This is an archive of past discussions with User:KimChee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It's not out of context: it's copyrighted, and it doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", nor would its omission be "detrimental to that understanding." It has been used as decoration, and doesn't add anything to the article that can't be done with words.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Joran's mother's maiden surname.
G'day KimChee.
With all due respect I'd like to inform you on some info regarding Joran's mother's maiden surname, as I don't want to get to both of us involved in edit warring.
Her biography can be found on her own site here; [1]. I know that's not the type of reliable news source you'd prefer as a credible reference, but the I'd like to point out some as logical as 1 plus 1 makes? She's originally from Arnhem, The Netherlands, indeed the same as Joran's place of birth, and she's about the same age as his late father. Aruba roughly has 100,000 inhabitants [as per 2009], and you'd have to agree that the chance of there being another Anita van der Sloot residing on Aruba is quite slim, as in equal to nil.
Apart from this I have a far-far-off acquaintance who personally met her way back when, even before Joran was born, and his - shall we say? - "first hand" information on her is the last type of info either you or Wikipedia would accept and include as a reference worth publishing.
Hi Qwrk, your edits look like they were done with straightforward intentions and I think it's unlikely that there are going to be many Anita van der Sloots on the island of Aruba, but since there presently is a WP:BLP notice on the top of the page, the edits are being held to a higher standard. Your firsthand knowledge may be correct, but that also falls under the "no original research" rule without verifiability. If a more established "high quality" third party source does confirm this detail, then the criteria will have been met. KimChee (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with KimChee's decision here. Anita van der Sloot is not a particularly rare name, and the chances of there being two is actually fairly decent. Common names vary from place to place, and we would need more evidence to connect the two. This is probably the same AvdS, but not necessarily the same one.—Kww(talk) 19:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
G'day KimChee.
Thanks for being this fast in replying and yes, you're absolutely correct on all issues. That's why I'll leave it the way it is as, with all respect, it doesn't add significantly to the greater knowledge of mankind. Some info is more important than others. Qwrk (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Volume of NH submission
Could I ask you to be cautious in adding material to the NH article? We need a minimum of information in this one, more can be read in the VDS article. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:VanDerSloot SecurityVideo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
I've templated the File:VanDerSloot SecurityVideo.jpg for deletion. I do not consider myself an expert on image policy and so I've asked User:Fasach Nua to comment. He is an expert and regularly knocks out my fair use images from my FACs, much to the gnashing of teeth, so you can be assured he is neutral and uninvolved. Please feel free to ask any other image hawk for their views. And don't take it personally, during the NH FAC we had so many images knocked out that we were wondering if we would have enough left to pass that criterion of WP:WIAFA! You are doing good work generally, you just need to watch a few choices of words and be cautious about summary style. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the outside input is welcomed. Rather than encourage an edit war by reverting without changes, I'll try a different approach so that the contextual significance can be justified. KimChee (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the article, I found a version hosted by Google/AP and incorporated some information regarding Miguel Castro Castro. KimChee (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of National Penitentiary Institute (Peru)
Cool, thanks! Btw, I also have topical Birgitta Jónsdóttir for June 17 creations up as well. Keep on keepin' on! --Rajah (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
On June 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronnie Lee Gardner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
One of the criticisms when we were building the Holloway article is that too many sentences began with "On Month Day,". We consciously mixed it up (same thing for how paragraphs begin). I think there is something about writing an article about events that come out in dribs and drabs over a long term, because you seem to do the same thing. Suggest a similar remedy, sometimes bury the date in the sentence or begin with the event that happened on that day, it isn't difficult. Just a suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I will look out for that. I tend to wait about a week before doing cleanup so that the incoming bits of news can be organized to flow in a more unified manner (e.g. the lawyer quit, but then he didn't). KimChee (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Richard Minsky
On July 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Minsky, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Alan Minsky, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The image you added to the infobox is not property of the FBI. Though they are using it, the rights Colton Harris-Moore has to this image have not been transferred to the FBI. That image is a derivative of File:Colton_Harris-Moore.jpg. The image on Commons has been marked for speedy deletion because of this, and this image was in fact already removed from the article earlier today. Please don't use it again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. There was no intention of reverting your removal. I was updating the infobox from an earlier edit with other information. KimChee (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. Would you be kind enough to remove it please? I'm not interested in conveying the idea to onlookers that I'm edit warring. (If there's further discussion, we can keep it here) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged it for speedy deletion on Commons. That the FBI is using those photos doesn't mean they're holding rights to them. The left most image is copyright Colton himself. The middle and right images are property of the Island County Sheriffs Department, and in the State of Washington, their Open Records Law forbids the release of booking photos (which these are). They are bound by law NOT to release rights to these images. So, all three images in that wanted poster are copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the vote of support. I prepared the alternate hook (which was selected) because I knew the famous barefoot inmate was scheduled to be transferred anyway. Ironically, I started a new article about the other facility he ended up at for another try and found yet another hook that might work out better. KimChee (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC).
Yea, I'm not going to lie, I looked at the underwire bra article first too. I just wanted to confirm I knew what it was, ahum. After a DYK, I like looking the next day through the pages linked in the DYK article's intro to see where people went. It is interesting to see. That other hook is good btw. --NortyNort(Holla)08:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
On August 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Porta, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello! Your submission of Beth Holloway at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
You can't spin off an article using mostly preexisting material and have a DYK, because of Rule 1, first bullet point.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
On 31 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Natalee Holloway (film), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 6 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luitingh-Sijthoff, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 6 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albertus Willem Sijthoff, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 6 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article De zaak Natalee Holloway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
KimChee has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as KimChee's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, KimChee!
On 20 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fort Zoutman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 20 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aruba Police Force, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 21 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patrick van der Eem, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for catching that detail. A new hook and a new source (Reference #8) in a new lead paragraph has been added to address the expiration date as having happened in past tense. KimChee (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Albert Greenwood Brown
On 6 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Greenwood Brown, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 11 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Albert Taylor, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 12 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barton Kay Kirkham, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, thanks for the pointers in the review; I've addressed them as best I can, although attempting to rewrite it to fit only those references available online would, imho, be too restrictive, taking place as it did before the internet really existed. Keristrasza (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
To avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, I submitted the article for reassessment at WP:BIOGRAPHY/A before continuing further with the GA review. This should not take very long; the editors there are good and it will be to the article's benefit to have another pair of unbiased eyes look at it. Also, I would recommend that you resubmit your other self-assessed articles (listed below) as it is implicit with most WP projects that sections for assessment requests exist to have other editors review articles. KimChee (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
See WP:ASSESS: project quality assessments are not official assessments and are meant "for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole." These aren't peer reviews or GA or FA reviews, merely assessments determined by where an article fits into the scale. Assessments for GA and FA are made by external panels, for obvious reasons. The Suzanne Capper article wasn't rated as part of the Biography project by me - I don't belong to that project. In fact, you rated it as B, and similarly rated it as B for the Crime project. A third user rated it as B for the Greater Manchester project. If there is any issue with the way ratings have been applied, it is perhaps that others - not me - have simply copied a rating made for one project (in this case, WikiProject British crime) and added it to other projects without bothering to check if the article merited that rating. If you didn't believe it to be a B class article, you shouldn't have added that. The British crime project's assessment criteria may be found here. You say you are submitting Capper for biography reassessment - that's fine, but it was you who made the first Biography project assessment, not me. Assessments are not set in stone, anybody can reassess them at any time. I'm sure you won't find that I have ever over-inflated the rating of any article, anywhere. Keristrasza (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I am familiar with the guidelines. I likely would have rated the article B anyway and I will honor the opinions of any third party, but from experience a requested assessor of a new or recently updated article tends to take more time to review it. I am doing this out of an overabundance of caution so there are no questions of conflict of interest following the GA review. I could ask for a second opinion during the GA review, but this process is quite backlogged and I find the editors at WP:Biography to be responsive and helpful. KimChee (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if I somehow came across as caustic, I was just trying to explain why within projects I am less likely to seek a second opinion unless I think an article is higher than C or B - I didn't intend to question your familiarity with the guidelines. Thank you for the opinion though, and I will obviously take care in future if working on an article better than Start class. With regard to Capper, I will sit down today and Google the newspaper headlines as soon as my toddler falls asleep. Keristrasza (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Many Wikiprojects are arguably dormant, including the WP:CRIME group I am part of, so I find WP:BIOGRAPHY to be helpful as they are fairly broad with a consistent group of editors to deal with assessment requests. KimChee (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
On 29 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Mitchell Parsons, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 5 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wallace Wilkerson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gee Jon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gee Jon became the first person in the United States to be executed in a gas chamber, after Nevada State Prison officials found that pumping the poison directly into his cell did not work? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 8 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nevada State Prison, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gee Jon became the first person in the United States to be executed in a gas chamber, after Nevada State Prison officials found that pumping the poison directly into his cell did not work? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I deleated it, because when i clicked on the reference site, the site did not have the information the it supposdly referenced. I'm sorry if i complicated things i do not edit pages very often and was trying help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.140.30 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It may have been hard to find in the CNN article because information from sources is ideally paraphrased and not copied verbatim. Search for the word "silence" in the article and you will find the information corresponding to the last sentence of that paragraph. KimChee (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear KimChee, I tried to answer some of your suggestions. I do not always agree, but highly appreciate your comments. Thank you for making the effort. - DonCalo (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind the review coming in segments, but I will be not available for a couple of weeks starting next week. - DonCalo (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the review process let me to look at the article again and I made some changes. I realize that does not make your job easier. You can check the changes since you last edit here: [2]. - DonCalo (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is perfectly fine and I have taken them into account for the next step. GA review typically allows a week for improvements to the article. KimChee (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Chandra Levy
I have left my response on the talk page. Please read it and reconsider your edit. I thinik we should discuss this on the article talk page rather than the individual editor talk pages. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I think we will have more time to do the necessary research after we finish the GA review, which is expected to be completed "within a day." Again, we should both be looking for a source that identifies in which of the BOP central office buildings Chandra Levy worked. Let's hold off until we find a good source. Thank you for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
On 17 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andriza Mircovich, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Andriza Mircovich chose to be executed by shooting, prison officials were unable to find five men willing to participate in the firing squad and had to build a shooting machine? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 18 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denver S. Dickerson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Nevada GovernorDenver S. Dickerson resisted pressure to stop the interracial boxing match of defending champion Jack Johnson and later supervised Johnson's federal prison sentence? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You need to wikify reference #11 in the Curry article, I must learn how! Made a few changes, which I hope you think enhance the article. :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I have deliberately not edited the Levy article so I could rate it. I changed to a C because that is all I can do at this point. . It is really well done, at least a B, and ready for GA, IMHO. Happy Thanksgiving! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate it as a personal favor if you could back off on revisions to the Chandra Levy article until after the GA review is completed. We need a stable article for the review, and your edits are delaying it. I have waited months to get the article review and the review commenced. I then asked for a short delay of 48 hours following the verdit, but the stream of edits is prolonging that. I am also deleting the photo of 320 First Street until we can determine which building had Levy's office. I would appreciate your understanding on all of this until the review can be completed. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
While I like to see articles promoted, I strongly believe that stability (not counting vandalism) should come naturally, not by requesting other editors to "back off". I believe the problem lies more in that the GA nomination may have been premature, as the article at that time was too short, had only one photo which did not have a proper fair use template, lacked citations in a number of places, and needed some rewriting to address copyvio problems. I only seek to improve the article. I hope you understand. Cirt should be commended for the display of patience. KimChee (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
How about we find a senior, experienced editor to arbitrate the issues of:
Are the prison photos relevant to the article?
Should we use the photo of 320 First Street given the current level of sources available?
Should we include the pull quotes as pull quotes or integrate them into the prose of the article?
We both agree in advance to abide by the abitrator's decision. In this manner we can avoid an edit war and get the GA review concluded.
I left this proposal on your personal talk page because it relates to how we interact as individual editors and warrants your immediate attention. I left it after Cirt did his review and want to get the three issues resolved in the next three days. Are you willing to accept my suggestion for an arbitrator? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I was not sure where to proceed as my most recent response to your talk page had been deleted. Who did you have in mind? I respect Cirt's experience and think his judgement should be sufficient; he has offered to check again in 48 hours before concluding his review within the week. I have no intention of disrupting the process. However, I am concerned about the timing of the anonymous IP edits at commons - I would sincerely like to believe these events are not connected in some retaliatory measure. KimChee (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It would have to be someone other than Cirt, because he is the reviewer. I ran into two experienced editors recently, who did not necessarily agree with me on that controversy: User:Voceditenore and User:4meter4 who generally edit music articles. User:PhilKnight runs the Mediation cabal and might also be willing to do a quick informal arbitrartion based on a couple of statements sent by the two of us on these three question. To me the outcome is less important than getting this settled quickly. Racepacket (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought about this and I am willing to put all of that aside until Cirt is finished with his review. I think looking for arbitration to settle the matter hastily is the wrong approach, as opposed to taking the time to get it done right. I think some of the issues raised are symptomatic of the fact that the article has never been through a peer review, and perhaps such a process with an objective editor and less pressure for time would be of greater benefit in the long run. KimChee (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am not trying to get crosswise with you and think that if we both back off a bit this will go very smoothly. We obviously have miscommunicated on a few simple things like my edits to your polling data. I think that Cirt is looking for some signal on the talk page that we have resolved the issues raised there. I think specifically the talk page sections labelled. "Bureau of Prisons photo", "Quotations" and "Condit polling data" I propose one of two ways to wrap this up: 1) I could post a statement on the page, perhaps under "Timing of GA Review" saying that I am willing to live with the article in its current form on the issues in dispute if you are, and you can reply yes, or 2) I can post a message on Cirt's talk page saying we have resolved the issues. What do you think? Meantime lets focus on Impacts, Memorials and Tributes. Racepacket (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your considertion during the GA review of Chandra Levy, which is now over. At times it felt as though it took longer to get the article to GA than it did to solve the case and convict the criminal. Please feel free to edit away at the article without worrying about creating a moving target. There is no need for any further dispute resolution between us, I am willing to trust your judgment. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I am happy that the process did come to a cordial point. I think Cirt did exact a lot of work because he skews towards FA standards and the article ended up much larger than I had originally anticipated. If you do not mind, I would like come back to you after taking this article for peer review for FA. KimChee (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
When you are done with the Teresa Lewis edits you could perhaps take a look at the Oba Chandler article that I found very interesting. However some references seems to have been URL not found since put there. Perhaps you could check it out and help improving the already GA standard article without removing the information already there, perhaps finding sources to be put in malfunctioneds ones place. You can try if you have the time. Like your work. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I would even classify the Oba Chandler article as one of the better ones on Wikipedia. After reading the very interesting crime story. Perhaps with your help it could be upgraded to FA in the future.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so mutch for your help so far with the Chandler article. If you can do anymore improvements, then please do!.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw that a few sources from the St petersburg times are Url not found, so if you find some better sources it would be appreciated. Sources 7, 21 , 27,39, 44 and 65 plus a few more I have found to be so if that is to any help, if someone can fix it its you. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I will help you on technical issues such as clean up and formatting. However, be prepared for the possibility of some resistance to notability until persistence of the case is established. KimChee (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the article somewhat, but found that it may need to be retitled as Watson has been found. There are articles titled "Murder of ..." but those are typically used in cases where the murder conviction has been secured as defendants will sometimes opt to plea deal for the lesser charge of manslaughter. What do you think of "Death of ..." until the case is further along? I started a talk page for discussion. KimChee (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone wanted the Jennu-Lyn article deleted. But I reverted that and asked for a Afd instead. As the sources atleast establish some sort of notability. just so you know.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you do agree with me that the article has atleast established notability beyond a speedy deletion. Afd is more OK if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
In light of how quickly it appears this case is being resolved, I think you may be in for an uphill battle in Afd. If you still feel strongly about the subject, I recommend you provide a good "keep" rebuttal while saving a copy of the source. You can create WP:Workpages under your userpage space (with a {{workpage}} disclaimer at the top) to continue working on it until a new development re-establishes notability of the case in the future. Good luck. KimChee (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
And once again thanks for helping me with your new edits on Oba Chandler. Always appreciated. Also I have answered your comment to me on my talk page my friend.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
On 6 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oleg Nikolaenko, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 15 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bremo Slave Chapel, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bremo Slave Chapel is the only place of worship known to have been built for slaves in the Commonwealth of Virginia? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The date, length and hook of the expanded article of Harry Yount has been verified. However, the image presently at Commons does not match the NPS source you originally specified. Do you know where the current image came from? KimChee (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The original image was uploaded to Commons back in 2006, long before I got involved. While working on researching Yount in recent weeks, I was searching for a better quality version of the image. The best I found was part of Google's archive of LIFE magazine photos. Since it is a 19th century image, I concluded that it is in the public domain, as did the original uploader. I uploaded the highest resolution version I could find, but it had a LIFE watermark. I then uploaded a somewhat lower resolution version from LIFE, without the watermark, but still better than the NPS version. I thought I had properly updated the Commons data, but have gone back and made sure that it shows LIFE's archive as the intermediate source. The photo, of course, was taken long before LIFE magazine was founded. By the way, it isn't accurate to say that the photo was taken by an NPS employee, as it was taken long before the NPS was founded. I believe that it was taken by a photographer working for the Hayden Survey in the 1870s. That survey was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, so the photo is almost certainly a work of the U.S. government. However, I haven't been able to verify the exact origins of the photo. Cullen328 (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The photo looks beautiful - you improved it significantly. I appreciate all of your help, and I hope that a few people enjoy reading about Harry Yount as much as I've enjoyed doing the research in the past few weeks. Thanks for everything. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not doubt the amount of work you have put into the article. However, according to DYK selection criterion #1, the 5x expansion must have occurred within the last 5 days to be acceptable as "new". You are welcome to request a second opinion if you disagree with this. KimChee (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news as I found the work on the article to be impressive. I admit that I sometimes plan my expansion work on some articles with the DYK rules in mind. KimChee (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, if you have any time for it please check out the Karla Faye Tucker I have done a quick search online and also read trough the article and I believe with some improvements it can reach GA-level. So if you find any time please check it out. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The article has potential, but is still too short and needs to be more properly referenced for GA. I will look at it again later when I have more time. I have updated the infobox and added a fair use image for now. KimChee (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. OK thanks. I atleast wanted to give it your attention as you are a good editor on these kind of articles. thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
John and Sarah Jane Makin
Hi again I have just started to read about a very interesting and notable crime case from Australia in the 1890 its about Sarah and John Makin who murdered infants that they had been paid to look after from young women who couldnt take care of them. According to the text it was because of this case that legislations about childcare was changed in Australia so it has had an effect on the country politically and socially. So I was wondering if you would like to make atleast a stub about the case in question, if you have the time. Some sites about the case is found here and here. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I started a workpage stub here. If you can help me expand it to at least 1,500 characters of prose (it is presently at 522), I will transfer it into a new article space and split the credit with you for the DYK nomination. KimChee (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have done some changes. Feel free to change anything that you dont find fitting. As you have so mutch more experience than me. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. The amount of additions to the workpage looks like a decent start. However, upon copyediting and checking against the sources, I recommend that you should work on rephrasing information from your sources more thoroughly (see WP:PARAPHRASE). This is something that a reviewing editor will likely catch during GA review and is also known to happen during DYK reviews. KimChee (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Please consult others, but let's agree on what the question is. The question is if there are three headquarters buildings all with a common mailing address 320 First Street, but three different street addresses: 320, 400 and 500 First Street, can we show a picture of one of the buildings with sources that may be referring to the mailing address rather than the street address of Levy's particular building.
Hi, I see that you have expanded the Chandra Levy article alot, and made it to GA level as I supported!. I would just like to suggest that you make a DYK nomination from some part interesting part of the Levy article. As you have expanded it, it will be I guess OK to add a DYK nomination line. Just a suggestion. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but the article is no longer sufficiently new under DYK criteria and 5x expansion is unlikely. KimChee (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok I see! If you have any time please check out a crime article I found to be quite interesting Beau Maestas, that could definitly need your help I guess. Thanks. Happy holidays!!--BabbaQ (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I regret to be the bearer of bad news, but the majority of the article appears to be a word-for-word copy and paste of an ABC News article and will likely be deleted by an administrator. As the revision history indicates that this problem occurred before your involvement in the article, I recommend that you start a new article from scratch later to be clear of any copyright issues. I think you could also claim DYK credit for restarting the article. KimChee (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I know. Thanks. Anyway I have now deleted a majority of the information about Beau only keeping the start of the article. I will expand it later. If you dont like it please undo but I thought it was a good decision, atleast for now. Thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that articles under review for copyright violations should not be edited until an administrator removes the tag and decides whether to delete the article or trim it back to a stub. KimChee (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that this article is facing a WP:NOTABILITY challenge from another editor; I hope you are not taking any of this personally. As the deletion proposal appears to give you a seven day window, you should exercise patience for a few days and see if the media coverage unfolds to provide material to further establish notability before attempting to delete the proposal as it would likely go straight to an WP:AFD vote. For future articles of similar subject matter, I recommend you check against WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:ONEEVENT as criteria that will help you establish notability. KimChee (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
On a more positive note is that our John and Sarah Makin article seems to have been included to DYK for tomorrow or the day after.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Good work. I am also checking on the copyright status of the mug shots against Australian law to see if they are eligible for inclusion in a DYK listing. KimChee (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
DYK for John and Sarah Makin
On 27 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John and Sarah Makin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
According to the check up it recieved 5.600 views today (December 27). So it can be placed on DYKSTATS. However its still on DYK as it was placed there quite late in the day so it might be better to wait and count the views for December 28 too (for the period the DYK on them are on the DYK section).--BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
On another subject,the post mortem of Joanna Yeates showed that she had been strangled to death. Thats basically seals the case in my mind.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I did finally comment, though I do not think you need my vote anymore. :) As a note of observation, there will always be editors biased towards inclusionism and deletionism, so you should relax and take the AfD process less personally. By focusing on the content of the article (as the supportive editors appear to have done in this case) rather than the argument itself, the others in AfD may take you more seriously. KimChee (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
FA/PR suggestion
Im not saying I will , but If I was to nominate the Oba Chandler article for FA do you think it stands a reasonable chance of being Supported for it?. I personally find that the overall prose,length and sourcing are up to FA standards and when looking trough the arguments for not promoting it in an earlier FA nomination started in 2008 by some user, all the problems raised that time has been taken care of since I see. But I dont know maybe im bias because I personally find the article very good.Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is decent, but I am 99% certain that the editors there will give you a hard time during FA Review; the bar for FA has been raised noticeably higher in the past few years. I recommend you read some of the reviews to see what they subject the nominators to. I think a good idea would be to submit the article to Peer Review; you will be assigned an experienced editor who will provide feedback to help prepare the article. I have done this regularly to prepare candidates for GA and FA review. KimChee (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
