User talk:Bongomatic/Archive 8

'If you leave me a message here, I will reply on this page to keep the conversation together, so please add it to your watchlist. Likewise, if you are here to reply to a note I left on your talk page, please reply there—I will check it to see.

---

Archives

• Conversations though 25 September 2008.
• Conversations through 11 November 2008.
• Conversations through late December 2008.
• Conversations through mid-February 2009.

DYK for Alan Scott (blacksmith)

On February 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan Scott (blacksmith), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dravecky for the work on the DYK, and thanks to you, CoM, and Scapler for the very enjoyable collaboration. It helps to start with interesting material! Bongomatic 12:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good picture & congrats on making the front page! :)

I'm mostly a writer/copyeditor/sorter&organizer-of-things on here, i don't upload media very much, but i believe that there is a tag for "released into the public domain, or if not allowed then..., etc.". I know i've seen it; i'm just not sure if it's current or obsoleted/deprecated; if i can find it, i'll link you.

btw, 2 things:

1. you might need to lock down the rights release documentation; make it as solid as possible, in case the image gets challenged.

2. out of curiosity, what was cropped out, & is it possible to upload an uncropped version, for reference?

Lx 121 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lx 121

Thanks for the note. I'm very pleased with the article—the subject is inherently interesting, and despite being quirkily "off-the-run", there was ample documentation of notability and a rich assortment of verifiable (and interesting facts). And a number of people contributed to the article (in a very short time) in a very pleasant collaboration.

The uncropped photo is File:AlanScott.jpg—I just removed the matting.

I have an e-mail from the subject's daughter explicitly stating that (a) she owns the copyright; and (b) that she releases the photo into the public domain for all purposes. I shall keep it. If you think it would be helpful to add her text to the photo page, I will do that, but I intended simply to archive it.

Rgds, Bongomatic 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to have her go through the OTRS system to confirm the release of the copyright, just to be sure. - Dravecky (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was very pleasant collaborating with you guys, and you obviously picked a good subject if it interested me to expand it with only a stub. I really cannot remember a more pleasant article writing experience I've had, so once again, thanks for being so great to work with! Scapler (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BinaryStar Music (2nd nomination)

Sorry to step on your toes here but a WP:CSD#G4 after 3 years seem to be a bit too far past the intent of G4, I therefore reopend it for discussion maybe I could have sent it to drv but in the end the outcome is whats important either venue in this case is sufficient. Gnangarra 13:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, reasonable approach. Bongomatic 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vereconference

Good catch. Amazing how long some of these lie dormant. :-) Keep up the good work! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks . . . don't think it was that old, as I was patrolling new pages from the back of the queue--possible that I followed a link from one of the articles there. Any idea why the page logs don't include a creation date? Bongomatic 01:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It was created January 28, and some bot made an edit 2 days ago. As to why logs don't have creation dates, dunno. Technical Wiki things challenge me - nothing shows in the log that it was newpage patrolled back in January either. Maybe it wasn't until now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Carpenter

On February 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Carpenter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Bongomatic 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

brown-sugar-glazed bacon

Actually, that sounds tasty...and we're not the only ones to think so: [1], [2], [3]. And in GBooks: [4] and [5]. Whoa! check it out, all you members of the Bacon Squad: The Bacon Cookbook! Well, I'm sure you all have a copy already. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but two books look kind of interesting: [6] and [7]. How about it? Drmies (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Peer Portner

On February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peer Portner, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bongomatic 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stub bios

If you'd like, you can let me know if you create any stub bios. My first suggestion would be to create DYK-eligible articles using the sources that you are adding. If not, it would be my pleasure to work together to expand them to meet DYK standards. Just let me know if you have created an expandable stub, and I'll do my best. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do (or, realistically, will try to remember). Bongomatic 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonnie Moore

Yes, you're right - I only looked at it quickly. What I felt was that the article itself needed to say more about why Nonnie Moore was notable. It seemed to me that there should be a lot more to say! Feel free to remove the tag, but I'm sure someone else would be asking the question if I wasn't. Deb (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bryan Slusarchuk

Please allow me some time to make changes to referencing his work experience. thanks Newdesignnow (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)newdesignnow

There are a few articles that I know that needs tweaking? Do you know of any wiki writers that can write articles, that is compliant and won't be deleted? If so, what will be the costs involved. Let me know and I can contact that person.

Newdesignnow (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)newdesignnow

Am I a Troll?

new user here. i was referred here by some sort of bacon cabal. my edits on the ayn rand discussion page get deleted. not sure why. i would appreciate your input.Brushcherry (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Yes, you are a troll. Over 100 edits with none to article space. Wikipedia is (nominally, anyway) an encyclopedia first, and a community second (or lower down the list). Your Ayn Rand talk page edits are pretty far removed from improvements to articles. There are plenty of "meta" tasks to be done (article sorting, assigning stuff to projects, writing templates, coding—heck I really don't even know all the different things that need doing) but there's a presumption that we're here to work on the project.

So, my input is: Find some topics that are not hotly contested, where you can make some uncontroversially useful improvements, and take it from there.

Sorry to be harsh, but you asked. Bongomatic 11:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your harsh input. i kinda thought not editing article space was a good thing. hash it out on the dicussion page, reach consensus, etc. i admit i have bitten off more than i can chew with jumping in on the ayn rand page. i appreciate getting your perspective on things. having only been watching the ayn rand page, i think i have a skewed view of how wikipedia works. long-time wikipedia viewer, new editorBrushcherry (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Coons! Night of the Bandits of the Night

Raccoon

Maybe I was staring at them too long.... but how did I mess up the refs? And additional cites? I sourced just about every single sentence. Share. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you messed up any cites, but the article doesn't have any that demonstrate notability of the topic. All the references are extremely local and the editorial discretion used to select the topics of coverage—when so linked to their immediate environs—does not establish notability. Bongomatic 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, about the refwork. My thought is that Utah is not local to Ohio and its festival screening there resulting in an immediate distribution deal took the film out of its back yard. Decent wWidespread "local" notability is acceptable notability per WP:CSB, WP:GNG, and WP:NF. I suppose we'll be quibbling over how many sources is enough. Perhaps I should give each sentence 5 or 6 cites and then hear compaints of it being oversourced? And the film is a "first", per the GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Being screened in Utah is not the same as being covered in Utah. Inclusion in minor film festivals (regardless of location) has never been evidence of notability for the purposes of WP:NF.

And as for being a "first", as I pointed out in the talk page, it is not a first in any meaningful sense. Everything is a "first" in a trivial way (this is the first talk page comment I've written after 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)). Likewise, if this were the first film completed entirely by university students anywhere, or in the US, that might be notable. But if it's been done before at other schools, then why would it being "first" at another school be of any significance?

With respect to WP:CSB, I've never before now thought that Ohio, the seventh most populous of the 50 United States, was the recipient of systemic bias due to underreporting. If you feel that's the case, you may with to follow up on the talk page there.

Most of the references (the ones connected with the university) are in fact not independent for the purposes of WP:GNG. The coverage in those that are independent represent the least reliable sort of feature-type non-news stories, and focus on the "local interest" element.

I don't know where you get support for the idea that local coverage is sufficient for WP:NF in any way relevant to this article. For coverage occurring earlier than five years after release, it specifically refers to "nationally known critics".

Bongomatic 00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Swedenborg Rite

Because there's nothing of value there to the main article. The research article indicates, in fact, that it might have nothing to do with Swedenborg (who lived in the 18th century) and rather originated in NY in 1859, and was extinct by 1934. It had no impact whatsoever on Freemasonry in a larger sense. Thus, I prodded it. MSJapan (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhena Schweitzer Miller

Rhena Schweitzer Miller has been expanded. I will probably add a bit more and then move on to the others you've created. So far so good. Alansohn (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for J. Max Bond, Jr.

On March 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. Max Bond, Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bongomatic 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mary Printz

We just crossed paths at Mary Printz, which I mostly finished expanding. Take a look at the full article. Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Landers expanded and DYK nommed

I expanded the Alan Landers you had contributed to, and nominated the article for DYK, giving you appropriate credit for your efforts. We're making a dent on these bios. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Doris Scharfenberg

Just winning an emmy is a bit weak unless one can source from other than an obituary just what sort... regional or national, etc. You'll find Star Telegram[8] to be an exceptional source for expanding your stub and adding her Woman of the Year. I can't stay grumpy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And you'll absolutely love the awards listed HERE for this superwoman. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. The Emmy is nice, but, as you observe, not key—rather the obituary in the AP, and lots of other coverage (not for free as it's pretty old) demonstrate the N. I'll try to get some of the contemporaneous coverage from the NY Times, etc. when I get on Factiva next. Bongomatic 09:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

An observation: There are those even less forgiving than yorself (chuckle) when it comes to sourcing notability. And yes, a (paid?) obit in the times is nice. But more stringent editors would slap a "one-source" on the article and quickly question the notability of just a statement in an obit that there was an emmy without there being expansion and further sourcing of numbers and types. Sure, in a few moments I found multiple emmys and much to confirm notability for may other acts.... but many editors, and you know this to be true, do not bother to look, and will tag based upon a visual appearance and not a potentiality, as its "not their job" to improve somebody else's article. Considering this woman's background, you could quite likely turn her article into an FA and have several DYKs as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the paid death notice was (a primary source) used to establish (the non-controversial) date of birth, which wasn't in the other stuff I'd seen at that point. Since the title of the article is "Paid death notice", I didn't expect anyone would think it was being offered as an "independent" source. Bongomatic 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand its use to WP:Verify something. Others might question is use and forget or not mention that it simply verified. No matter, though.... as there is a tremendous amount of material readily available about this person. I still think you could turn this into a FA and likley get a dozen DYK's for her along the way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain

Here is something for you insteasad of cows, Eduardo Grimaldi. There are no articles on other Inter Wiki pages, (just a lot of text, probably means can’t find this page), the references, well I can’t read them but they don’t show any pictures, (they look the same all of them, some local newspaper?), can’t find anything on Google and , ... it might be a hoax – or not, but most likely not wery notable.

This guy is not a notable landscaper, maybe he is a landscape architect, or a landscape engineering guy but it may be some local worker, there are thousands of landscape architects all over the world, but not all of them are worth includind in an encyclopaedia, actually only very few. Would you write an article about your local doctor, baker or zookeeper? We better delete him as soon as possible.

Warrington (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No habla español? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But why do you speak Spanish than? Warrington (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Poquito... En qué puedo ayudarte? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, Bongomatix, you can always delete Eduardo. I would do it myself but I don’t know how... And I don't want to learn either, I might start liking it...

Warrington (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow

Hey Bongo, the note on which you ended the AfD is a really important one and I'm glad you raised it. I don't want every single weatherman in the US to get a page, for instance--and it may well be that I'm inconsistent in wanting to keep the cow per WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, of course. I to hope that at some point someone looks into that matter and that a decision is reached. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. It's a good question. Suppose there were an "Encyclopedia of Fairfield that had significant coverage in reliable sources as its notability requirements. Would we want every entry there to be included in WP? By the logic of the proponents of the Gladys article, the answer is "yes". I believe many people feel this way. For a similar but related topic, in this discussion, DGG argued that anything covered in any Jane's publication would be sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP (even if it's one of three thousand varieties of .22 caliber ammunition). Bongomatic 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I kind of agree with you on this one Bongo (although I haven't read what you said at the AfD so I'll have to go look). But it's not like that article really brings down the encyclopedia. I think the clearer cut cases are promotional articles and insubstantial articles that don't make any sense. And there is a case to be made that the coverage in this case amounts to substantial coverage over a sustained (years) time period. I would prefer we lean towards inclusion rather than exclusion anyway. As I said, I don't think it meets the inclusion criteria, but shit happens. Sometimes good articles get deleted. You can always try again in a few months if you're determined enough. :) What else is shaking? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We're encyclopaedists, and every specialist area is an area for our encyclopaedia.

DGG has a good point in general, and you and ChildofMidnight need to think about this some more. Wikipedia is both a generalist and a specialist encyclopaedia. (This is one of our Five Pillars.) We don't exclude things because the size of the potential interest group is not the whole world. Were we to do that, we'd be excluding minor astronomy topics that were only of interest to a small number of people in the world, or esoteric subjects in theoretical physics, or obscure items in classical history, or individual railway stations of interest only to railway enthusiasts. We don't exclude subjects of limited interest by discipline, and we don't exclude subjects of limited interest by geographic area. The idea that we're here not to serve a small sub-set of our overall readership is wrong in both cases.

Before we hammered out the idea of notability that we now have, we had an endemic problem of conflicting specialist interest groups, all in their own WikiProjects and other groups, each thinking that the others' subjects were "unimportant", "insignificant", "not famous", "too minor", "uninteresting", and so forth. It was not good. Not only did it not serve the encyclopaedia at all well to have subjects decided upon by whatever band of editors happen to be around to "vote" at the time, it led to factionalism and conflict, sometimes with gangs of editors forming to explicitly battle other gangs of editors over certain subjects. Jimbo's "No" dates from around that period, and as you can see, many editors were opposed to the idea even then that we should exclude "small", "local", "minor" subjects on the basis that they weren't popular with a majority of the readership. We've come a long way since that time, but we should always be on our guard against heading backwards in that direction, as novice editors don't learn from history and end up repeating it.

We're here to provide a reference work, and we don't exclude any classes of readership from our target readership simply because those classes are small. It's not the size of the readership that matters, but the extent of the writing done on the subject, recording human knowledge. Every class of readership is small relative to the population of the planet as a whole, and every geographic area is "local" on some scale. Every article only serves a sub-set of our total readership, in most cases only a minority of the total. We're aiming to provide an encyclopaedia of everything, which means that we're targetting all readerships. Whatever the specialist discipline, and whatever the part of the world, readers should expect this encyclopaedia to be of service to them when they want to obtain knowledge, as long as the subject has been covered, in depth, in multiple independent published works by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Put another way: As both a generalist and a specialist encyclopaedia, for any given X we expect Wikipedia to cover a subject Y that would be found in a specialist "encyclopaedia of X" (that had our content policies on verifiability, original research, neutrality, and so forth — which not all encyclopaedias have.). Wikipedia is the union of all such enyclopaedias.

When that particular article came up at AFD the first time, as you can see I pushed the people who were in favour of its inclusion very strongly in the direction of citing independent sources that covered the subject in depth. If such published works can be shown to exist, then whatever our personal tastes, and whatever our personal areas of interest, we should be satisfied as encyclopaedists. To do otherwise is to head back to the gang wars of yesteryear. We wear different hats as editors than as readers. Whether we, ourselves, would read about a subject must not determine whether we, as editors, consider a subject worthy of an article, even if we ourselves have no personal interest in writing about it, either. Notability is not subjective. We aren't here to stop editors with other interests from working on valid subjects that we ourselves have no interest in working on, and we live with imperfection in the event that such editors aren't around right now. (The very best of us actually try to expand our horizons, and work on improving our coverage of subjects that we might never have heard of, or might actually find to be repugnant, or might be diametrically opposed to as philosophies/ideologies/religions/whatever.) Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Uncle G. Thanks for taking the time to write. There are at least two angles to this issue: local interest and trivia.
  • With respect to local interest, do you see any limitations whatsoever? Footnote 5 in WP:N ("Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large") is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it specifically mentions the "interest [of] the world at large." This implies that being of interest or potential interest to the world at large is relevant to the determination of whether a topic should be included, a proposition with which you seem to disagree. More central is the question of what is "a strong connection to" the subjects of articles. According to several discussions in WP:RSN, school newspapers are "reliable sources". When they cover events at their schools that would generally not be picked up by external news organizations, is that evidence of a sufficiently strong connection that footnote 5 is implicated? What about local newspapers in regions covered by regional newspapers (say, local papers in bedroom communities to New York that are covered by the NYT's Metro section)? I'm not being tendentious here . . . my point is that editorial discretion in what to cover at some point devolves into hopeless parochialism (something that anyone who has written for a high school or college paper knows)—so much so that it is indistinguishable from the COI issues cited at the end of that footnote.
  • With respect to trivia, DGG does have a good point:
    • "If it's a list of things that are essentially always notable, and the source provides significant information enough to write at least the stub of an article, the notability is demonstrated."
  • but he also has a bad one:
    • "I'd accept anything in a Jane's as notable."
  • Did you take up my suggestion to read sample pages from the ABC Aerospace Directory or the Ammunition Handbook? If not, please do—there is nothing "essentially always notable" about the contents of either. What is an "encyclopedia" for the purposes of the "union of all X"? Doesn't WP:NOTDIR limit what "encyclopedias" are encyclopedic (beyond whether they have similar policies on sourcing, as you mentioned above)? (Part of the problem here is that "encyclopedic" has two vernacular meanings that are, if not opposites of one another, not close, either—"suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia" and "exhaustively comprehensive".)
  • While I might not qualify as the very best of us, I usually do attempt to follow consensus and policy wherever it may go—even when it's undesirable (see my argument for keep at WP:Articles for deletion/Nadya Suleman (2nd nomination). But consensus is permitted to change over time, and I also advocate positions that I think are more sensible than current consensus.
  • I would appreciate your thoughts on any of the above. Bongomatic 17:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I picked up on a .22 at AfD (.22 Cheetah) and kind of played devil's advocate, fixing it up and playing the gun nut in that discussion. Honestly, I was a bit surprised at how easily it was kept. There are always those editors that say "well, this person is known only in Sweden" and vote for deletion. The bigger issue remains, how parochial is too parochial? Bongo's example of the high school and college papers is highly relevant. I'm inclined to vote (and I have voted that way) that such a source is not "general" enough, but I'll grant you immediately that that's a judgment call, my judgment. Maybe this is a decent rationalization: high school and college papers are not for sale, they are distributed freely. That's surely a difference, in regards to the Gladys-articles from Fairfield. PS, Bongo, I got my boobies back! Drmies (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I agree with Uncle G that areas of specialized interest and unique pursuits that may not have more general coverage should be given deference. That's not the case with the cow artist. The art just isn't notable beyond it's locality. It's not a specialized art or a regional art or a localized art, it's painting and decorating cows and it hasn't been covered outside local media. Every town has decorated animals and art projects like these, just as every town has athletes who are covered locally. But for these professions that have broad interest, awards that indicate recognition, and coverage in lots of media, there's no need to make an exception or to suggest that this is a narrow field that deserves some kind of special consideration. People like the article and the cow art and its gone on for a while. So I'm okay with it being included, but I don't think is meets guidelines. 04:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Doctor, CoM for your comments. CoM, I think your analysis of the cow article is spot-on and wish I'd thought of it. See yas. Bongomatic 05:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I linked to User:Uncle G/On notability in the above, I suggest that you read it before telling me that I disagree with the idea that being noted is evidence of being notable. ☺ That's actually part of the point. It also explains why we shouldn't be reaching for blankets.

Footnote #5 is about independence. Independence is about three things. It's about preventing advertising and autobiography from being routes to encyclopaedia articles. No matter how many press releases people publish, or how many World Wide Web sites they set up about themselves, their organizations, their bands, their inventions, their products for sale, and so forth, notability is only demonstrated when someone independent of them decides to publish an in-depth work of their own. Independence is also about fact checking. As Wikipedia:Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies explains, there are well-known, and widely encountered, problems with taking people at their words about themselves. There are also well-known, and widely encountered, problems with accepting advertisements as truth. Independence is, thirdly, about showing that something actually is a part of the corpus of human knowledge in the first place. Knowledge isn't human knowledge if only one person knows it, and if it hasn't been subjected to peer review. Again, if only the subject/creator/inventor/author has ever written about something, and self-published what xe wrote without going through anyone else, there's not the evidence that anyone else knows it — that it has been reviewed by others, acknowledged, and entered the general corpus of human knowledge — that there is if someone independent of that subject/creator/inventor/author has written about it.

So it's not correct to address footnote #5 as having anything to do with the "locality" of the readership of a source. It's about independence, not locality, as the text that it is a footnote to clearly states. If a journalist and xyr editor(s) have documented a subject in depth, doing their own research and checking their facts, then it doesn't matter that they don't have a global readership, any more than it matters that a small and little-known specialist academic journal, with the normal peer review processes of such journals, only has a small readership. The processes of research, fact checking, and peer review, by identifiable people with a vested interest in keeping their good reputations for those things, have occurred. Conversely, if an article in a newspaper is just a straight re-print of a press release, then it doesn't matter that the newspaper is the The Hindu, The Age, or The Washington Post.

Size is not the issue. Readership is not the issue. Independence is the issue. Editorial discretion only devolves to parochialism if one forgets that and starts trying to mis-use independence as a proxy for a subjective judgement of one's own about fame and importance. Notability isn't fame and importance. Transferring the fame-and-importance argument from the subject to the sources, and trying to argue that the sources aren't famous and important, is just trying to bring a bad argument in through the back door when it has failed to enter via the front door. We evaluate sources on their depths and their provenances, not on how famous they are. (I linked to User:Uncle G/On sources and content above, too. Read that as well.) A few people desperately want Wikipedia to reflect their personal opinions of what is important and unimportant, and will take other arguments and attempt to deform and abuse them to that end. But we've had a brush with the kind of chaos that that (obviously, if one thinks about the world-wide nature of Wikipedia's editor community) causes. It's not the way to make an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nonnie Moore

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nonnie Moore, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bongomatic 09:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Colleen Howe

Thank you for starting an article about Colleen Howe, the one and only "Mrs. Hockey" and now-late wife of Gordie Howe. Sure, there's a school in School District 34 Abbotsford named for her but up to now nothing on Wikipedia for this author, pioneering female sports agent, and member in her own right of the United States Hockey Hall of Fame? If you're interested in further expanding this article, it would make a fine addition to the encyclopedia and an easy DYK candidate. (I would, of course, have to recuse myself from approving or promoting any such hook.)

Here are a few sources of interest: Yahoo Sports obit, New York Times obit, USA Today obit, National Post article from 2008, 1974 NYT article by Howe, Corporate Detroit article from 1991, Globe and Mail article from 2003, Washington Post article about HOF induction, NYT article from 1993, [Sports Illustrated article from 1980], and, well, I think you get the idea. There are a jillion good sources out there. - Dravecky (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed . . . don't know if you saw the talk page, but I've already cite news-ized a ton of sources for my or someone else's consumption. Bongomatic 00:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eric Blau

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eric Blau, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bongomatic 00:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Printz

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Printz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bongomatic 00:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

DYKs

Hi Alansohn

I wasn't going to mention it, but you continue systematically not to cite me as the creator of articles you nominate for DKYs. While I may not expand the articles as much as you do, I spend time writing stubs, adding nicely formatted references, and frequently putting the germ of the sense of the person (when I don't actually write a full article, which I sometimes do). So, since there is a place for the creator, not just the expander, of an article in the DYK template, it would be appreciated if you would put my username there when you nominate an article I created, even if the creation has just slipped out of the five day window (I don't think the window applies to who is listed in the nomination, anyway).

Rgds, Bongomatic 00:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue with listing you as article creator, but as I had read WP:DYK, there needs to be a larger contribution of content to be eligible for DYK credit. For example, Eric Blau was a 135-character stub before expansion to nearly 3,000. I will review and confirm eligibility for DYK credit for stubs like these. Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Colleen Howe

I replied on the Colleen Howe talk page in more detail regarding the Hall of Fame. I would go with the actual site you quoted and not the current newspapers. Do you have a site to investigate the Wayne Gretsky Award recipients? There seem to be more than one of these however, I am not sure which one the newspapers mean the... Wayne Gretzky International Award ... I dont think it could be the Wayne Gretzky 99 Award as that is for Ontario MVPs. SriMesh | talk 03:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you want to re-word the article?SriMesh | talk 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I nominated the article (which you created) for DYK here, but mayhaps that should be re-worded now that that hockey game has come and gone.SriMesh | talk 03:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work on the article. It's amazing how much interest sprang up so quickly, and frankly I'm surprised the article didn't exist before her death, as it's obvious that this remarkable woman had received substantial coverage and was highly notable in her own right for many years.

I will investigate further the US Hockey Hall of Fame question (probably by sending an information request to the Hall of Fame directly), and will also take a look into the Gretzky award. Bongomatic 05:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness Hi...I didn't come back right away to see your intent. I wrote a letter myself, and copy and pasted the reply to the article talk page, sorry I didn't realize you were in the process as well. I agree with your comment that she should have had an article, her name wasn't even on her son's wikipedia articles and I had to pop it in. I wish her DYK would have gone through faster, but a well, as being on the main page does help the WWW find the info better on wikipedia. Her memorial is now online, I posted it to wikinews, I have never seen memorials and funerals on wikipedia before. Memorial SriMesh | talk 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Great job—I confess that I hadn't gotten to it yet! Thanks for your diligent contributions. This article has obviously been a key source of information for many who have come to seek it. Bongomatic 23:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hi Alansohn. I noticed you uncapitalized the "The"s from "The Associated Press" and "The New York Herald Tribune" in the article on William Jorden. Wikipedia's own manual of style is silent on this (I think), and this article (which uses a reasonable style guide itself—The New York Time's own) uses capital "The"s mid-sentence for both organizations. What is your reasoning? Bongomatic 00:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:THE addresses policy on use of the word "The" in titles. My simplest way to make these decisions on titles is to use the titles of the Wikipedia article as the link, which usually means that any issues regarding WP:THE have been addressed. In these cases, the "The" appears in The New York Times, but not the Associated Press or New York Herald Tribune. You can also see this in the articles for these media sources, with the "The" bolded and italicized for the Times, but not the other two. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll bear that in mind. Bongomatic 23:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rhena Schweitzer

No worries. I tried to add your name to the list of credits, but I'm afraid I can't figure out how to use the {{DYKmake}} template properly. Hopefully another admin will notice before it gets on the main page. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like Dravecky did it. Bongomatic 04:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alan Landers

On March 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan Landers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

United States Justice Foundation

I've proposed deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit of WP:Canvassing? Anyways...it appears to be a scam...I found some references...it should be notable now.=P If you still have a concern, feel free to open an AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. I was the one who originally tagged it for notability. Please check your facts and AGF. Bongomatic 23:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added references, and since it appears to be a scam, it is gaining notability.Smallman12q (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rhena Schweitzer Miller

On March 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rhena Schweitzer Miller, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri

Let me know if you think this person meets notability guidelines. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel like the Mikey of deletion. Bongomatic 00:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you like it you delete it? Hmmmm... Or you like to Deleat it? I value your opinion on gurus, what can I say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I commented above before I realized you took it to AfD. We'll see how it fares. I think it's borderline. Certainly needs work, and I enjoyed the wording of your nom... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I figured out later that you meant Mikey in the sense that they have him try stuff to see if he likes it. I was focused just on the fact they say "He likes it!" part, so I didn't quite get it. Sometimes these things take time for me, I'm a little slow. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the beginning part where they say something like "he doesn't like anything" "he won't eat it, he hates everything". Bongomatic 22:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Love that special Bongo-flavor! Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! "Tastes just like baby dolphin!" Bongomatic 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the barnstar Bongo. Have you gentlemen noticed the numerous media citations added to Vishwaguru Mahamandaleshwar Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda Puri? Thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Colleen Howe

On March 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colleen Howe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Bacon Barnstar
		Bongomatic, for bringing the bacon explosion to Wikipedia I belatedly award you the coveted Bacon Barstar. Thanks to your efforts in bringing bacon to the forefront of Wikipedia, I have had a new topic of interest in all my food-related conversations for the past month. When I actually get around to preparing it, I will be sure to let you know how it turned out. Welcome again to the Bacon cabal.--kelapstick (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Foot-related conversations? Does he mean Football or does he have a foot fetish? Weird. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately spell check doesn't pick up typos where the word is wrong...doh!--kelapstick (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Congrats Bongo. Keep up the good work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Cole (writer)

On March 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Cole (writer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Sir, I just wanted to seek further clarification on the opinion you cited in the AfD discussion for The Motley Moose. You said: "Since there is no non-trival coverage of it in reliable third-party sources, this blog fails to meet any notability guidelines on its own"- and I was wondering which sources, in particular, didn't lead to third-party reliability. Was it Prospect Magazine? DailyKos? TalkingPointsMemo? The Cavalier Daily? Just wanted to seek your advice so I could better improve the article. Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not only the reliability of the source, but also the degree of coverage. I reviewed the sources cited in the article (except the Cavalier Daily, where there was no link to the actual reference) and none of them constitutes "non-trival" coverage. Bongomatic 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... okay. I guess I am still confused. For instance, could you explain specifically the problem with the Prospect Magazine source? Or why it matters if a print publication doesn't archive their files on the internet- does that make them less able to be cited? And as for the DailyKos, I notice that source was frontpaged by that site's editors and that particular article got something in the range of several million pageviews- is that not acceptable? I'm just trying to understand other people's perspectives; obviously, this is all on the level to me, but other people are seeing it from different angles. Blogs are certainly coming into the forefront of the media, but there still seems to be some hesitation towards them, much in the way Wikipedia has a bad reputation for being unreliable. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is how significant the coverage of the topic is in the cited work, not how widely distributed or popular the cited work is. Can I recommend you read the notability guidelines? There is nothing "wrong" with publications that don't publish their archives online. But they are less persuasive at demonstrating "significant coverage", especially when those claiming notability are simultaneously and repeatedly citing other articles that clearly don't constitute "significant coverage". Bongomatic 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My typos...

Inre this diff, how did you know I had not meant impruned?? (chuckle) Thanks though. And do you also think our user might benefit from a little mentorship? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No probl. Which one? There are so many who need induction into the secret deletionist brotherhood . . . Bongomatic 02:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Elfonia

Hello! What are the reasons of issuing Elfonia article with notability and verification templates? Kurtelacić (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I added the notability template because it doesn't appear to me that the article claims that the subject meets either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for bands.

I added the {{refimprove}} template because the article doesn't cite reliable sources independent of the subject.

Hope that clarifies. Regards, Bongomatic 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about its notability (check this and this page for example). However, I agree the article needs more independent sources and will be looking for them. Kurtelacić (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean notability in the Wikipedia sense. Coverage in Wikipedia can never be used to establish notability. Also, see WP:ATA generally, and WP:GHITS about other specious arguments often used to attempt to establish (or deny) notability. Bongomatic 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid i don't have to establish Elfonia's notability, my friend. Only because you've never heard of it doesn't mean people around the globe don't enjoy its music. There is also an article about Marcela Bovio (vocal) written quite a while ago which proves the band's notability. Kurtelacić (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, per 'Notability for bands': 6. The bend is notable if it: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable (Ayreon); note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. Kurtelacić (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, and as you can check for yourself at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles are not considered "reliable sources", and hence cannot be used to establish notability. Bongomatic 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is notable per #6 of aforementioned criteria. Kurtelacić (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)