User talk:Paul.h/archive 1

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi. I saw your expansions using Greenburg. They are fine except for the terrible grammar and spelling, which usually I would correct, but just didn't feel like it this time. Please be more careful with your edits. Also, mention Greenburg as the source for saying that Thomas influenced Scalia, and not vice-versa, as I haven't seen it corroborated in other material I've read, so it's open to debate.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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/archive1 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)

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)

Publication

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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/archive1. Is it already mature enough to promote it towards FA-candidate-procedure? Thanks for the assessment! Lear 21 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

San Francisco picture

Hello, The picture you deleted was much nicer than the one you left alone. The fog and San Francisco are freinds and the fog gives the city his face. Besides the picture you left alone does not have a high resolution. Best regards, Mila. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mbz1 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I admitted in my edit summary that it is a very nice picture. However, pictures in the SF article need to be illustrative of something, not merely nice. You posted the picture in the Economy Section where it didn't illustrate anything any better than the pictures we already have. It's true that this existing skyline pic isn't of the very highest quality, but it is does provide a better view of the financial district skyline.--Paul 20:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Travel Links

Paul, I understand your comments regarding the removal of the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau from the main San Francisco page however I would appreciate your not removing our external link. The San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau, a non-profit 501(c)6 organization. is a 100 year old organization that is responsible for generating more revenue dollars to this city then any other industry. We are a critical San Francisco resource that generated about 500 million in tax revenue to the city. In 2006, we brought over 16 million people to the city of San Francisco - to which over 70,000 jobs are created in this city to support. While we do generate revenue, and are a travel resource, we are also key in building this cities economy by marketing to business and leisure consumers.

While I admire the work that the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau does and hope that they continue to be successful in attracting visitors to San Francisco ("now that it has decided to quit working and live off its looks"), Wikipedia policy is that advertising and non-relevant external links are not appropriate. Is there a Visitors Bureau link from Encyclopedia Brittanica? Wikipedia is no different as to what is acceptable content. --Paul 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

removal of SF bay panorama

Hi - you removed a panorama of SF (created by me, for full disclosure), saying it wasn't as good as the current pano. I'm just curious, did you actually look at the full size image? It's much higher resolution, and shows the city in significantly greater detail. Perhaps most importantly, it is from a complementary angle. Just thoughts. Debivort 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Joshua A. Norton

Hey, thanks for leaving the comments on the talk page. I don't live anywhere near San Francisco, so if it's possible, could you do some digging at the public libraries in 'Frisco (I said the F-word!)? My only sources are online, and none of the books that are mentioned in the References section are at libraries close by. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind terribly checking my contributions before you assume that I don't know what I'm doing, and can't write English? Btw, the use of common names is not intended to require garden-variety bland names; it's intended to place articles by the name at which our twenty-first century readership can be expected to recognize the subject; Mark Twain, not Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

W. H. Auden

Many thanks for those improvements, Paul! They add to the professionalism and authority of the page. Greetings and best wishes, Macspaunday 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

CT

crap... I meant to source it... stupid bar exam - it's tomorrow... if remind me next week - I'll dig out the book and do it. -- Y not? 03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember Pearl Harbor

Nice work on the tightening. Just a couple of things, tho: deleting Tsushima, usually cited, equals overemphasis on Allied influence, a very common bias; I put it back. And Nagano was Chief of Staff; I put it back, too. Trekphiler 23:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You've also done a good job on helping fix the article. Alas, there is much left to do. When the article became a FA about 18 months ago, it was only 55K long. I'm thinking of spinning off most of the Imperial Japanese navy's orders, directives and setup: The attack force Kido Butai section into a daughter article. What do you think? --Paul 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

reagan and the crash

Hi... I agree more or less... no mainstream economists would pin it on Reagan... my edit said "minority view" which is polite-ese for "a small sector of the flakier elements of the left wing"... someone changed my verbiage to "it has been suggested.." .. .. there WAS in fact within the article a cite direct quote which pinned it partially on Reagan... but either way, I don't feel inclined to undue or even argue with your edits at all.. as we mostly agree... though I think the words "NO reputable economists" or whatever in your edit summary are a bit of an over-reaction.. later Ling.Nut 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As you suggest, we don't have much disagreement here. Blaming the 1987 "crash" on Reagan is just ridiculous. Mainstream economic analysis blames the lack of synchronization between derivatives trading and stock trading, and unregulated automatic computer trading. There is no need to dignify the flakier elements of left wing economists and mention their "linkage" of Reaganonmics to the 1987 stock market crash. --Paul 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your message on my talk: well, I thought that para was supposed to be the criticism para — that's the way I read it. It might be OK to make a separate section that is explicitly labelled "criticisms of reaganomcs" or whatever... but please bear in mind that the main article is Reaganomics, so we can be brief.. and that do we wanna remain POV and show both sides... Ling.Nut 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

my userpage

Good grief. Thanks for reverting that idiot vandal--cripes, what did I ever do to piss him off?? First time my page has ever been vandalized, and I hope it's the last...K. Lásztocska 04:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Free alternatives

"No images, text only" is a free alternative. We don't need an image for every bit of San Francisco's history, especially the logo. The journalist's role can be easily covered by text. The history of the city in general is certainly conveyed by the free images and text, the article does not lose significant context without the nonfree images. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not my rhetoric, it's a requirement. See criterion #3 under WP:FUC:

(a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. (emphasis added)

In this case, it's not necessary, text serves the purpose just as well. The image serves only to decorate, not to add any significant additional information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for letting me know the problem was that you needed an illustration of hippies. (I guess that would be rather good in an article about San Francisco!) I found one at Wikimedia Commons, it's a great resource when you're looking for images to use in articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be helpful, but the picture is supposed to illustrate this text: "Hippies flocked to Haight-Ashbury in the 1960s, reaching a peak with the 1967 Summer of Love." A 2005 picture of an Israeli guitar player, just isn't right. Having no picture would be better, but the very small, low resolution, reproduction of the 40-year old "Human-be-in" poster was just fine. --Paul 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not when it's replaceable. We must use a free image when possible, even if it's not as good. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do realize it can be frustrating when one sees the perfect image for an article, but it's not under an appropriate license to use and fails the nonfree image guidelines. It's happened to all of us at one time or another, and the fact that there was rather lax enforcement of the nonfree image requirements for quite some time didn't help, which did lead to a lot of the misunderstandings like "Nonreplaceable only means there isn't a free image to replace the nonfree one pretty much exactly". That changed when WMF made it a Foundation issue, and required that all projects get into compliance. It is unfortunate it had to happen like that, but I don't think anything else would've done it. In the end, this is meant to be the free encyclopedia, not just the legally-compliant encyclopedia. (I believe you're correct on that, by the way, I believe I did misuse "copyvio". That wasn't intentional and I do apologize.)

As to the rest, do you happen to know who designed that poster? I've had a reasonable amount of luck contacting owners of older images, especially ones like that with no conceivable commercial value; they're generally happy to license under CC-BY-SA. I'll have a look around the Web too, maybe I can find someone to contact who had an image of hippies more in that area and time frame. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reagan FA

Thanks a lot Paul! And thanks so much for your help with clean up and the Reaganomics and the economy section. The article would not be a FA without you. Happyme22 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironic??

I am not sure where you cam up with the idea that using quotation marks around a coined term are to express "scare, sneer, shock". In fact, I have never heard of them beingused for that purpose. They were utilized because, despite your intention that they are part of a lexicon somewhere, it is a coined term, much like "will of the market" or "manifest destiny" or "trickle-down theory". Hope that explains things, but if you have a question about this, let's talk about it in the Discussion for the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan article

Hi. We could use your input on a problem we're having with an editor, who's constantly inserting an item into the lead when we've all decided by consensus that it doesn't belong. Please see the Reagan talk page for my suggestion, and please comment appropriately. Thanks. Info999 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup

	In the area? You're invited to
	San Francisco Meetup 3
	Date: September 16th, 2007
	Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
	San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 06:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan lead

Reagan's presidency is sometimes referred to as the Reagan revolution because he was the standard bearer of the Republican conservative movement and brought those principles to governance. These ideas included staunch anti-Communism, tax cuts, reduced government spending and regulation, plus the stated will to apply military power in the service of US interests. These policies represented a sharp break with the past and lead to spirited debate and opposition. His economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics," lead to substantial tax cuts in 1981. After surviving an assassination attempt and approving military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984.

Reagan's second term was characterized by an emphasis on foreign policy and included significant steps toward ending the Cold War. The second term suffered from a number of scandals, most notably the Iran-Contra Affair. The president instituted a policy of "peace through strength" in an arms race with the Soviet Union, rejecting the previous patterns of détente and directly confronting Communism. He portrayed the USSR as an "Evil Empire" and publicly supported anti-Communist movements worldwide. Despite his rejection of détente, he negotiated with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to shrink both countries' nuclear arsenals and help bring a peaceful end to the Cold War.[3] Reagan left office in 1989 and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994. He died ten years later at the age of ninety-three.

I think this has neutrality problems:

• who refers to it as a revolution? Republicans? Democrats? Partisans? Elementrary school children?
• 'standard bearer'? really? The Republican conservative movement had no one else to champion their cause?
• 'brought those principles to governance' - he did? He was completley succcessful in that regards? If not, then that should be mentioned, right?
• words like 'staunch' are characterizations. In the interests of neutrality, we tend to try and avoid those.

Honestly, I could go on, but I am hoping that my point is coming across. A neutral third person coming across this would say, 'now, there's someone who idolizes Reagan', and they wouldn't be wrong in that observation. It's certainly what I thought. We need to aim for being neutral, because Reagan is so polarizing an individual even today. You have one group of people who think he was the best thing since sliced bread, and opposing viewpoint that think the guy has brought nothing but heartache to America's interests here and abroad. While I am more in the middle, and can see both sides of the debate, I refuse to deify or demonize the guy. The above edit tends to put the mantle of champion on Reagan's shoulders, and that is not acceptable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted here, because this is a topic talked to death in the Discussion page, and I didn't want it to seem like I was picking on you in front of others. I was just pointing out to you my problems with your suggested Lead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns about the wording of the text in the Discussion page instead of arguing the point in your edit summary. As you well know, unless the text is extremely inflammatory, the pre-existing version remains in place during and until the conclusion of said discussion. Please use Discussion for those matters dealing with the article edits specifically. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparntly, no one has ever bothered to point ut to you how editing with others works. If that sounds condescending, it because I've had to remind you of this particular lesson more than once. When you are reverted once or twice, that should set off some little bell or voice inside your head that says 'hey, someone is disagreeing with this edit. Maybe I should find out what the problem is.' Apparently, you either muffled that bell or strangled that voice, because twice now, you've engaged in edit-warring over semantics. Yes, semantics.

In the future, when your new edits are reverted more than once, take your concerns to the Discussion page and prove your case there. It is unseemly to do otherwise. Let's not revisit this topic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you invest in a mirror. They are invaluable appliances for proud and haughty Queens, as well as arrogant and condescending editors.--Paul 06:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page to discussion page

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but if I choose to post comments on your Talk page, and not on the Discussion page, I would ask that you respect my decision on the matter and not export them to discussion to attempt to further an agenda which I do not endorse. I consider it extremely poor form that you did so without my prior consent, which I am sure you were aware that I was not inclined to give. If you feel that you are unable to respect my request in regards to this, please let me know on my Talk page, and I will adjust my conversations with and about you accordingly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Charges of Vandalism

Not sure if you know (but you probably do): inappropriately charging someone with vandalism is considered as bad as vandalizing an article. I think you know that whatever else is going on, Arcayne isn't vandalizing articles. I think he may have been reverting vandalism and something went wrong...the same thing happened to me this morning - I thought I was reverting the vandalism about "...men..." but it turned out I did the opposite. A glitch perhaps (seeing that it happened to two different editors)? In any case, WP:AGF...and if I may, the bickering between the two of you (you're both equally at fault on this one, I think) isn't doing anything for the article, it's just a pissing contest that no one cares about. Please try to move on. Thanks.Info999 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I received your apology, and I appreciate you offering it. I accept it. Info has a point. I am not trying to screw up the article, Paul. I am trying to ensure that it si neutral, and focuses on the man. If I misinterpreted your edits as partisan or trying to make Reagan something he isn't, please accept my apology for not extending good faith to you. I think it's wrong to put anyone on a pedestal, and it detracts from a genuine, neutral article when an effort isn't made to ensure we are seeing the real person, and not what the devoteés want us all to see. I don't thin k Reagan was evil or a moron or a creep. I don't agree with some of the decisions he made, and I consider myself a counterweight to Happy (who, while being mostly neutral just loves the Reagans to death); I'm just a counterweight with a few edges. If I have misinterpreted your edits, thinking you were trying to trumpet the guy when you weren't, please accept my aplogies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that, instead of adding citations to the image of Reagan speaking at Parliament, that you include a statement or two (maybe in the End of Cold War section) about his prediction of the end of communism, and add the cites there. Anything beyond wikilinks usually lends a cluttered look to the article, leading folk to wonder why it is mentioned in an image and not in the text. Just a suggestion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan: first tem edits

Yeah, I can see what you mean by the usage of any of the three words. What would you think as an alternative? Consider that there are a lot of people that considered the release an arranged political response betw. Reagan's incoming Admininstration and Iran (a lot of this led into Iran-Contra, years later). I think that because of this underlying issue, we should make the effort to choose word (or phrasing) that serves neither the pro- or con-Reagan poles.

As well, in regards to the speech before Parliament, 'historical' is a beter choice - historical referencing the speech before Parliament, not the prediction. I'll make that change, but I'll wait to hear from you to make sure it isn't going to spark avoidable difficulty between us. Drop me a line and let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagan's role in the Cold War

Hi Paul. You've been a big help with the Reagan article when it came to the Reaganomics section, but I was wondering if you would like to also check out an ongoing discussion about Reagan's role in the cold war, located here and currently being followed up and discussed here. Any comments would be welcome. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And I just realized that this is the second time I've asked you which I'm terribly sorry for - I completely forgot and do not mean to impose! Only contribute if you wish to. Sorry, Happyme22 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco is also a county

My point is that San Francisco is also one of the most densely populated counties. (The City and County are one and the same, geographically.) It is just as valid a point as yours of being one of the most densely populated cities. I will not reinsert my opinion a third time, however, but leave it for you and the previous reverting editor to ponder. Backspace (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Peace Center Proposal for Alcatraz

Can you explain to me a little more the reason for the removal of this section from the article? Orracle107 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK and WP:CIV/WP:NPA on Naomi Oreskes.

I suggest that you read through WP:TALK as well as WP:SOAP before you reinsert removed comments[2]. Or in case you have a differing opinion tell me:

• How is this not a violation of WP:CIV/WP:NPA?:

I would argue that the contibutors above have their own agenda - the support of Oreskes' work as being of "untarnished quality" and are looking to eliminate those edits that conflict with their status quo.

• How is this improving the article?:

It's obvious from the edits that you are making and contributing - you want to maintain the orthodoxy of your view point. The editorial was correct in its assumption that there are zealots on this page - perhaps from both sides

• Can you tell me what WP:SPS has to say about this comment - specifically on WP:BLP?

The fact that Peiser's work was self-published is irrelevant,

I considered letting the comment stay - but its quite clear that this particular comment was neither going to improve the article - nor in any way defuse a situation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A Quick Heads Up

If you have a issue with someone's behaviour and it violates Wikipedia's guidlines, I would suggest you post it on the person's talk page, and if the behaviour continues, you can post something on WP:RFCC, which would be in effect act as an official condemnation of the user's actions. ThePointblank (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no such word as granularity!

Hi, Paul.h
Well... except for the fact that:

• it's a completely cromulent word; and,
• your edit embiggined the article much better than mine did!
  --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article review of San Francisco, California

San Francisco, California has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For your great work in helping San Francisco, California keep its Featured Article status, I present you with this barnstar. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

John Thomas Idlet

I am John Thomas Idlet's daughter. I was happy to see the article posted and appreciate the exact right tone and great reference articles. I am curious what prompted you to submit JTI to Wikipedia. 70.182.111.100 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel (that's what I'm assuming), I'm afraid my reasons for adding a John Thomas Idlet article are far less interesting that you might suppose. I have been slowly cataloging my book collection and I got to a copy of Epopoeia and the Decay of Satire by some fellow named John Thomas. The book wasn't listed in the Library of Congress, and neither the book, nor the author was listed in the database of the on-line catalog I was using (LibraryThing.com). So I had to enter the book manually.

Part of the process of entering the book, entails entering the author and related information (e.g. dates of birth and death). My first thought for a source for this data was to look on Wikipedia where there was nothing to be found. Next, I used Google to see what I could find. Now THAT was interesting. The first article I found was the obituary in The Independent by Adrian Dannatt; not your ordinary obituary and not your ordinary life. Next I found the article (yours?) in the L. A. Weekly.

Since I'm an occasional contributor to Wikipedia, I decided to rectify the issue of the missing article, and I spent a few minutes writing the short paragraph you now see. All I know about John Thomas Idlet is from the few articles publically available on the Web and whatever can be learned from reading his poetry. I tried to mention what I thought were the salient points, and tried to make the entry interesting. The salient points seemed to be that 1) Bukowski thought he was a good poet, 2) he very well could have been a character out of a Bukowski novel, and 3) the circumstances of his death were somewhat remarkable.

If you'd care to change anything, you are welcome to have at it. That is the way Wikipedia works. The only requirements are "No Original Research," and facts need to be verifiable.

I've just bought a copy of "Abandoned Latitudes" so my collection can house the entire Thomas/Idlet oeuvre. The Thomas piece, "from Patagonia" looks like a cross between Bukowski and John Cage. It fits right in.

Finally, two questions: 1) Is the “t” in “Idlet” hard or soft (“let” vs. Chevro”let”)? 2) Adrian Dannatt seems like an interesting and witty character. What caused him to write an obituary of your father?

If you’d like to continue this conversation via email, the “E-mail this user” link in the toolbox to the left of my main User page will send a private email.--Paul (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper story on Wikipedia

Paul.h, I am working on a newspaper story on Wikipedia and have already talked with a few editors/admins. If you have the time, please shoot me an e-mail, ccadelago@sfchronicle.com. Thanks, C.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.20 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagalog bus photo on San Francisco

The article mentions many times the city's Asian American population and the photo demonstrates that. I think it's useful. I started a discussion at the article's talk page. --AW (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin, AIP

Please stop citing BLP and reverting--there is zero BLP concern here, so the BLP exemption wouldn't apply--you don't want to be dinged for 3rr. Discussion is here. rootology (C)(T) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I've made only two edits to the Sarah Palin article today and they were on different material. The talk page has a virtual consensus on removing all of the AIP material as unsourced and non-material. Palin sent a video as Governor in 2008, and she attended the convention as Mayor in 2000. She has been registered as a Republican continuously since 1982. She denies ever being a member of the AIP. Under the circumstances it is incorrect to mention AIP at all, as it is only reporting he-said, she-said. There are no reliable sources or reasons for including it.--Paul (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the AIP material. There is no consensus on this. The information is relevant because in the video she expresses sympathy with the party's goals and regards it as having a friendly competition with the Republicans. I believe it is documented that her husband was a member, and the AIP does not have its own membership roll. Irregardless, one might simultaneously be an AIP supporter and a registered Republican. --Zeamays (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Residence in Alaska

What campaign article do you suggest we move a discussion of Palin's home in Alaska? Did you move the paragraph there? The paragraph has to do with what Palin did while Governor. (I didn't add it, just moved it to the top with the other budget stuff instead of under the Bridge to Nowhere section where it made no sense.) Instead of deleting the section, how about modifying it? Surely Palin's decision to live as Governor in Wasilla, rather than in Juneau, while "officially" living in Juneau and billing the state for living at home in Wasilla has some relevance to her term as Governor, don't you think? I'm not sure what the Governor in Alaska's residence in Alaska has to do with her vice presidential campaign. But I think it would seem to have a lot more to do with her Governorship of Alaska. Let me know if you'll reinsert the paragarph and modify it. If not, I'll post this on the talk page so that others can decide whether the location of the Governor's residence in Alaska belongs in her section on her Governorship of Alaska or in a section on her running for Vice-President of the United States.GreekParadise (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read it close enough to understand how it fit in that section. I have restored it, but cut it down to give the the correct weight and have removed some augmentative POV. Thanks for pointing out my error and for the friendly tone of your note! I thought unprotecting the article at this time was a bad idea, but I have to admit I was wrong. It is progressing well. Best regards,--Paul (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Civility Award
		For your part in reaching the excellent consensus version of "the library controversy" I give you this Barnstar. The way we all came to consensus on this contentious event was truly Wikipedia at its best. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

POV

Please avoid making further edits like this one. They violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Grsz^talk 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the egregious nature of my transgressions. I was only trying to see who had a sense of humor, but I now see the error of my ways. It was certainly a more serious breech of decorum and protocol than this edit: [3] Mea culpa.--Paul (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And as evident from his user pages, his edits weren't made in good faith. Grsz^talk 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for finding a better spot for that sentence, but it's perfectly notable as an extension of the Bridge to Nowhere section, as well as showing inconsistency in her claim that she wants to do away with earmarks. Grsz^talk 01:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Grsz! Please see my newly added section in Talk: The Truth about Earmarks... Thanks.--Paul (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I notice you have three reverts in the Sara Palin article in the last three hours. Would you please consider reverting your revert of my edit and joining the discussion to get a consensus for that sentence?--Paul (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin approval rating

Hi Paul - I am new to this and I was looking for some answers.

First - I started a new discussin on the main article (you added a comment) Now I see the topic was either changed and/or removed (my discussion along with your reply is gone) Another topic was started and you also replied to this new post. I see most people have supported the addition, but it has not happend. (besides the very emotional political tones) what is preventing the inclusion of this important fact? Can you update the article (since you have more clout on the site)? 1platoonabe (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)1platoonabe

1platoonabe, nothing is preventing this edit, it's just that no one has done it. You can do it if you want, or I'd be happy to do it, but you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I have more (or any) clout on Wikipedia. The source I provided shows that Palin has popularity ratings in the 90s last year. Can you find a good secondary source (newspaper) giving her 2008 and current popularity numbers? We need both to craft a comprehensive sentence.--Paul (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Pic

Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin, I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: [[4]]. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska AG

I know it may seem like a ploy (I deleted it earlier myself) but since only 6 of the 50 state attorney generals are appointed by the governor, it's important to distinguish to the reader. Grsz^talk 05:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sarah Palin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. In particular, please be aware that WP:3RR applies to all reverts on the same page, whether or not they were reverts of the same edit. I am in the process of initiating a discussion on the talk page related to the attorney general language. Your input there is welcomed. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but having 5,000 edits over three years of editing on Wikipedia, I am aware of the rules. None of the reverts I have made have been related to the same edit, and I have not violated 3RR. There is a tremendous amount of POV-pushing on the Sarah Palin article and upholding the WP:BLP standards requires a certain vigilance. If there are 20 editors pushing a political attack, and five editors attempting to work towards NPOV content, what do you think the revert ratio will be? BTW, I have 342 edits on the Talk page attempting to achieve consensus and am the #6 editor in contributions to the Talk page. Suggesting that I am making edits without trying to work with other editors is wildly inaccurate. --Paul (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you were acting in good faith Paul, but not all the edits have to be regarding the same text to be a violation. You twice reverted the time in Juneau/gifts bit, reverted the NATO bit, and reverted the AG part. By "definition" it's a violation, but I'll certainly defend that two of those four were to weed out an even worse violation. Grsz^talk 06:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As we've all seen even experienced editors hit the "electric fence" when the edits are coming in rapidly, my attitude has always been that a friendly reminder on this particular topic is never a bad thing, especially when, in some cases, the alternative is to let a tendentious editor goad someone into an accidental 3RR violation, and then WP:GAME the system with a WP:AN3 report to "take out" the other side. Also, my understanding of WP:3RR is that the rule applies per page, not per section of text. Also please bear in mind that one person's bias is another's NPOV - for example my add-back of the Attorney General language was made in good faith and is explained at Talk:Sarah Palin#Attorney General. You may well disagree with it and I may well turn out to be wrong, but as an editor with a couple thousand edits myself, and as someone who participates actively and regularly in talk page discussions, I would hope you would consider my edit proposals worthy of talk page discussion as opposed to a simple revert. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 06:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com

Regarding this edit, the quote is from a video of Palin on the site. No information is actually taken from the article. Grsz^talk 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin and creationism.

I have read that section and there does not seem to be a consensus that the information does not belong in the article. My edits are in an appropriate place, along with discussion of her religious beliefs.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Bridges

You state it says that Palin supported both bridges in her Gubernatorial campaign in the "next paragraph." Where does it say that? I don't see it. The "build the bridge" plank doesn't specify both bridges. Assuming you agree, how's this for better syntax?

Two proposed bridges supported by Palin in her 2006 Gubernatorial campaign gained national attention in 2005 and 2006 as symbols of pork-barrel spending.GreekParadise (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The section contains an entire paragraph devoted to Palin's support of the bridges.

In 2006, Palin ran for governor with a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform, saying she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative." She criticized the use of the word "nowhere" as insulting to local residents and urged speedy work on building the bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

It isn't necessary to load up the first sentence with the same information.

Best regards,--Paul (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But the section does NOT say she supported both bridges. That sentence only refers to the Gravina Island bridge. Where do you propose to put in the section her support of both bridges in her Gubernatorial campaign?GreekParadise (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been a day and a half (36 hours) and I haven't heard from you, but I see you've edited the article. So I hope by now, you see my point. It's not redundant. There is no mention in the article anywhere of her support for both bridges in her Gubernatorial campaign. I'll put it back. It won't be a long addition.GreekParadise (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Off topic conversations

I'm assuming that Shambalala is suggesting mentioning the movie in the article, though rereading what he wrote, I agree that it isn't actually clear why he raised the issue. I can't see any reason that the existence of the movie is relevant, but suggesting that we include it isn't so obviously wrong that it merits deleting. I could be wrong, he might have been trying to start a conversation, but his other contributions don't suggest that. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin and Rape Kits...

Paul,

Note the dialog below, cross-posted from Factchecker's talk page. Despite volumes of discussion, and I believe good faith attempts at consensus, some editors are intent on including this defamatory and contentious material in the Palin article. As you know, it seems wrong on its face to me. I don't know how such things work in WP-land, but I hope many objective parties are involved in the decision. Fcreid (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

From Factchecker talk page:

Hi Factchecker- could you just give me a link to or the wording of the rape kit wording you now propose - not how you got there, but the compromise version you can live with, and a short explanation of why - I can't spend the time to go through the iterations and arguments, as throughout the last couple of years I've found that some folks on these pages go for excess verbiage and middle of the night edits to obscure and bully in their positions and I don't have the time or patience to go through it yet again. I've been focused on other parts of this article and other articles, trying to keep them balanced - so, I'm not up to speed on rape kits. I have what Fcreid says and would like to know what you say. Thanks Tvoz/talk 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should mention at minimum the police dept policy, Alaska state law suppressing it, the allegation that she knew, and the St. Pete Times investigation not finding any evidence of this. You could also include the comment by the deputy mayor, any sourced claim that no women were ever billed, etc. If we were *really* committed to neutrality we would also mention the Palin spokesperson refusing comment and the St. Pete Times comment that the campaign offered no evidence she ever opposed the policy. Personally I do not care how much space is spent addressing this as I think the article could stand to have more detail than it does. I am sensitive to the need to not have everything be ridiculously verbose, but on the other hand it seems somewhat pointless to let subjective concerns about article length substantively restrict the presentation of relevant material. So I don't know really what people would expect, if they are even willing to compromise on inclusion in the first place. I guess what I'm saying is I couldn't offer a submission other than what I already offered without a more concrete idea of what people expect the word count to be.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My complaint was about excessive verbiage on the talk pages - I agree with you that we don't need to worry so much about article length. Have ad that argument on other articles many times. Can you give me a diff for the wording you'd prefer? Tvoz/talk 06:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for barging in. I'm sure there's some WP:JERK policy I'm violating by doing so on user talk pages. Yes, I understand I'm long-winded, but I don't consider it bullying to elicit critical thought before entering contentious and inflammatory material into a BLP. I also appreciate that you sincerely want to bring this to a consensus edit, Tvoz. I object to anyone's contention there is an allegation provided of Palin's involvement. I'll even take a leap of faith and allow that a known Democrat partisan and vocal critic of Palin, eight years after an event and during her campaign, might be called notable. However, the exact "notable" quote, "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it", is not an allegation. The statement creates no burden of evidence to support the supposition, and is therefore nothing more than a musing. "Notable" or not, anyone can muse, "I find it hard to believe that so-and-so didn't know about such-and-such." It doesn't pretend to know the accuracy of the statement. It doesn't pretend to have evidence that it's true. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than Croft's own unsubstantiated thoughts. Fcreid (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Breaking up edit

Although it seems likely that you were not aware of it, you effectively just asked me to violate WP:3RR. Please reverse your edit. Anarchangel (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion on

this and the identical edit on John Yoo? This is the same stuff everyone agrees doesn't belong in Unitary executive theory. THF (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as I'm soliciting opinions from a fellow fan of the Oxford comma, since you're a San Francisco resident, you may or may not be interested in the discussion at Talk:BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#NPOV_tag. I may be wrong, but some additional eyes in this thinly trafficked article would be helpful. THF (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Links in leads

I saw you made an edit with a summary, "WP:MOS recommends keeping wikilinking to a minimum in the lede."[5] I'm interested in that, but I can't find that guidance in the MOS or the subpages I've checked. Can you point me to that guideline?   Will Beback  talk  20:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, this came up during the FA process for San Francisco, but I just looked, and like you cannot find it now. I'm sure it existed, it must have been in an older version of the MOS pages. If it isn't policy, it should be, it seemed like 1/2 of the words in the SF lead were linked. Generally I prefer to keep Wikipedia from not being a dictionary link farm. It's tough some times.--Paul (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it was just my own blindness. I don't mind links in leads, but since the policy is to only link once it means that there isn't a link in the section where the linked word or concept is chiefly discussed.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems the language I can't find now mentioned your point, as well as suggesting it was best to only link really obscure things in the lead that you needed to understand the concepts, leaving more prosaic links to appear at the correct place in the article.--Paul (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Iron Chef America

I've just reverted your edit to the table in the list of ICA episodes. The table is already self-sorting, and can be arranged by percent wins, alphabetically, number of battles, etc. Therefore, your edit is not needed, and would require constant rearranging as win percents shift. You can use the small grey double triangle to sort your view of the table on multiple categories. Drmargi (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes i realized soon after that my edit was not necessary. Of course, upon reflection, you'll have to admit that your revert was also completely superfluous.--Paul (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

TV Interview

Dear Paul.h,

I am trying to locate contributors to Wikipedia who live in San Francisco and might be available for an on-camera TV interview next Thursday (6/25) about Wikipedia and what motivates you to contribute to Wikipedia. If you are interested please let me know. I am also looking for other Wikipedia contributors in San Francisco who would potentially be interested in doing this.

Thanks.

Lookingforcontributors (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Hey Paul, I know you said you have a long to-do list, but I figured I'd throw this out anyway. Knowing your expertise in economics, you would have a field day with George_W._Bush#Economic_policy. IMHO, it is a slanted section, slighting the positive, growing economy we had for six or seven years, and focusing instead on the negatives and 2008 crisis. Everything positive that is written in the section is countered with something negative, such as "real GDP grew at an annual rate of 2.5%, considerably below the average for business cycles from 1949 to 2000." Same thing with the stock market mentions. Maybe take a look when you get a chance if you're interested. My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hap... but my appetite for hand to hand combat is a bit lacking now. Articles about GWB, or John Yoo, or others targeted by agenda pushers are too much trouble these days. I hope you can find someone else ready to ride into battle. --Paul (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco, Ocean Beach, Red Triangle Edit

Dear Paul.h - ok, perhaps it was too lurid, but perhaps there is a way to indicate that this is a well-known area for great-white shark migration, which is a factor among riptide & chilliness for why some folks do not go in the water at ocean beach. In terms of lack of documentation, I referred to the Wikipedia article that explains the Red Triangle, located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Triangle_(Pacific_Ocean) - and this term has been covered / externally vetted by a PBS Documentary, the International Shark Attack File, and the Monterrey Bay Aquarium. Additionally, I believe that Susan Casey makes reference to this in her 2006 book, "Devil's Teeth" - about the Farralons which are also within the Triangle. Do you have any suggestions about how I could better phrase the sentence to inform people about this detail without being Lurid? I respect your experience with wikipedia and editing that you might have some suggestions for me as I am very interested in contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilStrauss (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco article maintenance

Hey, just wanted to make sure you saw these edits which tweaked the city county description a bit. I don't like it, but issues of flow like this I tend to defer to your judgement since it helps to have one person have final say so the article is consistent. Thanks for all your work on the article. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Dear Paul.h!

I'm a newcomer to editing Wikipedia(just registered today) so please forgive me if I commit a faux pas. I'm an active reader of Wikipedia, but I have no intention to get into serious editing. However reading the article on the 1956 revolution I was surprised that I found no mention of the most well known location of armed resistance(Corvin köz) and the most famous hero of the revolution(Gergely Pongrátz). I think the aricle is incomplete without mentioning them! There is a lot of informatio in the article about the political background, but relatively few about the actual events on the streets of Budapest which is just as important(if not more) than political events. This was a military conflict after all not simply some behind the scenes negotiating in Moscow and Washington. I don't think its a good idea to write about a military conflict without mentioning the location of battles and the name of commanders. I was lookig for the best place to paste this information and couldn't find any better than after the sentence mentioning the fortified positions. If you manage to find a better place or rephrase my sentence so it sounds better and more correct in English(Which is not my mother tongue as you can guess!)please go ahead! Corvin köz is often translated in English as either Corvin Passage or more precisely Corvin Alley. I decided to use the original Hungarian name, because this is how you can find it on maps if you're looking for the exact location.Tyrker (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul.h, I hope you don't mind me replying here, in non "forum" mode, regardless of the review matters.

Dear Tyrker,

Wikipedia has policies against including unsourced material, and including material sourced from Primary Sources, like the book of readings you quoted.

Claiming a militant was the best known fighter is a big stretch, one that has to have big support, in the secondary sources I've read, emphasis has been placed on Pal Maleter's capacity to negotiate with revolutionaries, the state, students, and the Soviets. Similarly, Red Csepel may very well hold the banner for the most heroic [poor bloody bastards] defence. This is why we go to Secondary sources, so we can say "Fred Jones believes..." about these kind of claims. You might want to reference the Featured Article review for this article, which I have started, as it discusses omissions in topical coverage: [article review link]. Generally, if there's a defence or subject, such as the Corvin Alley defence, which is known in english as such, you should use the English (and then in brackets add the original language). So you'd want to use Corvin Alley (Corvin köz).

Again, Paul.h, please I hope you don't mind me commenting here. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)