Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:23, 18 February 2013

Hi there, PLEASE do read this first.

Got questions? Wanna flirt? You can do so by starting a new section below. But before that, do take note of the following: Don't mess with clowns. Or else... Muahahaha. I like it when discussions are unfragmented because heck, immortals tend to forget stuff. But I'd like it if you leave me a talkback. I most likely wont reply to anons. I enjoy ice cream, peanuts, macaroons, caviar, Big Macs and fried rice. So, give me some maybe? I may not not not reply that swiftly to babble page messages as I have a life and I do NOT spend my whole life cooped up in my mother's basement with a MacBook. So there. Thank you for reading this. :)

Template:Attempting school wikibreak

Template:Archive box collapsible

Frustrated

Hello..I am a bit confused on your recent declination of my submission.

First, you commented that wikipedia is not a reliable source for referencing; I find this fact interesting in that you are not allowing me to author a wiki article until I can PROVE my sources are reliable...is this not the same procedure for all other wiki pages? If this is the case then all wiki pages should have already been confirmed reliable, per your declaration, and I should be able to reference them.

Good logic, but take a look at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Second, this athlete has competed in 10 Canadian National Events. I checked other curlers of the same stature and they have published wiki pages...this individual is notable and worth inclusion. Other than the references I have provided, I have no idea how to "prove" that she played in these events or attended charities etc...I have referenced the exact websites of many of these things. Do I have to get a letter from the 2010 Tournament of hearts organizers telling you she played in this national event? I would gladly welcome suggestions...looking at other comments to you..seems you are difficult with the references. As you can see by the sites I references, clearly I didn't make this stuff up.

I worked hard on this page, I believe I have used references that show this person is notable per your guidelines, other pages of persons of the same notability have been published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm2334 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• First you must tell me what page you're talking about cos I have no darn idea who and what you're talking about. Next time, provide some useful links. ;) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You come across as very arrogant in many of your comments when you write like this (not just to me, others I have read) - just saying. The page I am referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Stephanie_LeDrew

By the way, user pages are relatively different in content as compared to main space articles, so they more or less need not provide "added value". Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood, I do apologize for that comment, was very frustrated and why I deleted it promptly. I looked into the notability concern and found this for curling notablity criteria according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)):

A curler is presumed notable if he or she

Has participated in a World Curling Tour sanctioned event. - CHECK Has participated in a World Curling Federation sanctioned event. Has participated in the Brier, the Tournament of Hearts or received a podium finish for another country's national championship, provided that the country has qualified a team into either the preceding or succeeding Olympics. - CHECK Has participated in an Olympic qualifying event for any country. Has participated in the Canadian Mixed, Junior or Senior championship. CHECK & CHECK Has participated in a provincial or territorial playdown leading to the Brier or Tournament of Hearts. - CHECK Has participated in a TSN Skins Game or Canada Cup of Curling game. Has received a podium finish at a Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championship or the Canadian Masters Curling Championships. Has participated at the Paralympics. Is a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame.

I provided a direct reference to the World Curling Tour website showing this athlete participates on a team in the World Curling Tour. Under Team Mouzar, you will find the subject of my article, Stephanie LeDrew, third (http://www.worldcurl.com/teamslist.php?eventtypeid=51). Based on Wiki's criteria to be notable for curling, this subject meets 5 of these (See the CHECK's above). She plays on the world curling tour. I referenced documents to all of these and for the junior championships the actual game sheets with stats and everything.

So I don't understand where I fell short here.

Query re AfC

Hi, Bonkers. I'm a bit worried about the terseness (and occasionally inappropriateness) of the boilerplate messages you leave dismissing people's AfC submissions. What worries me is that newbies may end up more discouraged than they need be. An example is your verdict on Nora Fry Lavrin. I understand that to read a submission carefully, and help a newbie with it, takes time and effort - and you may feel the pressure of a backlog of submissions - but it would be great if you could try to imagine how people might feel having their submissions rejected with little more than a whole bunch of new jargon. Dsp13 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to, you must understand how tasking it would be if I were to write a sincere, non-bot automated declination note for every declination. It may be abrupt, but in what way is it "inappropriate"? And notice for most of my reviews, I am kind enough to add motivating comments. So there. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for replying, Bonkers. The edit summary for declining Nora Fry Lavrin - 'appears to be a non-notable person' - appears inappropriate to me. Since references to print sources were provided, I also don't see how the fuller boiler-plate on the page or the author's talk page is appropriate. In a case like the Irish rugby player Tom Reid the declination & boiler-plate seems appropriate (if jargon-heavy), but the edit summary seems confusing, since it seems more likely that he is notable but that his notability hasn't been established with proper references. In either case - if AfC reviewers don't have time to help write the page - would more not be achieved for the project if relevant wikiprojects could be pinged to see if they wanted to help? Dsp13 (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do, though the edit summaries were filled up by robots... If it was me, I would definitely not use such a... Robotic tone. Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

yeah, you don't strike me as especially robotic! Cheers. Dsp13 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Burger King franchises

Hello, I have gone through the article and made the changes and fixes you were looking at and need you to go through and verify them. Please read through it carefully as there have been some major additions and some large changes. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Looked, looking again. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

strong nat does not cover citation formats but the dates within the article contents itself. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay

Thanks for the heads up. Usingr Misplaced Pages:File mover, was easily done Schmidt, 17:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And terima kasih too for showing how its done. Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bonkers The Clown

Hello. We're meeting again. First of all I wanna say to you, that I understand the WP policies and guidelines and know how to review. After my failing at your re-review I learnt them and now I'm ready to review articles at AFC. Can I start from there where I was stopped? I mean can I join to the January Backlog elimination drive? Please answer me.--Pratyya 12:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course? Actually I was quite confused as to why you pulled out halfway – you shouldn't have. Welcome back. Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I want to ask you that, why my page is not shown at the backlog drive page?--Pratyya 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Er... Somebody removed it from the list? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you add that? And I want to say what should I do about the failing reviews of me?--Pratyya 12:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't do anything... So the number of reviews which would be considered during the final total count would actually be TOTAL subtracting the FAILED ones. Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way what is the AFCBuddy? How can I join that?--Pratyya 12:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ice spike DYK nomination

Hi, I've proposed a change of image for the above nomination Could you have a look and see if you're happy with it? Richerman (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Taxi! Taxi!

On 23 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taxi! Taxi!, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Singaporean film Taxi! Taxi! marks local YouTube star Dr Jia Jia's film debut? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Taxi! Taxi!. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Article quality rating

Hi Bonkers, I was wondering if you had any suggestions to help me better the North Korea's cult of personality article? I'd really like to get it to a B rating at least but I'm not entirely sure what it's lacking. Coinmanj (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Chao

Hi Bonkers. I've moved your Peter Chao article into mainspace for you - for future reference, the correct CSD criterion for such moves is G6, using the template {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}}. Nice bit of work, well done. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see... G6! Funny though cos' I failed to spot it when selecting a criteria! Anyway, thanks! Cheers Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Peter Chao

Hello! Your submission of Peter Chao at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Report on a National Bank"

I recently resubmitted an article for your consideration, Report on a National Bank: I'd like to withdraw it.

I've discovered sources that describe this Report as "The Second Report on the Public Credit",

In the Report, Hamilton proposed a national nank. This article alreay exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/Second_Report_on_Public_Credit

The Report is also termed "The Report on a National Bank" in some of my sources, but the existing article has the correct title, with this caveat: The word "the" needs to be inserted to be perfectly correct. The Second Report on the Public Credit.

Garraty, John A. and Carnes, Mark C. 1999. American National Biography. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-512788-9 p. 908 36hourblock (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Benjamin Harrison

Hello Bonkers the Clown. Why are you accusing my edit of not being in good faith? I believe all the genealogical information I added is accurate and I provided 36 references to document the lineage. I also believe that establishing whether or not the Pawn Star Harrisons are related to both Harrison presidents is a relevant topic due to the discussion of this on their TV show.

You are the editor that first entered the fact that they mentioned the possibility of this presidential family relationship when you created the page on 2 June 2012. If you had not included that information, I would not have searched for the public documents to determine if such a relationship exists. If you believe the genealogical information is not accurate, please give your reasons. Because you said you are currently on wikibreak due to school, I will revert my edit back if you can not promptly provide any reasonable refutation. It took me a lot of work to include the 36 references.

What I added was no different in principle than what Smjwalsh added in August 2012. In August 2012 Smjwalsh added a reference to the obituary of Ruth Harrison (1910-1993) to establish that she was the mother of Richard "The Old Man" Harrison. I added a reference to the obituary of Richard Harrison Sr. (1908-2000) which establishes that "The Old Man" is both the son of "Richard Harrison Sr (1908-2000) and the grandson of William Calvin Harrison (1973-1935) and Josephine Samantha Frank (1879-1958).

If you do not have a problem with what Smjwalsh added, then you should not have a problem with what I added. It's the same principle; you just need to go through the references.

JWKNYC (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yakity Yak: You got Talkback

Deletion review for Jami Floyd

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jami Floyd. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Schmidt, 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob Reitman

Hello Bonkers. I am in receipt of your rejection of my article on Milwaukee Radio Personality Bob Reitman: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bob_Reitman

According to the message, it was rejected because the article "is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Before I invest time looking for additional sources, please explain why you do not consider the sources cited to be "reliable sources". They are: 1) the major city newspaper The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and 2) Milwaukee's Daily online Magazine, onMilwaukee.com .

Thank you, DSiegfried (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the reliability of these sources. Problem is, there are just bullet listed, rather than being cited in-text via footnotes. And thus, readers would not know which reference references which statement. And lastly, key word: adequately. Surely you can find more than two sources (which is the min. requirement actually, but I suggest you give more considering the text length) Don't be disheartened, make those changes, and submit again. :) Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific source(s) that support the material. In this case, much of the information contained in the article is shared between both of the two references that I cited. Inline footnotes are also usually required for referencing specific facts for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, but since both articles confirm much of the same facts, I can't see where any of the specific facts would be likely to be challenged.

I will do what you suggested but I can't do a lot to differentiate which source references which facts, since both articles are retrospectives of Reitman's career and therefore share much of the same content. DSiegfried (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a norm to have inline citations. One more minor point, you might want to read our manual of style. Which basically covers basic formatting stuff, e.g. Bolding the first mention of the subject, usually in the lead. And formal tones, etc. Good luck. :) cheers Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

for starters, taking clue from relatively better developed articles might be a good choice. At least that's my advice. :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have set the in-line footnotes, added 4 more references and one external link. I think this should satisfy. I am re-submitting. Thanks for your suggestions.DSiegfried (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oliverbailey31 contribution

Hi Bonkers, thank you for reviewing my submission. However, I am confused by the generic notation that my entry "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed". How independent can I get -- these are a range published newspaper and journal articles? All of the information in the entry is factual. It is frustrating to receive what feels like arbitrary notices, without more specific guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverbailey31 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by my babble page; will get back to you. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 15:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

3RD HOME

Hey I am from 3RD HOME. I want to make this 3RD HOME article up to wikipedia standards. What can I do to make it better? What do I need to do? Please let me know your feedback. Thank you- Monika

Hey Bonkers. Would you say this was also a WP:CORP problem? I also notice some of the sources - while independent - are more like infotainment news than real journalism. The submitter - Monika - is a friend of a friend sort of speak and I gave her a few tips on disclosing, using AfC and trying to be neutral, etc. but it looks like they need to wait a few years until they obtain more notability. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Misplaced Pages at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Congratulations for your article about the album Afreaka ! of Demon Fuzz. Jefunky (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what's that, but gee, how can I reject a gift? :P. cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edmund Battersby notable pianist

Hi Bonkers I emailed you about my subject's notability. Pianist Edmund Battersby is included in the encyclopedia, THE ART OF THE PIANO; its performers, literature and recordings.http://en.wikipedia.org/David_DubalAmadeus Press 2004, UK pp35-503 and is a contributing author in REMEMBERING HOROWITZ,125 pianists recall a legend. edited Dubal, David.

can you help me to fix my article.

Thanks!

Mildred Jirak MildredJirak (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Henrik Peschel film director

Hello Bonkers,

firstly I want to mention that I'm a newbie here and I apologize for any mistakes due to my lack of knowledge in contributing for Misplaced Pages.

You declined the submission of German cameraman and film director Henrik Peschel because it is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

I have only entered a brief career overview. His 3 mentioned nominations and awards are documented by sources. SPIEGEL is the most important news magazine in Germany, according to Wiki "one of Europe's largest publications of its kind, similar in style and layout to American news magazines such as Time or Newsweek". Grimme-Preis is according to Wiki "one of the most prestigious awards for German television", Hamburger Abendblatt is the largest Newspaper in Hamburg with a daily circulation of more than 280.000 copies according to Wiki and lastly there is the website of Unerhört music Filmfestival. Henrik Peschels work in film is also supported by data in IMDB.

Could you please give me a hint what other sources you need as proof of the notability of Henrik Peschel.

Thank you.

By the way, his new film Si-o-se Pol is currently in postproduction with a premiere expected in the second quarter this year so there are no reliable news sources yet.

Timothyweber (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Timothy Weber

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyweber (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jami Floyd

Hello! Your submission of Jami Floyd at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

See the DYK nom, where I offered an ALT that was approved. Still interesting enough to draw readers to the article, but in no way to be seen as controversial. Schmidt, 20:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Reviewing the havoc I've created? I get the darnedest WikiLove. Thanks for cleaning my page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to hear that. You're welcome. Cheers, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard

The reason why we don't want the plot of A Good Day to Die Hard to be revealed is because it will spoiled the movie when it will be released in America and Canada at February 14th. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I know you are following the WP:Spoiler faithfully since the movie is out on your country yesterday. But I concerned that with the full plot on that movie, it will spoiled the surprise for the American viewers when that movie comes out in February 14th in America and Canada. I'm not trying to be pushy and all that, I just don't want the American viewers to be spoiled that soon. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

When they search for a film's title, they are already prepared (and they already know) for a full plot that will "spoil the surprise". Disclaimers on the main page cover that as well. I don't want this to escalate into an edit war; maybe we seek an opinion from a third party. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 07:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war as well. I already send the opinion on the third party. I informed Drmargi on this. You're right about you said the spoilers thing. I just worried that the full plot of the movie will impact the box-office budget on US and Canada. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry about my recent actions at you. I was kind of out of line there. I know you we're following WP:Spoilers and doing what you we're supposed to do based oh that. I just don't want the plot of the movie to be spoiled in America and Canada when it gets released in February 14th. I also spoke to another user name Betty Logan on this matter since we don't want a edit war. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thy clown forgiveth thee. Peace. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nickson Fong

On 9 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nickson Fong, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that animator Nickson Fong is the first Singaporean to receive an Academy Award? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nickson Fong. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Nyttend (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ah Boys to Men, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Business Times (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jami Floyd

On 11 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jami Floyd, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jami Floyd. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

KTC (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:United Overseas Bank company logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:United Overseas Bank company logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Chao

On 13 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Chao, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that YouTube personality Peter Chao was forced to study in Canada by his "prostitute mother"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Chao. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Brown

Hi. Please stop misapplying the phrase "POV" to issues to which it does not apply. Facts are not "viewpoints". The Lead sections of biographical articles generally give the reason for which the subject is best known, which can be discerned by virtue of which things the subject first became known for, or by virtue of what aspects of their lives have generated the most media exposure. That George Clooney is best known for his work on ER and his post-ER feature films, as opposed to being in Return of the Killer Tomatoes, isn't "POV". It's an undisputed fact supported by the ratings/box office performance of the former. Similarly, Dan Brown is indeed best known for The Da Vinci Code. That book garnered a great deal of popularity, and generated a global controversy. That's not a "viewpoint", it's a documented fact, one which needs a citation as much as "Christmas falls on December 25" or "France is a country in Europe" need citations (hint: they don't. See this discussion for more on that). To argue that the statement in question is a "viewpoint" implies that it has equal validity with the claim that he is best known for Deception Point, Digital Fortress, Angels & Demons, The Lost Symbol, or the two humor books he wrote with his wife. Are you really so pedantic as to suggest that?? Nightscream (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I made that edit as I have seen many occurences of the removal of "best known" in the lede, e.g. Jack Black. As to what an individual is "best known" for, that really can't be a "fact", as opposed to when Christmas falls on or whether Singapore is a country in Asia. (By the way, then why does Sky need a citation for its daytime colour, blue?) It's comparing a Big Mac with tofu. I tend to feel that "best known" has an element of biasness.; Like I think I have said, it is subject to one's viewpoint. And facts of course are not viewpoints, but then again viewpoints are not facts. On a higher quality basis, does the Michael Jackson page state that Jacko is "best known" for his biggest hit, Thriller? No. Why? Viewpoint. Unless you interview the whole wide world to ask them what they best know Dan Brown for, I think it's best not to use "best known". To prevent a war of some sort, I will just leave it as it is for the moment. Till then, Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Here's a little present...

One of my first acting gigs ever was acting in several scenes in a little film noir piece back in 1999. But the film then-in-progress was not finally completed and released until 2002. Since it was such a strange process, and out of curiosity.. one of those "whatever happened to" moments... I did a little research and was quite surprised. Turns out the indie film The Decay of Fiction had multiple festival releases over many years and lots of repeated coverage in multiple reliable sources. Heck... I even found an entire chapter of a book has been dedicated to an analysis of the film. Meeting WP:NF is a lock... but as I was in the film and wish no calls of COI, I will refrain from completing the article... but I can step back and let another bring the article to fruition. There's plenty there with which to work. If you'd like, please move the draft into your userspace. Best, Schmidt, 05:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

THIS needs a correction: While the film had its "J. Paul Getty Museum premiere" in 2003 (only one of its many non-festival screenings), that section needs to be rewritten to reflect that that was not the film's public premiere. The film had its first festival screening in 2002 at the New York Film Festival. I suppose O'Neill underscores The Getty on his website as it was its premiere in a non-festival setting. THESE dates might be researched and sourced so the "screenings" section can be expanded chronologically. Schmidt, 16:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I see you have more or less corrected it already. :) Apologies for waking up late. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Was doing even more but hit an edit conflict, now resolved. Damn... that thing is sure looking pretty. Almost GA all by itself. Schmidt, 08:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate edit conflicts, do you? Sweet... But yes, almost. I'm currently trying to find sources for the 2003 screening at the Philadelphia International Film Fest. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well... I think that one will be easy. I believe the article on the film is just about ready for mainspace, but I will let you judge the results. Thank you for your terrific input. While the article speaks volumes about the film itself, the article being on an eleven year old avant-garde film, the very first thing I ever did for a film (my participation was made three years before its final release) does nothing to "promote" me. With your eyes and oversite, I think any concerns toward even a "hint" of possible COI have been eliminated. Think to do is fix the cats, remove the Find sources at the top, and then WP:MOVE the thing into mainspace. I will let you decide on a suitable DYK. Schmidt, 08:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for bringing one of the works of Pat O'Neill to the readership. From our various researches, I think his 1989 film Water and Power should be next. Schmidt, 08:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much; you deserve praise too. :) Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Philadelphia International Film Festival

Hello, Bonkers The Clown. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Pratyya 09:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Hello, Bonkers The Clown. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Pratyya 10:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.