User talk:Pentawing

Awarded to Pentawing for nearly getting Michigan State Capitol to FA staus, -- Spawn Man

Note:

• When leaving starting a new topic, please place it at the bottom of the page.
• If the message is for an ongoing topic, please place it under that topic.

Thanks. Pentawing 18:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion archives: 1 | 2

Adminship?

Hi, you seem like the kind of editor we need as an admin. Level headed and well thought out. There is a fad currently on WP:RFA that a number of editors think people need a large number of Wikipedia space edits too, but I think you have enough to show involvement and demonstrate you can be trusted. You may get some opposition based on WP space edits, but don't stress it, I think your record will carry you well. If you're interested, spend some time reading through the Wikipedia:Administrator's reading list and let me know. I'll follow this, so you can reply right here if you like. - Taxman ^Talk 11:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Providence, Rhode Island - image question

I am thinking of putting this article up for FAC down the road. However, I need your opinion concerning the images. Thanks. Pentawing 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd look into finding a replacement for Image:ProvidenceRI flag.png, since the Flags of the World licensing terms aren't really compatible with Wikipedia. Other than that, the images look good. --Carnildo 07:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how to obtain a free copy of the city's flag, given that I am not much of an artist nor am I sure that the Providence website would provide one. If you know of some other means of obtaining such an image, please tell me. Pentawing 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

One option would be to grab an image off the Providence website, and use it under "fair use": it's a pretty clear-cut case, and doesn't have the explicit "no commercial or political use" restrictions of the FotW image. Alternately, if the current version of the flag is old enough (pre-1977), the official version of the flag is probably in the public domain. Also, if the city seal is old enough, it's not copyrighted, and you could make a version of the flag by putting the seal in the middle of a rectangle and coloring it. --Carnildo 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Michigan State Capitol - images

During the article's FAC, you mentioned having several images of the building's legislative chambers. Out of curiosity, do you indeed have them? Pentawing 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not in an accessible form. The majority of photos I've taken are currently in storage in my grandmother's attic about 3000 miles from here, and there's no good way for me to get to them. --Carnildo 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Michigan and Coca Cola

A little later on, I was thinking about the story I read. At the time, I think it mentioned that other schools were considering doing it as well. I wasn't disagreeing with the fact that others might have, just expressing that I hadn't heard of them yet. BringCocaColaBack 04:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

UM Alumni List

I have tried to include a much-shortened list of alumni as a compromise in that edit war. I'm not an expert on UM, so the list could probably use a little pruning. We could probably shorten in down to 5 names - G. Ford., J.E. Jones, L. Liu, A. Miller, and T. Brady. Lovelac7 23:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing university infoboxes

I noticed you changed the infobox on Illinois Institute of Technology back to an infobox that I had tried to avoid purposely due to a bot which keeps going around changing things on the pages that include that box. I've commented on the bot's owner's page (User talk:Netoholic), who continually gets complaints from other authors, and always seems to be by himself arguing for his way while most everyone else is noting that his use of terminology is incorrect (Namely, the use of "Staff" instead of "Faculty," a huge difference at virtually all American universities. Some had complained that the usage of "faculty" varied in Europe, but instead of sticking with separate infoboxes for separate classes, or coming up with a unified infobox that supported both, he simply changed the whole thing to the European standard, regardless of where the university is.) I had change the infobox to its previous state after noticing it was used at University of Michigan while it was a front-page featured article - and so I assumed it was better to use something used on a featured article, which is supposed to be the best of Wikipedia, than to use a box that is incorrect and complaints about which have been ignored.

Thanks for the update. I'm not great with the Infoboxes, so I wasn't sure what was/wasn't deprecated or what was/wasn't possible. That is definitely a workable and fairly elegant solution. Let's hope the bot doesn't mess with it, though - for a while, it was changing even the word "facutly" in the "Noted Faculty" section to "staff." -Duncanr 17:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:ClevelandCityFlag.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:ClevelandCityFlag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thuresson 05:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Boston Media

Other cities also have newspapers and the page still links to those. I also don't know of any other city that has an entire blog network devoted to covering it.

Suggestion for addition to Ann Arbor, Michigan article

I noticed that you have been a major contributor the above-referenced featured article. Conspicously absent is a category listing Noted Residents - Past and Present. Rather than add something major like this to a featured article - I'd rather see this suggestion discussed first by the principals. Hokeman 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Hi Pentawing,

I'm working on Japan and hope one day to bring it to featured status, or if that's not possible, at least the same level of quality. If you have any comments on the article, they'd be most welcome in any form at Talk:Japan.

Best regards,

Fg2 05:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

WXYZ

Hi, why the "Clean-up" on WXYZ? Current branding always goes before history. Why the edits? This has been a daily battle since this article was expanded by a former a staffer with other past and current employees to keep the article intact. We wanted to give the station the credible entry it deserves and correct earlier misconceptions. A number of other stub articles have been created from this expansion. All the information has been corrected and expanded and is verifiable first hand or from published history. Bold italicizing is not uncommon in large reference texts to draw attention to certain elements. In fact that is part of you own editing policy "highlighting important phrases and/or passages that are important to understanding the article (through bold type and italics). " WxyzdanwxyzdanWxyzdan

The formatting presents a flow from the station’s basic history into its most dominate product (news) the present news department and how it evolved. Then from former key staffers to the present day management structure. The news dept. in a sense is large enough to warrant its own heading as an entity… almost “an article in an article.”

In trade and industry based resources the news department’s current status is always prominent over how it got there. I could agree with moving the current management up though. If you have any ideas? The Point of View we knew would be a shaky balance to emphasize the station’s status and embellishment from bias. (Which as you might know is always a large commodity at TV shops). Because this station does have some skeletons in the closet but how far does one go with that on a reference article. We’re figured someone could come along and edit the POV into a neutral, more encyclopedic view. Now I took your own guidelines as the starting author of this article as to how it should be written. Bold-italicizing is intended to draw the reader into key elements (almost as a sub-headline). And POV was a big part of highlighting some of the major elements of WXYZ. Some things like the former promotional campaign was an actual campaign that someday I’m sure will be expanded into an article as the first major news promotional campaigns in this market. If you can contact me about editing or rearranging things more sequentially I’m all for it. I’m a little burned out on other users (blueboy) cluttering and editing big chunks into misinformation into poor English under the catch-all excuse of “Clean-up.” Wxyzdan 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)WxyzdanWxyzdan 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

U of M template and Ohio State

Could you provide some assistance in creating an Ohio State University template? I ask because I saw you added the U of M template to the Michian-Ohio State Rivalry page. Rkevins82 06:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(insert joke about OSU) Thanks for adding the images to the Michigan Wolverines article. Go Blue! :) Isopropyl 05:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought it would be a nice example of cooperation in the spirit of wikipedia for rivals to unite for its betterment. Let me look at what is out there and I will let you know. Thanks.Rkevins82 06:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

US Collaboration of the month

You have voted for Omaha, Nebraska on the USCOTM. It was selected to be this months's collaboration. You are invited to help to contribute in order to improve Omaha, Nebraska in any way possible.

DMA

Who in this Wikipedia world came to the judgement that a station's DMA should not be in the side infobox or in the main description of the article? The DMA is almost everything... its value, its revenue. This is not just a ratings box designation for Neilsen. Could you please let me know who created these station article guidelines? I' like to show them the difference in national sales between Detroit and Traverse City, or how about Boston and Springfield. Wxyzdan

The DMA information already appears in the Detroit broadcasting infobox at the bottom of the article. If you don't agree with me concerning the DMA, look at other TV articles where the DMA is hardly ever mentioned within the article's main body. The reasoning, from what I have observed so far, is as follows:

By saying what city and/or area is served, one can infer whether the station is a "big city" station or a "small city" station. In recent times, DMAs are generally unstable for several markets (e.g. Detroit was once the 10th largest DMA in the US. Now it is the 11th, with Houston taking the 10th spot). DMAs focus on an entire market which is served by many stations (and hence are more appropriate in articles describing those markets as a whole). The WXYZ article only covers one station in question. As a final note, I am hoping this conversation doesn't escalate (I was hesitant to edit the article last time seeing how you seem "possessive" of it, but after seeing some glaring formatting and spelling mistakes I had to fix them). You have to realize that every article here is open to everyone, whether they have good intentions or bad. It is best to try to work with these people unless the edits are clearly vandalism. Otherwise, you might escalate the situation with someone else to the point where arbitration must be called in (something that I wish to avoid). PentawingTalk 02:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wxyzdan"

That doesn't really help answer the original question... who came up with the stations' guidelines? Do you know? I don’t disagree with you, I disagree with the whole format.

Market size is an industry-wide standard used to define each station. It’s prominent in industry trades and employment and ad listings. It’s a guideline used to determine a station’s ownership value, revenue, operating ratio, overall and departmental budgeting, network compensation, local ad rates, national sales share, employment, employee compensation, corporate standing, contribution to corporate revenue and corporate standing. A station is also defined by its market’s demographics, per-household income, per-household spending, low-income versus higher-income viewers. Channel 7 rates high in several different demos. In high income areas of both Oakland and Washtenaw counties, middle income areas of Macomb and western Wayne counties and lower income areas of Monroe and southern Wayne and Oakland counties.

This whole “big city” – “small city” interpretation of market size is a bit novice.

You’ve interpreted that a single station in a market with is equal to its market competitors simply because its one station in one market. In Detroit there’s a vast gap in revenue and operating expense between Channel 4 and Channel 20.

Going from 10th to 11th is also not considered unstable and neither is going from 5th to 11th in the last 20 years. That’s a downward trend that can be projected. An unstable market would be moving up and down the DMA rankings over a few years. Changing market size is by virtue of census and economic trends. Falling in the market ranks also does not mean a change or downsize in a station’s operations or revenue. Each market is unique. Detroit is only second to New York in people who actually watch TV. The Flint-Saginaw market does not generate the same ad revenue for automotive spots that markets ahead or behind it do. Viewers in that DMA have a loyalty toward domestic vehicles so car-makers don’t have to pay as much to advertise there and other car-makers are not going to bother with a lower income DMA.

I also notice none of the information for this article was comprehensive until I sat down with three books and a number of former co-workers to a least make it verifiable. I could say you’re a little possessive of your own creations going beyond grammatical errors. Its seems everybody has to have their own stamp on someone else’s work. Maybe I should take my own work and restore it back to what was there. Wxyzdan

Australian Catholic University

Thankyou for the constructive criticism, it is much appreciated. I realise that it needs a lot of work and your points will be a good basis for improvements. I had moved away from the article for a while as I did not really know where to take it. Cheers!!! Soundabuser 10:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: advice

Well unless I'm missing something, I don't see much of a problem to be honest. There's not any harsh words I can see, much less any disruptive editing. Just take a breather, and if the issue is stressing you just go work on another article and take a longer breather. Some things are clearer from a distance. That article seems to be pretty good, and there are plenty in much worse shape to work on. Or just discuss more and give some time for differences of opinion to be worked out. I don't see any traffic on the article's talk page for instance. For the specific issue of the DMA, it seems worth linking to, just maybe not in the first sentence in the lead, that's excessive. In the infobox seems like a perfect place to me. But I could be wrong if the DMA isn't seen as that important by anyone else that matters to the given issue. - Taxman ^Talk 01:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Detroit

Thanks for the info. If you look at the FAs that have been on the front page, most have well exceeded the recommended size, with footnotes and photos taking up a large amount of space. I don't think we can get it below 55kb without compromising on the article's comprehensiveness. Having too many sub-articles is also a concern, interrupting the general flow of the article.

With respect to the additional photos being requested, the DMC is a bit of a conundrum since it's several different hospitals that are fairly well spread out. Absent buying a plane and shooting in flight, I can't see it. I'm not sure how valuable a picture like that or one picture of one or two hospitals would import to the article. Likewise, the urban prairie request would show an empty field next to an abandoned house, maybe (if you're lucky) an animal somewhere in the shot. Even assuming you get a raccoon in there, the sense of the desolation would be hard to capture in a photo,youhave to actually be there.

Hope this helps. Jtmichcock 11:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I would point out that Scotland in the High Middle Ages got FA status at over 100kb and the Gerald Ford article that I got approved was nearly 50kb. They do make some allowances on FAC for the size of photos and accompanying text, as well as the footnotes. My concern is that if we make it too small, we are compromising the quality of writing. From my view, the writing should come first and not an arbitrary size limit. The article is 58kb now and I think removing substantial text just to get it past FAC (and then utting it back in) is a bit disingenuous at best; particularly since I think that the article, in order to be more comprehensive, should be around 65kb.

In terms of the requested photos, I am going to try to get downtown to take some myself. As far as the DMC, the best photo I can envision is the entrace to Receiving's ER, one of the busiest in the nation. I do have quite a bone to pick over the photo of 8 Mile from the west side. Having been on the road many times, there is very little difference between 8 Mile on the east side (which is depicted) vs. 8 Mile on the west side. In terms of the remaining pics, I agree the People Mover would be appropriate. As to the factory - it's hard to distinguish between a factory inside the city limits between one outside. Urban prarie, as I note above, is something that had to be experienced firsthand - a picture could not do it justice.

Hope this can be considered. Jtmichcock 03:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a couple of new pics to the page. In the media section is a pic of the Free Press Marathon and in the Transportation section is a People Mover photo. Jtmichcock 02:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A few notes on the revisions: 1) I reinserted the Time cover. The criteria on fair use has been more than met with the topic of the article (greener cars) being discussed at length inside the article. 2) I put the photo of the DIA back into the article. It seemed too bizaare to have a section on culture without the one photo we have from the cultural center. 3) I'm really not happy about deleting the sports team chart. Although my contribution to the chart was insignificant, a lot of people put some effort into the chart and that sort of preparation does impress. Encyclopedically, it's also extremely useful to have such an outline. I will not reinsert now, but after the FAC it should go back. 4) On the task list, you mention a need to focus on the conflict between the city and suburbs inside the Government section. From what I can see, that's done and this item should be removed. 5) The added request for photos of the CAYMC belies the fact that the building is a standard, non-descript office building that looks completely boring. I don't believe that the article would be in any way enhanced by its inclusion. Also', the photo of the Cadillac statute has the CAYMC in the background. 6) As to Cass Tech H.S., I think that would be more appropriate for the DPS article. 7) Since the photo for the People Mover is in the People mover article, I don't think we need another. That's all for now, although I am still looking. Jtmichcock 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that Chicago, Illinois has been nominated for featured article status and it clocks in at 71 kb with no inline citations! The article is confusing as heck in parts. You may want to wait and nominate the Detroit article in a couple days. The contrast is rather dramatic and may enhance its chances to gain featured status. Jtmichcock 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Concerning external links to University of Michigan-related articles

If you disagree with my edits please discuss them on the relevant talk pages for the articles in question. Don't just make blanket threats about having me blocked. And I don't appreciate your comments about using the sandbox instead. A little civility goes a long way, sir.

• I apologize for my rash message to you, but unfortunately there had been a spike in vandalism to articles that I have been watching in recent days, primarily by those behind IP addresses (anonymous users). Some are trivial but many are egregious (which consists of repeating the questionable edit when it had been reverted and/or spreading such edits to other articles). Because of this, I have taken a dim, if not harsh, view of such users and would not hesitate to revert their edits and give a stern warning. Since your message implies that you are not such an user, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. However, if you wish to avoid another occurrence like this, I suggest you create your own account (which is easy to do) and build up some trustworthy edits. That way, you would be seen more as a valuable contributor rather than a reckless vandal (since an IP address can easily be used by other people, while a registered account's log-on is only known to the person who, hopefully, created it). Pentawing^Talk 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)