You forgot to move the pages User:Jared/Olympics infobox/Nations participating and User:Jared/Olympics infobox/Athletes participating to Template:Olympics infobox/Nations participating and Template:Olympics infobox/Nations participating, respectively, or is it intentional? Will you do similar pages for the "Officialy opened by", "Judge's oath", "Athlete's oath" and "Olympic torch" parameters? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't do the Athletes participating one because after making it, I realized that about half the pages had more information on them than the template would include, namely the number of men and women. At the time of creating the template, I wasn't sure whether it would be appropriate or not to include the division, but now I'm iffy. As for the nations thing, I'm not sure. Maybe I just forgot? What do you think I should do as far as the other things/this? _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go ahead. The infobox is nothing more than a summary and thus should not be restricted by the detail level of a specific info on the article body. As you said, most pages might display more info, but others do not (yet), so you probably should move the template subpage, as is (total of athletes). The other parameters would do nicely, too ;) Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your pictures of action for the Cross country skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Would you be interested in providing the same thing for the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2007 as well? Please advise. Chris 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images would be about the events that occurred during the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2007 in Sapporo, Japan. This was for cross country skiing, nordic combined, and ski jumping. Its official website is http://www.sapporo2007.com and it is shown both in English and Japanese about Fair use. I have been working with another user and we both agree that it needs more images than the one it has now in order to get it up to GA or FA status. I hope this helps you out on this. If it does not, please advise. Chris 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chris 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up to your e-mail, I managed to find a location on where you can get the Sapporo photos. It is called Nordic Focus, a Swiss-based site with its link being http://www.menzpics.ch/info/indexfisevent.html. From what I have seen, registration is required, but they do have great photographs of the athletes involved in this, along with biathlon. I hope this helps. Chris 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possiblity of consideration is http://www.eurosport.com where you can click on the Wintersports section and it should give you access to cross country skiing, nordic combined, and ski jumping. They have sections in there which show both video highlights and still images as well. Hopefully you will have better luck with that than the Swiss site mentioned earlier. Hope this helps. Chris 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I was not active on Wikipedia at the time of your message. In addition, I would probably not have time to participate in this project. I attempted to e-mail this to you, but I was informed that you had either not set up an e-mail address or that you had chosen not to receive e-mail from others. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I thought my e-mail was working. Anyway, no problem! Everything turned out fine without your response. Thanks for acknowledging my posting anyway! _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the poll to which you just voted is not open as yet. See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea would be to chose a irrational number - say "pi" for example. Every day you move along the number, four digits at a time, until you get a number between 1 and c.1300 - that number is the featured article for tomorrow, which gives everyone time to clean it up

You then make a long list in alphabetical order including all the FAs, like this: 1 Abacus 2 Aborigine 3 Animal ..... 1298 Zulu This could be done with the # symbol. So every day, when new FAs are chosen they are added to the list in the proper place. This would continually shuffle the list, so although you could predict the number for a day months in advance - you could never predict the FA that would be in that position. This makes the process entirely transparent and fair.

That is the whole system. But if people want there can be a process for "override" say for the world cup or something, if a lot of users nominated it. If people are nervous that certain subject are over-represented in the FAs - then there can be a simple rule to precluded articles on the same subject being nominated within say a month of each other - but I don't see that as being necessary.

What do you thing? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. I'm not understanding you fully as far as the pi thing, but everything else makes a lot of sense. I'm glad you allowed for things such as real world events, so that the process is not totally secluded from the rest of the goings-on in WP. It seems very reasonable, but maybe just a few clarifications as far as the random numbers thing. Maybe have a page with the random numbers already generated on it, so that we don't miss numbers, and highlight as we go. I don't know where you would propose this... you can take care of that. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree! The pi thing is simple. Pi goes on forever and is a random string of numbers. An infinate supply of random numbers that is transparent, so we can use that to pick a number between 1 and 1,300. Here are the first 2 million digits of pi: [1] You see? Anyway - I have nevver done this before - but I think I put up a valid proposal here: Wikipedia:SweeTFA proposition. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I didn't read your "published" proposal, but what do you plan on doing with articles that have already been chosen recently? Are they taken out of the list or are they up for the ability to be thrown into the mix again just like all the others? That would make it a true random sample, and since the probability of picking the same one twice is minute, this is not a big deal (but as the days go on, the probability of it occurring again is higher...). Overall, though, well thought out. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An FA that has been TFA is removed from the list. Since there are so many, it is only fair that each one gets one turn max. So when I think about it, about 1/3 of the FA have already been chosen - so the list will only have 800 initial entries. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

No words can express my reaction to your latest message and what I'm feeling right now, so I'll put aside my huuuuge Oscars thanking speech (kidding obviously... it's not that huge :P) and thank you in the most sincere way, Jared :) It's been my true pleasure to work on this project with you and Andrwsc. I hope and believe we can keep this up for the longest time possible ;) Cheers! Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You opened the 2012 Summer Olympics bids peer-review, but with my latest edits, I think it is very suitable to go to FAC, don't you?. I'm just pondering if we can move it to "2012 Summer Olympics bids", like we talked before. If we do, other similar articles (2008, 2010, 2014) would have to be moved also. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just briefly: That barnstar was well deserved; I hadn't realized you didn't have one! But regardless of the "material" possession, you and I (and others) know that you've done plenty of noteworthy work! As far as the Olympic bids thing, I was eventually going to get around to it, but you've done an outstanding job so far, as I have been keeping up with your diffs. I'll have to take a closer look at the page again, but I think it is in very good shape for FAC. And, if you think so, we should move it. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jared, for fixing the dashes on the article. I never get them right! :S Oh, and even though you won't vote on the FAC, your comment is a transparent Support ;) Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, I removed the fair use images from your olympics subpage. While the templates are great work (and I left the no-wiki'd examples for people to know the syntax) The displaying of fair use images anywhere in userspace is prohibited, and theres currently an effort at WP:ANI at this section putting out a concentrated effort to finally get them all. Thank you for your understanding. -M^ask 03:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]