Grammaticus Repairo

Coroner's report

You asked at Talk:Steve Irwin: Where is the coroner's report? It has been nearly a week...it seems to me like we should have an official cause of death by now...am I mistaken? Grammaticus Repairo 03:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Coroner's reports take time. For example the most recent inquest published by the Queensland coroner was of a man who died in October 2004 and the inquest findings were published just short of two years later.[1] Similarly the report on the June 2000 fire in a hostel at Childers, Queensland which killed 15 and received international coverage, was published July 2006.[2]--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a distinction between an autopsy report that is ordered by the coroner and presented to the coroner by the examining doctor. That has been completed. An inquest is a court of law. It takes time. Although I am an Australian, I do not feel that it is beholden on me to justify the length of time it may take, I am neither a coroner nor an employee of the justice department. I note for two recent inquests, it has taken two and six years respectively - those are the facts. Another inquest into a diving accident on the reef, seems relatively straight forward also took from the death in November 2003 to March 2006 for the closing of the inquest.[3] Given the rarity of deaths by stingray I would suggest that the matter might not be entirely straightforward and may well be subject to an inquest. In Australia the powers that be have little capacity to hasten such processes and I see no reason why they would want to - the Childers Backpacker Hostel was much higher profile with 15 deaths and issues of negligence - hastening the inquest would not have achieved anything. --Golden Wattle ^talk 11:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • A news link about the autopsy report. I am unaware of a coroner's report that has not taken years to prepare. I have no opinion about whether that is right or wrong, in fact for the few inquests I have folowed it seems right, it seems the one opprtunity to get the facts straight in an non-adversarial way and possibly produce recommendations that make things better. As above, given the few deaths by stingray to date I am sure this case won't be so straightforward either. For example, think about the code that has developed around Whale watching - in particular in response to Conservation aspects - any inquest will surely have to deal with whether Irwin was too close to the wildlife and whether that was appropriate. Not a simple question or answer.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Weird Al" Yankovic

I've reverted your edit to "Weird Al" Yankovic because the material you posted in didn't really fit with the rest of the content around it and I couldn't quite tell where you were going with it. --Wafulz 02:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Corzine's residence

While I agree that Corzine's city of residence is worth including in the article, the Drumthwacket article claims that Corzine lives there part-time, implying that he splits his time between the official mansion in Princeton and, presumably, a private residence in Hoboken. If he does not, in fact, live part-time at Drumthwacket, that article ought to be fixed. However, if he does split his time between the two residences, this fact ought to be included in any reference to his residences in the Jon Corzine article. However, if we change the sentence in the introductory paragraph to reflect this information, it makes the statement rather unwieldy. I would therefore suggest that we keep the residence reference, but relocate it to some other position within the article, thereby allowing the introductory paragraph to flow more smoothly. What do you think? -Grammaticus Repairo 23:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• As I understand it, he spends much of his time in Hoboken. It is his permanent residence, even if he's living in Drumthwacket for his role as governor. I think it deserves fairly prominent placement, even if not in the lead Alansohn 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one who is not a resident of New Jersey, I am curious as to why it is so significant that he lives and spends substantial amounts of time in Hoboken? Obviously, of course, one would think that he, as governor, ought to spend a fair amount of time in the state capital (whenever he isn't busy settling disputes between talk-show hosts and basketball teams), as well as spend time in various cities throughout the state he is supposed to govern. But does Hoboken have some particular reputation of which I should be aware? Just curious... -Grammaticus Repairo 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's always baffled me. Hoboken is across the Hudson River from Manhattan. New Jersey can be reached by road from anywhere. Alansohn 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Chicago

I am the Director of WP:WPChi, which has begun tagging articles with {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. This is a newly active project. In order to quickly assess all the thousands of articles within the domain of the project I have created a list of categories that I am having a bot tag. A bot is adding the tag to virtually all articles and subcategories that fall under either Category:Chicago, Illinois or Category:Cook County, Illinois and a few other categories except for some subcategories of Category:Chicago railroads. As you can see if an article includes the Category:University of Chicago alumni it is tagged. What would make sense is that you might manually change the tag to {{ChicagoWikiProject|importance=low}}. This would indicate that only a very select few Chicagoans would attach significance to the subject's role as a Chicagoan. As an encyclopedia, if an article wishes to have such a category, we should provide succinct information on the significance of it in such a way. Let me know if this is a problem. If this is truly a problem, you should consider whether you want this subject to be listed among University of Chicago alumni? If you wish to retain this category affiliation, are you averse to informing readers that the subject has very limited affiliation with Chicago by way of proper use of the tag? Going forward periodically (maybe twice a year) a bot will probably recheck these categories. Eventually, we may have a bot check more routinely. Therefore, the options to you if this is a problem are

1. Manually remove the tag every time it appears (which could be very often in the future).
2. Remove the category that the bot is identifying (University of Chicago alumni).
3. Convert the tag to {{ChicagoWikiProject|importance=low}}, which I believe is the proper solution.
4. Take action to have the bot abandon the task of autotagging and get people to tag the thousands of articles by hand.

You can see that the bot has helped us get from this 14 April 2007 summary to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chicago articles by quality statistics. The bot has been on hiatus this week but is only about half way through.

In case you are worried, it is in no way a bad reflection on an article to have importance=low tags. Even one of our few importance=top article for WP:WPChi (Talk:Michael Jordan) has a an importance=low tag. Nonetheless, it has become a featured article. Many important articles have importance=low tags from tangentially related projects. Tagging less relevant articles with importance=low should not cause problems and actually should assist in (1) building associations across projects and (2) bringing higher visibility to a subject or project.

If you are worried about clutter you may wish to try using {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed ongoing reversion wars with the bot at Jon Corzine. PLEASE contact me if the none of the solutions above are palatable TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that two removals of your project tag constitute "ongoing reversion wars", but I suppose that is a matter of opinion. However, I would like to note that I did, in fact, choose one of "the solutions above" that you listed in your post. I decided to implement option #1 ("Manually remove the tag every time it appears"). You appear to be upset because I did not pick option #3 ("which [you] believe is the proper solution"). Is option #1 not so "palatable" to you after all?

The fact is, Jon Corzine's article does not belong in your project. For that matter, including all "alumni of local universities that have become notable article subjects for non-Chicago related roles, which you list in your 'grading scheme', is simply absurd. I'm quite sure that Chicago has a rich enough history and plenty of 'favorite sons' to keep the Chicago project folks busy for a long time. I'm also certain that, when they run out of articles directly related to Chicago, there are plenty of other articles that need improvement which are of substantially more importance to the majority of Chicagoans than those entries belonging to people whose sole link to the city consists of having once attended UC. -Grammaticus Repairo 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in support of Grammaticus Repairo. I understand the purpose of sending a bot through as a starting point by going through categories. However, I fail to see the justification of assuming that all University of Chicago alumni having any meaningful connection to the city, solely based on their attendance at the school. I would strongly suggest excluding college alumni categories from this bot, as they are likely to have extremely high false positive rates. Removing the U of C cat makes no sense for Corzine, as he is indeed an alumnus. Setting Importance=low still implies that there is some meaningful connection to the city. Removing the tag every time it's reinserted is a rather poor choice, though we are given no alternative. I strongly suggest eliminating the alumni categories or at least adding a list of entries to be bypassed. Making your bot's life easier should not burden other Wikipedia users. Alansohn 02:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if either of you saw my comment on Talk:Jon Corzine yesterday. It is here. I will restate it

“ This person is of extreme importance to select Chicagoans. More precisely, he is an extremely important member of the University of Chicago alumni network. Probably, most students in the business school, law school public policy school [[probably]] (sic) aspire to one of his current or past roles. ”

In general, alumni of a university who have become notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page are similarly important in the sense that they are role models for current students please see the following for an explanation on the project priority scale. Recall the priority scale is not really an indicator of the importance of a person to the reader, but rather a reminder of where editors associated with a project should place their emphasis. The Chicago tag is an indicator that editors who are interested in Chicago related topics should be aware that a subject has a relationship to Chicago of some form.

WikiProject article importance scheme

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Do not give this rating to any Chicago Project article without first getting Project team consensus. Subject matter is a must-have for any encyclopedia, and would be highly associated with Chicago or Chicagoland. Examples would be certain Hall of Fame athletes, world class institutions, important national politicians, world class buildings or structures, or must-see tourist attractions. For instance, Michael Jordan is rated Top-importance because as an elite basketball player in Chicago, his accomplishments have also affected and inspired people worldwide. On the other hand, an athlete who plays briefly in Chicagoland before going on to a Hall of Fame career does not count. An example of this would be Dominik Hasek, who has been honored extensively for his hockey accomplishments, but has played for several teams after the Blackhawks. The subject's role as a Chicagoan or person associated with Chicagoland must also be emphasized. This is easily seen at President Barack Obama, who even though he was born in Hawaii, his article is rated Mid-importance by the Hawaii WikiProject and Top-importance by the Chicago WikiProject. (Note that since this project covers all of Cook County and Chicagoland related articles, the words "Chicago" and "Chicagoland" may be used interchangeably in this documentation.)	Chicago
High	Must have had (1) a large impact on Chicagoans and an impact on non-Chicagoans, across a couple of generations in a role as a person associated with Chicagoland or as a Chicagoland institution, or (2) a prominent national and/or international role that had a large impact on non-Chicagoans and an impact on Chicagoans. Subject contributes a depth of knowledge. Examples would be National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago, any currently serving U.S. Congressmen from Chicagoland, important Chicago athletes, or important institutions.	Chicago Board of Trade Building
Mid	Must have had a role that was (1) important to Chicagoans as a person or institution associated with Chicagoland, (2) a prominent national and/or international role that had a large impact on non-Chicagoans, but a limited role to Chicagoans, (3) of moderate local, national and/or international importance. Subject fills in more minor details. Examples would be interesting buildings, personalities or architectural elements, or nationally prominent individuals who did not play a significant role as Chicagoans before rising to such prominence. Many current and recent statewide elected Illinois politicians would fall under type (3), unless they rose from prominent Chicago positions.	Hillary Clinton
Low	Subject is notable to select Chicagoans for its role as a person or institution associated with Chicagoland. Subject is not particularly notable or significant to a wider range of readers. Examples would be (1) other buildings and narrow topics, (2) professional athletes of moderate importance who briefly played in Chicago, or (3) alumni of local colleges and universities that have become notable for non-Chicago related roles. Note: Persons may be listed in Chicago related categories due to their place of birth, place where they were reared as youths, place where they were educated (high school, college, graduate school), place where they performed their notable service/acts, or place where they resided as adults. Generally, an article subject notable enough to merit a biographical Wikipedia entry is a role model (albeit positive or negative) for many who are current and recent students of the institution of which they are an alumnus, and who have an interest in that particular field of notability. For example, notable politicians may be important to law students, and/or government and history majors; Wall Street chieftains may be important to business school students, and/or economics and finance majors; and famous scientists may be important to medical students and/or other science majors. However, alumni of local colleges and universities who have not stayed in the Chicago area will be of less importance to the project and thus have a lower "Importance" rating than "people from the Chicago area" who are more likely to have roots in the region and/or have stayed in the area.	Smith Museum of Stained Glass Windows
NA	Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.	Category:Chicago
???	Subject importance has not yet been assessed.	???

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for the use of the word probably if it gave you the impression that I was unsure whether a former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, United States Senator and current Governor of New Jersey is a role model based on his role as a former Chicagoan to select current Chicagoans (i.e, current and recent students at the University of Chicago). If my use of the word probably caused you to fail to understand the fact that he is a role model for Chicagoans based on his role as a former Chicagoan, I apologize. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it you are invited. --TonyTheTiger 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol fact

Can you tell me why you deleted alcohol related facts on Fareed here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I wrote my thoughts here prior to making changes to the article (back in, ahem, January), they explain my opinion regarding the inclusion of the "alcohol related facts". I am happy to continue discussion on Talk:Fareed Zakaria. -Grammaticus Repairo

Ok sorry I didnt see them before. I've replied on the talk page here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

About your removal here, the source seems reliable and you could have attempted to rewrite instead of deleting it two times. I did a tiny bit rewrite for these few lines. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

{{fact}} tags

Hello, Grammaticus. I saw that you had removed the {{fact}} tags from Brian Griffin - I've reverted your edits, but have significantly reduced the number of tags in the article. If you again notice an article like that (with excessive tagging), you may want to simply reduce the number of tags rather than removing them entirely. These tags are important for alerting readers that information may not be 100% factual, and editors that the article needs attention. Also, removing cleanup tags completely without fixing the associated problem could be interpreted as vandalism. I can tell that wasn't your intention, but just wanted to bring this to your attention for future reference. Thanks, and happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of television programs based on video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Final boss (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) 09:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Unseen character, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Grammaticus Repairo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Grammaticus Repairo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Grammaticus Repairo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)