well. I'd be happy to help you, but have to agree with the others that FAC is not the right place and the article has a ways to go before it will be close to FA. While I admire your heroic efforts to rescue it, I think the FAC is pretty well decided at this point the opposes will shortly prevail. Just withdraw it, put it up for peer review, see if you can get Brianboulton and some of the other FAC regulars to take a look, along with some folks from the Philosophy and Politics projects. Bring it back to FAC in a few weeks and you'll be in much better shape. What's the rush? I agree it is an important article and admire the effort you've put into it. I'm willing to lend a hand but don't want to hash it out with you on FAC. I think that's just a bad idea.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only judge the substance of the criticisms, which so far I've responded to quickly and thoroughly. The main issue was length and I've taken care of that. Image problems were brought up and I took care of all those too. Brian has agreed to work with me to fix the article. If I'm resolving these problems now, a peer review would be repetitive. There is no rush. I brought the article to peer review and it hardly received any attention (and it's not the first time by the way). If you don't feel comfortable discussing these things in the FAC page, we can discuss them among ourselves or in the article's talk page. It should not take more than a few days (two at most if we work diligently) to resolve these disputes. This article deserves a chance. If it doesn't make it this time, then we'll bring it up again in a few weeks like you suggest. There should be no rush to put it at FAC or to remove it from FAC. Overall, it's a pretty solid article, but clearly no article is perfect and none will ever be. FAC is a good place to ensure that they get better, and that's why I'm here. Thank you for your time.UberCryxic (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, "opposes" and "supports" are not really what matters. The directors judge if the substance of the criticism has been addressed, and like I said, I've done a thorough job at responding to the criticism that people are offering. I have taken everyone's advice almost word by word, and I'm ready to start taking yours too if you would articulate specific details rather than question the legitimacy of the process. The article is at FAC now and that's the reality we're facing. I can understand the pressure to remove it if you were dealing with a beginner, but I'm an experienced editor who has done this many times before. There's absolutely no reason why we can't slash off these problems in the next few days and make this article above and beyond featured quality.UberCryxic (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you are not listening to what people are telling you. When the FAC coordinator (SandyGeorgia) tells you that you are wasting people's time with stuff that should have been dealt with at GA or PR, she might have a point. When multiple reviewers tell you to withdraw because the article is not ready, it might not be ready. What I am telling you is that on substance and prose, this article is nowhere close to FA and the problems it has are not the kinds of things that you will "slash off" in the next few days, nor should you. If you want my help and want to take the time to listen to it, I'm willing. I think you are not doing the article or yourself any justice trying to jam it through FAC against the advice of the reviewers. But that is, of course, your call. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair points. You've seen me mention specifics a lot, and now I would like to have a specific timeline of what you want to do with this article if it is removed from FAC. "A few weeks" is too vague. Today is March 6. I want to know something like..."From March 6 to March 13, article will be in peer review." "On March 20, it will nominated at FAC again." Those do not have to be the exact dates; I'm just giving examples. I don't want this to turn into the Iraq war..."we're leaving in 2011...ish". I want hard a timetable and I want us to stick to it with absolutely no excuses.UberCryxic (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear your timetable too, but this is what I think could work:
March 6 to March 20 (2 weeks): Simultaneous appearances at normal peer review and Philosophy peer review.
March 20 to March 27 (1 week): (Optional) Either our own internal review or we could try for GA. I say we do our own review.
March 28: Nominate at FAC again, although the date is obviously dependent on what we choose for the second step. GA might take longer than a week.
What do you think of the above? If you agree, I will remove FAC right now and start the new process.UberCryxic (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a timeline. It is not my article. I am not in any hurry. I really don't know why you are. That just seems like a wacky way to write an article. A decent peer review is 14 days. The longer the better if you are getting good feedback, right? If you start a PR, I will give you my comments in a few days and work with you to answer questions and you can do whatever you want about FAC, but I suggest you not relist it until you have some consensus among the peer reviewers that it is ready to go, whenever that happens to be. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's no one's article, but my timeline, whether you agree with the idea of one or not, suggests two weeks for both peer reviews. We seem to be in agreement there. Are you ok with the above timeline? It's not about being in a hurry. It's about having a sense of consistent progress. Normally I don't set hard deadlines, but I want to have a framework in mind of when, roughly, this process should start and culminate.UberCryxic (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Now if the article receives lots of feedback at PR, then obviously it can go beyond two weeks. My worry is that such feedback won't happen, and I don't want the article to linger at PR aimlessly, as so many have done over the years.UberCryxic (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok forget the timeline. I'm just going to put it up at GA and will take down the FAC. I'll notify you when that happens.UberCryxic (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I hear you. I have lately started just inviting the people I want to hear from to comment at PR and they always do. But I don't see this getting over the line without some serious review commentary, so you gain nothing by cutting it short. BTW - The backlog at GA is over two months now. If you want a GA (a good idea given some of the image and layout problems you just had) I can do it, since I am not a contributor, or you can just ask someone else to do it for you quickly. Just a thought.
Yes I definitely want you involved every step of the way. If you're satisfied at the end, I hope you'll be a co-nominee with me and Rick. Articles can be both at GA and PR at the same time (that's correct right?) so I'll put them up at both.UberCryxic (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I also think Brian will help us out tremendously, and I'll ask SandyGeorgia for help too.UberCryxic (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked both Karanacs and SandyGeorgia to take it down, so that's what we're waiting for now.UberCryxic (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the peer review is live. I look forward to your comments. Thank you in advance for your help.UberCryxic (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not hesitate, by the way, to invite others to look at the article. If you know anyone from Wikiproject Philosophy who could help, let's get that person (or people) involved.UberCryxic (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for reviewing Good Article nominee

Dear Nasty Housecat, thank you for your review of the article Dhaka Residential Model College for good article nomination. You stated that there were some problem in the article for why the article failed to attain good article status. You suggested copy-editing for the article. According to your suggestion, I've requested in GOCE for copy-edit and fortunately the article received copy edit. Recently the copy edit has been finished and I think now the article is eligible to be a good article. I have nominated in Good Article Nomination page. So I would like to request to review the article as soon as it is possible. I think you would consider my request. Please inform your opinion in my talk page. Thanks. -- Tanweer (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism PR

I was advised by SandyGeorgia to go through the PR first, and then the GAN. The article has not undergone major changes since FAC and will only change per the advice I receive at PR, which has started already and is going well. Like I said in FAC, History was the problem child, but now it's much more manageable in terms of size. The rest of the article seems well-focused, even though certain content might need to change. See you at PR! And thank you again for your help! By the way, do you want to keep the conversation in my talk page?UberCryxic (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I mentioned in the PR that I think you should carry out some of those changes because I'm not fully sure I understand all of your proposals, but especially the important ones. Furthermore, I really hesitate to add too much content to the article, and I notice your proposed changes would require the addition of much more content. For example, if you're proposing that liberty gets its own section with three subsections in Philosophy, we'll be heading into major issues with length in no time. Personally, I have no problem with your changes, but the idea of lengthy article (even for liberalism) was quickly shot down by both Ucucha and SandyGeorgia during the FAC. That's why I think, per WP:BOLD, you should carry out some of the changes yourself—at least the ones you think are absolutely fundamental to the article. No article can be perfect and I would hope, in the interests of size, that you would modify some of your more minor requests. Let me know if you can do some of this stuff in the next week. If not, I'll get on it, but it might take a while for us to come to some sort of understanding here. I'll wait to hear back from you about what you think you can do before starting to make my changes.UberCryxic (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the history section could be pared down, summary style, as it is already discussed at length in the History article, which would create some space for a more comprehensive discussion of the philosophy, which really appears nowhere right now. Also, if you separate the intellectual and political history (as I suggest), that pares the history down some, too. I hesitate to make *any* of those changes, since you have done so much work there already. What I can do is try to write something up for the philosophy section within the next week or so. What I will not be able to do -- at least any time soon -- is reference it terribly well. Maybe this will work: if either you or someone else on the project agrees to help do the citations, I can write a draft in my userspace. Then you can take a look at it and figure out how to slot it into the rest of the article. It might all make more sense if you can see what I am talking about on screen. Does that sound like it would work? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan to me! Ok so I think we should divide our labor like this: I'll work on trimming down History some more per your suggestion, but not too much more because I think I'm quite justified in saying that it should be the most important section of the article (what people do is always most important from an encyclopedic perspective). That will give you the freedom to to rewrite Philosophy completely as you see fit, and I'll be sure to take care of all the citations. What say you to that my friend?UberCryxic (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. I will start working on something in my sandbox and let you know when I have something worth looking at. Hopefully this weekend. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made some sizable cuts to History per our discussions. That should give you more leeway in terms of length when you write Philosophy, although try not to make it that much longer than it is now.UberCryxic (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Benet Academy peer review

Hi Nasty Housecat. I just wanted to let you know that I've opened a peer review request for the Benet article here. Feel free to post some comments when you have time.

Good luck on the Avery Coonley FAC! Benny the mascot (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Will do. Thanks! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If you have not invited LonelyBeacon and Camaron to comment, you should. They have great comments. Also, look here for other potential reviewers. I might reach out to Chocolate Panic! I don't know her, but she is interested in Catholicism and it looks like has done some work on schools. FWIW. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I've already contacted LonelyBeacon, Ruhrfisch, Finetooth, and you, but I'll contact the other ones you mentioned as well. Thanks! Benny the mascot (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and Chocolate Panic! is inactive. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You sure? She has contribs from January..... --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that could be considered somewhat active... Benny the mascot (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Pity, though. With a name like that, you kind of want to meet her, don't you? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes...it's almost as interesting as your username! Benny the mascot (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nasty Housecat, thanks for your constructive direction for the GA attainment of the article Dhaka Residential Model College. I have addressed the copyright issues immediately. Now I have used only photos taken by me in the article except the DRMC logo, which is copyrighted by the shcool and the another is DRMC football team, I've collected this one from the school's website and I've mentioned the source. So are there any problem with the photos used in the article or anything else? If so than please let me know. With regards. -- Tanweer (talk|contributions) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just included Fair USe Rational in the DRMC logo. In case of the photo of DRMC football team I've used the {{OTRS pending}} until obtaining permission and for the time being I've used a photo taken by me in section. You said that all the images used in the article had the same issue in Commons. The reason is, when I uploaded the photos in Commons, I was a new user and wasn't familiar with the rules and regulations of Commons and while uploading I stated the Author and Source of the images both as DRMC. Actually the images used in the article are taken by me (except the logo and DRMC football team), that is why I've edited them in the Commons. -- Tanweer (talk|contributions) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

National liberalism

I noticed that you mentioned National liberalism in the Liberalism peer review. No editors have been able to provide sources for National liberalism as an ideology or movement, although it was the name of several political parties. Do you have any sources that would be helpful for that article? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In hindsight, I'm not sure why I included it in that list. Too little caution, too much enthusiasm, or something in between. It would probably merit a mention in the history of European socialism, but not the main article. As to your question, National Liberalism as an ideology is most often discussed as part and parcel of the German National Liberal party in the late 1800s. There are scattered discussions of the ideology separate from the party (see here). There are also a handful of works that use the label "National Liberalism" for a strain of liberal thinking in the Cold War US (see here). Whether they are the same or not, you could argue all day. There are also discussions of National Liberalism as a flavor of American Conservatism (see here). These other uses seem pretty marginal and not all that encyclopedic unless you can tie them all together with some common intellectual thread. I haven't thought about it.
Anyway. There are definitely more sources that talk about the intellectual underpinnings of German National Liberalism if you need them. I would have to dig around some more. Might take a while. But the identification of the term with that party is probably the most common use, which is why I would oppose my own hasty suggestion to include it in the main article. Hope this helped some.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA review of DRMC

Thanks Nasty Housecat for the time and suggestions you have given for the improvement of the article DRMC. I appreciate your review and suggestions. I will surely address the issues that needs to be taken into consideration for attaining GA status. I see, it's a long way to go for making the article well enough to be eligible for that purpose. When I will finish the work, I'll request you to review again. But due to pressure of my study I may not be ale to give much time for that though I'll try as much as I can. During this time I may ask you to have a look at some points whether they are alright or not. Hope you will assist me for that. Thank you. -- Tanweer (talk|contribs) 14:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA review of University of Miami

Thank you for your thoughtful and prompt review. I will take your other optional suggestions to heart, but wanted you to know that I made the required changes quickly to avoid the GA being placed on hold. Racepacket (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. You missed a few on the refs, though. See the review page. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I fixed all that you listed. If the original source uses a date format of January 1, 1001, should not Wikipedia follow their format? If not let me know and I will change them all to 1001-01-01 in the footnotes. Otherwise, I believe we are done. Many thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I commented on the dates on the talk page. I'll check the rest. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I fixed all of the dates. Racepacket (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Check again. There are quite a few. I won't hold things up over that, but it would be a good idea to fix them. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A little request

Sorry to disturb you. Addressing your suggestions I have renovated the Introduction and History section of the article DRMC. I tried to expand the History but due to inavailability of genuine information I couldn't expand it much more. But I tried to expand that as much as I could and it's now bigger than ever before. I have also deleted the list of Board of Governors according to your suggestion. No could you please have a loot at these sections whether it's alright? -- Tanweer (talk|contribs) 15:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is better, but I think you could still do more. The main question the reader asks is "why?" Why is it called a "Model School"? What is an "Autonomous Body"? How was it modeled after Eton? Does it still train army officers? What interesting things have happened over the last 50 years? How have things changed? And so on. It sounds like an interesting place. Tell us the story.
The prose in the new section is pretty rough again. You may want to get your copyeditor to clean it up for you.
My suggestion at this point would be post it for peer review again, (after you smooth out the new copy). It will help you to have a new set of eyes on it and some new suggestions. Once you have satisfied the comments on the peer review, you can put it up for GA again if you think it is ready.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You have stated after the GA review "The academic performance section needs a lot of explanation. Foreigners (Americans for sure) will have no idea what any of these things are." However I have tried to give an explanation of these things. Could you please take a glance at the section? If you think things aren't still clear then please let me know what more things need to be explained. Thanks. -- Tanweer (talk|contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For example: What are these exams about? What is the difference? Are they like A-levels and O-levels in the UK? Is there a US equivalent that you know of? Oral? Written? Essays? What subjects? Does everyone take them? What does it take to pass? What is GPA-5? Why is that impressive? Who are the rankings against? Every school in the country? How many is that?
You get the idea. You have to explain it from the beginning, like you would to an eight year old. People from other places have no idea at all what those exames are about. Hope this helps. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

History of logic

Thank you for your commments. I have addressed (I hope) the majority (particularly in the area of scholastic logic - your comments were spot on here). Set theory is more difficult. I am not an expert on set theory. I will see if anyone else can help here. From the other side (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done. I struck those comments on the review page. I would be tempted to explain the square of opposition briefly, if only because it is probably the only thing most people know about Aristotle's logic (all Greeks are men ....) But that's really a quibble. Call it a mild suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. I will put in something on the Square. On History_of_logic#Plato.27s_logic, would you like to look at this again? It is not so much about his metaphysics and epistemology but his logic, although metaphysics is there, I agree. Plato's theory of definition is so important to Aristotle (and important also to the Platonist scholastics of the 13th C) that I think it should be there. It is in Kneale also, if that reassures you. Let me know. On the pyramids, it is hard to find a picture that captures 'early history of logic' :o( From the other side (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no disputing Plato's influence on Aristotle. But his influence on logic is indirect, namely, via Aristotle. What seems out of place here is to devote as much space to Plato as you do to all the presocratics put together, or to Leibniz, Bolzano, et. al. combined. It is the relative weight that seems off. As a suggestion, you could mention Plato's influence at the beginning of the Aristotle section, by way of introduction, which would preserve what is important without giving Plato more weight than he deserves (in logic, that is -- after all, "all philosophy is a footnote to Plato").
With regard to the pictures, let me start by saying it is not a big deal but merely a passing comment. I did not expect to see a pyramid in a logic article, so it jumped out at me. If you are fond of it, ignore me. If you are seeking alternatives, there is a wealth of busts and paintings on Commons, most of which are really dull, but a few things look interesting. See what you think of:

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks you are right on the 'relative weight': I will trim it tomorrow. None of the pictures grabbed me, but thanks. From the other side (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

I see that The Avery Coonley School has just been promoted to FA. Please accept my congratulations, and thanks for helping out at WP:PR. Finetooth (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


The Original Barnstar
For getting The Avery Coonley School to FA and pleasantly surprising me by surpassing all my expectations in the process. Three FACs is a tough road, but the article is excellent. You should be proud of yourself. You are a true pimp. Moni3 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heeeeeeeeeyyyyyy!!!!! Congrats on the FA! Benny the mascot (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulation to Nasty Housecat on promotion of the The Avery Coonley School to FA. :D -- Tanweer (talk|contribs) 13:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My belated congratulations as well - thanks for all the hard work you put into it and your great attitude, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. And thank you again for your review. It made a huge difference. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

May I also congratulate you also on work getting The Avery Coonley School to FA status, it is nice to have another school FA as they are few in number. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Camaron. And thanks for your helpful comments to get me pointed in the right direction. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Make it 6 .... many congratulations on hard work done well! LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LoneleyBeacon. And thanks for all your helpful comments that helped me improve it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

TFAs

Thank you for your very kind words, and good luck for yourself! I'm sorry that I wrecked your "founder's day" anniversary, but I've been building up to the 125th anniversary for over a year now – I'm sure you can understand the feeling!

Keep well, friend, and God bless. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

School For Creative and Performing Arts

I just took a perusal of the article, and it is certainly well deserving of GA, and a look at something higher. My only off the cuff suggestion: when I get down to the alumni section, the pictures get very big, and are not in proportion to the other pictures in the article. I would suggest shrinking them a bit, and minimizing the captions (the list of alumni will contain why they are notable, so the caption needn't be repetitive). Also, there may be other alumni who have free images available to put in there (as you shrink the images, there will be room for 1-2 more). Also, are any of the music directors notable? Might it be possible they could be linked (I am ignorant here ... but given the school, it is possible).LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty Housecat! I'd be happy to take a look at the article...I'll do it this weekend. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

White Stag Leadership Development

Thanks for taking on the GA review of this article. I've completed the edits you've suggested and it's ready for your second look. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll take a look this week. May take me a day or two. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Nasty Housecat, according to your suggestions, I have put the article DRMC at WP:PR and fortunately it received reviews from two experienced users: Finetooth and Ruhrfisch. I have addressed all the issues they have mentioned. Furthermore, the history section has been expanded at its best and the article has been developed throughout past weeks. I have listed the article at WP:GAN. SO, I would like to request you to review the article for GA once more. Please inform your opinion as soon as possible at my talk page. Regards- Tanweer (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Tanweer. I'll take another look. Give me a few days to get to it, OK? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I would be really glad if you do the review. -- Tanweer (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me ....

... or did I just see some of your fine work at the top of the main page for the world to bask in? Big time congratulations!! LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

TFA!

Congratulations on getting ACS on the Main Page! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi! My name is Eric Ricci and I am a senior at Saint Anselm College. I heard you edited the Avery school page and I would like some advice on how I can get the Saint Anselm College page to that quality and thus promoted and eventually a featured article!

Thanks!--Ericci8996 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, I'd be happy to help. I think it has potential, but is not really ready for FAC yet. I agree with Ucucha that you should put it up for peer review and get it to GA status before taking it to FAC. My advice would be to withdraw it from FAC and open a peer review for it. I'll be glad to comment there. Or if you think it's ready for GA now, list it and I'll try to pick up the review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I nominated it for GA, removed it from FAC and look forward to hearing your advice!!

Thanks again--Ericci8996 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Hi Nasty Housecat, I was just wondering the status of the GA nomination of Saint Anselm College

Hi. I reviewed the revisions and think it is much improved but needs a bit more work GA. See my comments on review page. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review of DRMC

Hi! thanks for the comments you mentioned. I wonder how could you say that Banglapedia is not a reliable source! I would like to request you to read the article (Banglapedia). Banglapedia is the only national encyclopedia of Bangladesh which is written by specialists of different subjects. You have requested to transliterate the Bangla title in English. Well, I did this task before I had nominated it for GA. Please explicitly notice which ref should I have to transliterate. I concede the matter of mentioning multiple citations in some cases and I'll solve this. As currently I don't have a better photo for the DRMC football team, I'm removing the existing one. HOwever I have immediately addressed other issues. Regards- Tanweer (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on the review page. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

DRMC review

Hi Housecat! I've addressed all the issues you mentioned during the GA review of DRMC. Now please decide, whether the article should be GA or not. If there is still any problem, let me know. Thanks -- Tanweer (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Good work. Almost there. Please see my (hopefully final) comment on the review page. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
References (Footnotes) have been provided. Anything else? -- Tanweer (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I figured out the references now. Please see the review page. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've completed fixing the remaining refs. Is it upto the standard now? -- Tanweer (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is. I've promoted it. Great work! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and valuable reviews you gave. :-) -- Tanweer (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're back!

I'm glad to see that you've come back to edit a bit more frequently. Thanks for commenting on my FAC! I decided to take your advice and hope for the best in such a rigorous process. :) Benny the mascot (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm back. Sorry I didn't get to your peer review. Real life took over for a while. I left some comments, but your timing my be unfortunate. 5 or 6 regular FAC reviewers are not around right now for one reason or another (see the FAC Talk page) so a lot of FACs are going unreviewed. If you want to attract more reviews, try pumping up your intro paragraph. Talk about the scandal, the win streak, whatever, make it funny and interesting. Most folks just scan those looking for something fun to review. Don't be afraid to "advertise." Also, drop a note for Ruhrfisch and Finetooth mentioning that it is at FAC now, and since they have reviewed it in the past they might want to comment again there. You could try a note on the school project page, but I never had any luck with that. Good luck! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...looks like the season for Wikipolitics has come. Thanks for the advice; I'll work on the intro soon. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind

Hi Nasty Housecat. Thanks for taking a look at the article. Have replied on the article's FAC page. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shimer College Shield.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shimer College Shield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your support on my FAC

Hi Nasty Housecat! Thanks a lot for supporting my FAC!!! I really appreciate it. On a side note, I'm sorry I couldn't get to those reviews you've been asking me to do; for one reason or another stuff in real life has prevented me from coming here as much as I used to. :( Anyway, let me know if you still want me to look at School for Creative and Performing Arts. Are you still going for FA? Benny the mascot (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am working on Shimer College right now. It has a ways to go, but love to have you look at it when it's ready. Hopefully you'll get some more comments soon. Either way, the article looks really great. Congrats. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shimer College Shield.svg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shimer College Shield.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shimer College Shield.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shimer College Shield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of School for Creative and Performing Arts people

The article List of School for Creative and Performing Arts people has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article simply lists staff and administration

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PoeticVerse (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

<font=3> Thanks for your helpful comments, support and kind words - Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) is now a Featured Article!
TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - Tony gets most of the credit, but it is a real relief to get the FA, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:GA Review of Shimer College

I am starting on this now. I should have my comments on this by Thursday. Chris (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Shimer College/GA1 for more information. Article is on hold. Chris (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the careful review and helpful comments. I've addressed most of the issues and will respond to the rest in the next day or two.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Good job. It passed for GA. Chris (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I've granted you rollback - sorry you had to ask, but it's not one we generally grant automatically as it can be a bit of a pain. Please read over the guidelines at WP:Rollback and make sure you are only using this to revert true vandalism. Rollback allows you to remove multiple edits from the most recent user. If, for example, user A makes one vandal edit, then user B makes a good edit, and user A makes 2 more bad edits, rollback will allow you to revert A's most revent 2 edits. It would not effect A's first edit or B's edit (even if B's edit was bad). Be careful - this will appear as a link after each article in the watchlist, and it is very easy to click it accidentally and revert something you didn't mean to (I have had to apologize for doing that several times now). Let me know if you have any questions. Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Shimer College GA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Shimer College to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nasty_Housecat/Archive_1&oldid=1243049723"