User talk:Law/February 2009

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: ACB

Account creation blocked. Used to be used a lot in block messages, not so much now. — neuro^(talk) 20:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Shane Hurlbut

Thank you for the kind words. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I like to do a lot in that first revision. :P - Cirt (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Did you know...

Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing a lot of nominations at the DYK suggestions page. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! As you know, you don't need to be an administrator to review hooks or to move hooks to Next update, so your help is more than welcome.

You may already be familiar with the DYK rules by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the official rules and the "unwritten" rules. You may also want to look into some useful tools that can allow you to review nominations more quickly: the Cut & Paste character counter is a helpful JavaScript to calculate the length of hooks, and User:Dr pda/prosesize.js is a script you can install on your own Wikipedia account for more heavy-duty article length calculating.

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is also a quick reference of the things to check for each hook you review:

Quick Reference Is the hook under 200 characters? Was the article written or expanded within the past 5 days? Is it over 1500 characters long? If it's an expanded article, is the expansion at least 5x? Does the article have an inline citation for the fact? If there's an image, is it free to use? Is the hook interesting? Are there any other miscellaneous problems with the article? Useful Links DYK suggestions DYK discussion Next Update DYK templates

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at DYK, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at DYK. Now get to reviewing some noms! 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)~

rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a great template. I'm going to anchor it somewhere and use it as a reference. ^Law _shoot! 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:DYK nomination of My Life as a 10-Year-Old Boy

Hello, could you please clarify what needs citing? The entire section has nine citations, almost any one of which will prove the statement. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Law. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello

Greetings, Law. I just wanted to check in and see how your Wikipedia experience was progressing. If you'd like to send me an email sometime, I am reachable via the 'Email this user' link. :) GlassCobra 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Experience here has been very positive. DYK has been a great source of fun when I'm trying to dodge homework. Thanks for checking in. Maybe we can work on an article. Lately all I do is create articles about bars I find. LOL. ^Law _shoot! 01:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kansas City Barbeque

On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kansas City Barbeque, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tilted Kilt

On February 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tilted Kilt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK images

Yeah, looks to me like that image is incorrectly tagged. I would say the best thing to do is remove the image from T:TDYK; I have already removed the CC tag and will leave a message with the uploader. Thanks for the message, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm...from what I can tell, it seems to be an article that was redirected because it was nothing more than a junky plot summary, and has since been rewritten like a real article. I don't think we have specific rules on this because it doesn't happen very often, but my intuition is that the rewrite has added a lot of good content and sources, so even if it's not technically 5x the length it was before the redirect, it's still a good expansion...plus, it was a redirect for almost 2 years, so I would be willing to IAR on this one and consider it "new." But in cases like this I think it's pretty much up to your personal judgment.

Hope this helps, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)