User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive001

MAR 2005 - DEC 2006

Archive of a lot of old junk.

Welcome!

Hi Wahkeenah, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.

Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.

How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.

Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.

Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.

Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.

Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.

Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 11:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Wahkeenah/Archive001

Archive001

Nationals

Ok so what, who cares, they way i see it is that he is just pointing out a bit a triva, which i must say i never noticed my self but i do see where he is coming, your acting like he is rewriting the bible. It all came down to the wording, which i'll admit at frist was very vague and gave the impression that it did come from senators, which now it does not. And as for when you grew up, well good for you, maybe you should build a time machine, go back to the 60's, smoke a "dubie", and chill out. You ranting is getting old and tiresome. BTW sig you edits , becaus peopel might think your trolling or being a vandala. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These various paragraphs are all over the place. Hard to follow. FYI, most of us in the 60s did *not* use any drugs stronger than Coca-Cola... which had been cocaine-free for generations. The dopes who used dope were the headline-makers. No fun writing about the sober majority.

I gather I should not take "Don't fret, be bold" very literally. - W.

I do sign them, except when I forget to log on. - Wah-kee-nah.

As for Union Park i dont know, i kew it burnt down in the 20's or 30's or something, family lived a couple of block away on 25th street, no i am not that old. As for being bold, it a matter of interperation, you have to remember that is a Encylopedia and personal opinion should be refrained from being interjected, an idea than many wiki users do not adher to, at least thats my my opinion. As for your sig, it best to use ~~~~, it woros better that way. No offence taken i hope, i can get a bit steam headed and short tempered my self. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might be thinking about the Oriole Park which burned in 1944 and about which I wrote an article the other day. I have a soft spot for the Orioles, as my Uncle lived near Baltimore and took us to an Orioles-Yanks game in 1964 that featured a huge comeback for the O's and I was hooked. He called Memorial Stadium "Babe Ruth Stadium", and there was a sign to that effect there for awhile, but it was mainly a memorial to the war dead. I live in Minneapolis and was privileged to be in the Dome when Cal Ripken got his 3,000th hit. Since I'm a newbie here, and because you have been close to the subject, maybe you could critique the Oriole Park article?

I don't quite get what you mean about the Wahkeenah 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC). - Wahkeenah.

Aha, now I get it. If I use 4 tildes, it will substitute my signature. Nifty.

It occurs to me that these discussion pages is the place to vent the steam; basically brainstorming; and consensus can be reached without polluting the encyclopedia content. And I think that passion for a subject is to be distinguished from those who do overt vandalism, like trashing and vulgarizing, and who are basically morons (oops, there I go again). Wahkeenah 08:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frank Howard and upper deck home runs - seems to me he hit more than one. But I will leave you these references and defer to you. *[1]

[2]
Last Sunday I witnessed that there are at least three seats painted white in the RFK outfield.

NRA

NRA, huh? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was an earlier reference in one of the threads, to someone maybe vandalizing a page about the National Rifle Association, so I was thinking NRA. Since NRA also stood for National Recovery Act during the 1930s, one of FDR's agencies, I borrowed Richard Armour's joke: he said that the National Recovery Act was dedicated to saving "the rare Blue Eagle". To get the joke, the reader had to already know that the posters advertising the National Recovery Act all featured a drawing of a spread-eagle rendered in blue. Or is this explanation overkill? Wahkeenah 08:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sulphur Dell

I thought "Mere words cannot adequately describe this eccentric place" was highly POV and not encyclopedic. Rick K 20:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

We're really not supposed to have POV in any articles, so if you run across them, you can always reword them. Rick K 20:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if the "and they stink" line were attributed, it would be okay to keep. It all depends on if it trips your POV meter when you read it. Rick K 21:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

More on Comerica

I can't disagree that baseball is less popular in the general culture than it once was, but as far as the number of paying customers go, it hasn't really slipped in that area. The old ballparks that seated 55,000 would rarely sell out; their per-game attendance was not much different than it is at ballparks today (actually, today's attendance figures are some of the highest in history). I regularly went to games at Tiger Stadium in the '80s when the team was good, and even then, crowds would typically be around 20-30,000.

There is one big difference between today's parks and the old ones, though (which I forgot to mention earlier). Tiger Stadium had the upper deck directly above the lower deck, which resulted in some obstructed seats but also a lot of very good upper-deck seats. With that two-tiered seating system, you could cram in a lot of seats. In the new parks, the upper deck is always set back behind the lower deck to avoid obstruction, and this limits the number the quality seats you can have. The upper deck at Comerica is pretty far from the action, and I personally wouldn't think of sitting in the back half of it. The players look like ants from there. I can't imagine adding another 10,000 seats. Where could they go? Funnyhat 01:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Called Shot

Perhaps this should be it's own entry? You certainly have pleanty of info on the matter.

"Frankford Stadium"

To answer your question, in the future, if you create a similar accidental title error, you can just add {{delete}} to the top of the article, or, even better, {{db|reason}} (where you replace "reason" with an explanation 'mistake in article name' or whatever the case may be). That lists it at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, where any admin can delete it. Niteowlneils 14:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Braves Records"

Hello Wahkeenah!

I am glad that you noticed my edits. I actually do not have "one source" for those records. I went through a book called The Sports Encylopedia: Baseball in the late 1980's and compiled a list of records by franchise. I included all cities for each franchise since it was basically the same team. I then updated any records that were broken at the end of each season via the newspapers, Yahoo!Sports, etc. So I really do not have one source and even though I would love to, I do not have the time to research the records by city.

I do have an updated version of that Baseball Encylopedia, but what it involves to find team records is going through 100+ years of stats for each season and recording the records in each category. It is not an easy research guide for that as it lists each season and you have to find the teams within that season.

I hope this clears up how I got those records.

Thanks and sorry that I cannot research it further at this point.

Also, I hope this is how to reply because I cannot seem to remember how to reply to a message & could not find it in the Help Section!

Phatcat68 May 2, 2005, 14:23 ET

Re: Bartman

Speaking as someone largely ignorant of baseball politics, I think your proposed paragraph is quite neutral (if a bit editorialish, as you say). Though like you, I'm not sure where it would be best placed. The anon did have a bit of a point, I agree, but the way s/he went about expressing it was untenable. Keeping in mind that I'm a poor person to judge, I don't see a problem with your text, but I'm sure if anyone does s/he will quickly voice it. Cheers, -- Hadal 05:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Crawford

Well, since you "went there," I personally think she's a hideous troll woman with the face of a mutant horse, but to each their own. It's not really an issue of server space, it's an issue of form. No one article needs 7 pictures of it's subject to exemplify what the subject looks like. It was cluttered and it needed fixing. ;) Pacian 08:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a self-aware feminist who takes responsibility for my faults and knows that it's better to admit we're superficial creatures and be equally judgemental of everyone, and to equally objectify both genders, than to try and suppress these natural feelings. IE better to say "What a horsefaced skank" but then follow up with "but it's what's inside that really matters" than to pretend I don't have an opinion either way :) RE: Will & Grace, I like the show but it's declined in recent years. I do love Megan Mullaly though I have seen her act in other projects and I am convinced she's fallen into a character by luck but is lacking in skill to a great degree. That being said, yes, it is a very surface depiction of gays that isn't very flattering. But when it comes to television my theory is this: it's friggin' television. If they did a show about some really boring group of gay people no one would want to watch it. There's a long-standing tradition of the gay men being played in a certain fashion, generally as the source of laughs because of their effemininity or homosexuality being considered a pitiable and laughable trait. At least on Will & Grace is is portrayed as a laughably endearing trait. IE: "Aren't gays fabulous and witty and funnily bitchy?" as opposed to "Aren't those sissies pathetic and meant to be mocked?" There IS a difference. Pacian 14:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of going off topic, let's make out a whole bunch, like, now... ;) (Glad to see we're of the same opinion on things...) Pacian 23:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disco color

Okay, I will accept your changes for the disco genrebox. But next time, please discuss changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres. Also, since boxstub is being deleted, I will replace the current genrebox with a parameterized one. Andros 1337 01:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Field of Dreams

As there is already a spoiler warning I suppose it does not really matter if you tell the joke without an extra warning. I am sorry that I removed the fact, I could not remember the exact line, but without the joke the trivia point is Point of View and had to be removed to conform with policy. Including the line is less of a problem than not including it but saying the joke is one of the funniest in the film, let readers make their own mind up. Rje 19:09, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

team records

Egad - you're right about team fans updating articles. And I thought people doing anime articles were anal-retentive! - DavidWBrooks 11:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

moved from user page

Good one, would you like to chat online sometime? Please let me know. Do you have AIM or YIM, if so what is your SN. Thanks

Josh - 6 Jun 05

Tigers

it looks just like camden yards....more so than the other copycat parks....the ivy, the industrial look, the seating bowl, the right field scoreboard....

anonymous Yankee yahoo

Well, I don't know about Yankee fans as a whole, but I must say that particular one was pretty offensive and a bad speller to boot. Probably not too bright either, to waste time making edits that someone else could just revert. Bostonian71 19:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

Yes he was one of a kind personality, I can only imagine how he would fare in today's overly invasive media. I wasn't planning on writing a biography of him, but when I saw his article so incomplete, nothing written after 1922 except the Called Shot section, I felt I could finish it, although it has taken longer than I expected. Of course my writing style, which doesn't hold off on details, adds much to the time to write it, but I hope adds more depth to the article. --LibraryLion 22:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any photo's of Ruth specifically in the 1920 or 1921 seasons? I have pictures I can fill these sections in with, but I would prefer to know the exact year of a Ruth photo so I can match it as close as possible to the 1920 or 1921 sections of the article. Thanks. --LibraryLion 20:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I think I can find something with some creativite searching. --LibraryLion 22:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read that after the war there was a better quality of yarn that was being used. How much better or livelier it made the ball is perhaps a question that cannot be answered. I read that Mays also claimed he threw Chapman a curve ball, certainly not a pitch you send a message with. Chapman also could be somewhat at fault as he tended to crowd the plate. To play devil's advocate on the subject of replacing of the ball more, Chapman's death was in August in 1920. The increase of offense had started actually in 1919, nearly 2 years before his death. So the ball may have been a factor from 1921 on, but what would be the reason offense increased before this point.

Devil's advocate on the spitball. Again offense increased from 1918 to 1919, before the pitch was outlawed in 1920. Also the league office made some exceptions with the spitball. In 1920, it allowed a team to designate two pitchers who were allowed to throw the pitch. The next year it banned it outright, except, it allowed some pitchers to continue to throw it until they retired, and some of these pitchers happened to be some of the better pitchers in the game. So the pitch was not truly out of the game until years later.

I could also doubt the revelance of the tests I mentioned in the article that "proved" the ball was the same. How were the tests done? How comprehensive? Was the ball truly proven to be the same as it was before? One would have to know the specifics on the tests.

I greatly decreased what I was going to add to this in the Ruth article. As you can see, it could make for a much longer article if one goes into great depth on the subject. Incidentally, if you want a project to work on, the dead-ball article needs much improvement. The biggest reason baseball went into the dead ball era-defined as an extreme low scoring era (not necessarily less home runs) was the foul strike rule adopted in 1901 in N.L. and 1903 in A.L, also an improvement in gloves. I better quit now so I don't inundate you too much with writing. --LibraryLion 23:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I like that picture in the Baseball article, and I wouldn't worry about pictures, for same reasons I cited in putting in the Yankee Stadium photo. That Ruth photo 1921, nice shot, it is just might be a little too much of a wide shot, and the photo needs to be fixed up a bit. I do have photo program that can enlarge and fix photo flaws, you might have a similar type program. We won't rule out the photo out yet, especially if you can enlarge it, and crop it to remove the lettering.

These are the remaining pictures I might want to add, you can help look for them. Any actual photo of Ruth in years 1932, 1933 or 1934. I would like one of Ruth in 1920, his first year as a Yankee. Maybe a thumbnail of Ruth with Gary Cooper in the film "Pride of the Yankees." I will definately add a team photo of the 1927 Yankees. What are your ideas for the photos?--LibraryLion 07:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that John Goodman film worth watching? since we all know how bad the William Bendix film was. --LibraryLion 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is the put actors into athletes roles, and some of these actors are just so unathletic it makes the entire film unplausible. You probably know the story, which I heard is true, of Gary Cooper playing Lou Gehrig in "Pride of the Yankees." Cooper was so bad with a bat that he could only swing it effectively righthanded, but he needed to be lefthanded like Gehrig, so the film editors had to reverse the film to make it appear he was lefthanded. --LibraryLion 21:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait, but my new messages never alerted me, and I never go to my discussion page unless I see this message. Yes reading the fair use can be confusing, and legally there is a lot of grey area of what is fair use. I went over some Wiki articles and tried to see how some people justified their fair used claims for photos they used. I have completed most of information for the photos in the Ruth article, I just need to finish a few more. I gave all the specifics of the photos, including the source, year published, author, credit for photo (if known), amount of photo used, resolution, and reasons why I wanted to use this photo. To see them, you just click on the photo itself in the article. All this information by itself still may not be enough to justify a claim of fair use, but at least this makes the use of the photos as legitimate as possible. --LibraryLion 22:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might to have to also use the photo that I lent to you to put in the 1932 Called Shot article. I just can't find a better picture. I have a photo of Ruth crossing the plate after hitting the called shot home run, and a photo of him hiting a home run in the 1932 series, which happened to be the same game as his called shot home run, but the author didn't specify which home run this was. Also, I already have a photo of Ruth homering in the 1927 World Series, so I want to use something different. --LibraryLion 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1932 Called Shot

Since you wrote this section, here is my idea, and you can give me your opinion. Since it is just a little long for the article, I think this entire section could be moved to its own seperate article. Certainly it is long enough, and this could free you up to add even more about the Called Shot. If I rewrote this within the Babe Ruth article, i would most likely condense it down, but I don't like deleting and even rewriting others contributions unless warranted. Basically in my section on 1932, like other seasons I have wrote, I will give a brief overview of Ruth and the Yankees season, then in this case, about the 1932 World Series. I will of course mention the called shot, but devote limited space to it, referring one to the seperate article for specifics.

Now if you prefer it stays in the Ruth article, it probably will have to be slightly changed and maybe rearranged, because I will write an overview of the World Series in general that will probably mention facts you have already wrote, so to avoid the redundancy of information, some sentences will need some reworded, but nothing about the called shot part per se will be deleted. Hope that makes sense, I'm writing this off the cuff. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. --LibraryLion 20:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was going through my books other day, and found a picture you could use on the called shot article. It is an artist's painting of Ruth deliberately pointing to center-field. It is from a book I have on the World Series published in 1978. Photo was credited to Baseball Hall of Fame. I can download it and you can look at it . In next day or two I will give you spefific name of photo so you can find it. --LibraryLion 19:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture had been uploaded. Title is "Ruth1932.jpg"(I accidentally uploaded the actual size). I think about 300-350 px is about right. You might already know this, but to limit photo size, you would type in your brackets then "Image: Ruth1932.jpg|thumb|300px|right" then close with brackets. Of course you could add a caption under photo, maybe something like "An artist's rather liberal depiction of Ruth's Called Shot", but you may not even need a caption. Use photo however you please. --LibraryLion 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you said you wrote the entire Called Shot section. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind if I reconstruct it. Admittedley, it will be different from your version, but I can incorporate some parts you have written. Also, I am working on getting a still shot of the one you have now, but without the graphics on it. Your thoughts? --LibraryLion 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate more specifically, much of the second half of what you wrote will all be kept, the way you wrote them. So the parts you wrote about the newsreels and the Matt Kandle parts will all be kept and some other parts as well. Specifically, I will redo and or add information the intro and background of the series, up to the home run itself. --LibraryLion 22:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy. Your article is informative and well researched, and I will need these parts you wrote to make the article a complete as possible. --LibraryLion 19:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian

Hi, Wahkeenah. May I ask what is the dictionary you have which (incorrectly) lists Slovenian as only an adjective? Thanks! BT2 20:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, Wahkeenah. For some insight as to what's wrong with Slovene, please visit: http://www.prah.net/slovenia/slovenians/gobetz/introd.htm. As for the vandalism charge, if you checked the Frankie Yankovic history you'd notice Kocjancic replaced the correct term Slovenian (used by the original author of the article) with Slovene. BT2 23:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, you can also please visit Talk:Slovenians because you might come to a dead end street. I've found your excerpts from your Webster's Dictionary quite interesting. I do see that you have answered BT2. BTW it is not a question here if a word "Slovene" is an insult like it would be calling an Irishman an "Irene". On the contrary, BT2 gave himself the right to decide that a word 'Slovenian' is internationally preferred and that "Slovene" should be burried in English language. I am a native Slovene, and was taught so in schools and as I see that this word is still valid, so I am still using it. And most of all I've used it for last 3 years when I was contributing articles related to Slovenes and Slovenia. But unfortunately BT2 thinks that I've done a huge damage to my countrymen and to the whole of English Wikipedia. I know that I've done my best. Best regards. --xJaM 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kingdome Cookie Cutter

I'd call the Kingdome a Cookie Cutter because of its round shape and field layout. I guess I could also include the Astrodome as well, now that I think of it. --Zpb52 05:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

WahkeenahWahkeenahWahkeenahWahkeenah

Hey...........

How'd you find out about me? ---User:Hottentot

According to this page the Emerald City is Art Deco:

"Just as the unsuspecting group beholds the gleaming green towers of the Art Deco Emerald City in the far distance at the edge of the forest, they realize they must first cross an enchanted field of red poppies."

---User:Hottentot

Maybe, I'm not really an expert on that kind of stuff. :-( ---User:Hottentot

Bull Durham and Dalkowski

Yeah, I know. It's mentioned in the Steve Dalkowski article. But that Dalkowski note in Bull Durham I'm sure was just a leftover prank comment made by that anon back on June 5. I was surprised it hadn't been spotted before. Though, that the film might have been based on Dalkowski's life could or should probably be mentioned in the Bull Durham article, too (in addition to the "see also"). But as it stood it was obviously not encyclopedic, so I deleted it. But feel free to make a more encyclopedic sounding note about it ;-). Shanes 06:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether users should have to log in to edit is a popular subject for debate... Me, I actually think it's fine that everyone can edit right away. There are lots of very fine edits coming from people who haven't registered (yet), and the occasional prank/vandalism edits are usually reverted very quickly. Ok, it wasn't in this case, but thats really an exception (I've probably made some couple of thousand prank/vandalism-reverts myself on all kinds of articles in my life as a wikipedian, but finding 2 week old vandalism/pranks having gone unnotised like this for so long are extremley rare). Many people become registered users only after first having tested a few anon edits first (myself for instance), and I belive making it harder for the casual reader to edit would make us lose many good editors that simply would never make that first simple edit. Shanes 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bricks

Please don't apologize until after checking the facts you implied on my talk page -- unless you already regret your snotty form of address. And after all of that, go RTFM WP:BOLD before you undertake to spoil your relationship with the next polite and helpful colleague on yr hit-list.
--Jerzy·t 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) You will get nowhere on WP if you don't learn how to use the article history to determine whether two edits reflecting the same approach are made by the same person or not. But as noted, that will not be sufficient. --Jerzy·t 02:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not so funny ???

I am somehow out of context of your edit [3]. Pavel Vozenilek 02:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the [[Category:People who you wonder if they talk that way in real life]]. I didn't hear these people but I am againt this category because (a) its name is too long, (b) it is very hard to classify "who wonders" and who doesn't and (c) information about strange voice fits an article, not category. Pavel Vozenilek 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fairies

I get that Tink's a fairy, and I generally approve of ridiculing the fundies who are out to get us. But not in Wikipedia. Off-topic is off-topic. Tverbeek 17:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

America the Beautiful

I was the person who removed the claim that it was a hymn. Six days before that, I asked on the talk page for any evidence supporting the claim that it was specifically a Christian hymn. None was forthcoming. Upon reflection, I decided it wasn't a hymn at all.

I'm aware that it appears in hymnals. That doesn't make it a hymn. According to hymn, a hymn is "a song specifically written as a song of praise, adoration or prayer, typically addressed to a god." Now, obviously "America the Beautiful" is a song of praise. It is praising a country, however, not a god, nor is it addressed to a god.

I removed your text re its presence in hymnals and presence in services, not because I thought it was untrue, but because I thought it was irrelevant to the article; or, at least, not so relevant as to belong in the introductory paragraph. I suppose it could fit into the History section, being relevant to its popularity.

According to my research, the poem was first published in The Congregationalist - see, for example, the article on Miss Bates, or just google for both terms. I'm not sure what form that publication took in 1895, but at present it doesn't appear to be a church hymnal. I'd be obliged if you would let me know what your source was.

Cheers, Tualha 2 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)

Dennis Miller

There's probably not a lot that can be done, except to keep an eye on the article and revert when necessary. I've added it to my compulsively-checked watchlist. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 21:35 (UTC)

Pages can be protected when absolutely necessary, but you're right: we do that very sparingly. I keep thinking that if enough people revert the Miller article immediately, the vandal will get tired and lose interest. As for sending a lightning bolt through his modem, maybe we can ask for that function in the next software upgrade. :-) Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 21:52 (UTC)

You're referring to the three-revert rule, used to help prevent edit wars. That rule is generally suspended when reverting straight vandalism, and I consider the Anti-Miller edits to be vandalism, now that so many different editors have verified that the edits aren't appropriate. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Saved edits

As I understand it, all versions are saved and stored somewhere, but there is some sort of data-compressing magic going on that keeps that amount of disk space used surprisingly small. I'm not really a technical-minded person, so "magic" is about as close as I can get to the actual technique. And you aren't bothering me at all. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 22:10 (UTC)

I know what you mean about anonymous editors; the vandalism bothers me, too. On the other hand, an astonishing amount of the edits made by anonymous editors are quality. When I'm doing RC patrol, I find that only about 1 in 8 edits are trash. That means that the vast majority of IP-only edits actually contribute positive information. I think the benefits outweigh the risks of allowing anonymity. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please

Please don't edit other people's comments, nor use any Personal attacks on another user. --Madchester 04:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I-94

Yep, the Lowry Hill Tunnel image is from the "Irene Hixson Whitney Bridge", the semi-fancy pedestrian bridge between Loring Park and the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden. —Mulad (talk) 12:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

I appreciate your reversions on the Babe Ruth article. Some users might have justification to delete some sentences or parts, but I just have a problem with people who don't add one word of information to an article, and yet are very quick to delete information that they believe is not applicable. Not mention a subject which they probably have limited knowledge of to begin with. --LibraryLion 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks fine. If you could, a general picture of action of the 1932 World Series would, in my opinion, especially of game 3, also be effective. I wouldn't worry about the picture, just don't give out your real name or location, and I have a feeling your name will be way behind a few hundred, or thousand others who they need to find. :) --LibraryLion 20:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will work. It is a little grainy, but it's a picture and pictures help almost any article. You know this is one picture that if you can, make it as large as Wikipedia allows. I think there is a way to make pictures larger within the article, but Wikipedia may have a limit on the size. It's also too bad that writing is on the picture. Here is one idea you can try. You can contact the owner by his email and let him know your intentions for the picture. He might give you access to even a better image, without the writing, and you give him credit/courtesy below the picture. Course a risk of this is he may decline, and this would probably force you to remove the image completely, because he might be aware of it being potentially used at Wikipedia. Fine job though on the insertion. --LibraryLion 20:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

This area I don't have much knowledge on, but I believe Wikipedia has some information on this topic. A wiki administrator can also help you on this. The few pictures I have used, a couple I knew the sources, and asked if I could use them on Wikipedia, which was granted. One other time, I just inserted a picture without permission, mainly because the picture was already all over the web. All the Babe Ruth photo's were added by others, I don't know if they got the rights to used them or just inserted them on their own. Wikipedia says you need permission to use a photo, but the problem is very often, who do you get permission from if you don't know who owns the picture rights, and if do know who owns it, where do you find them.

I think often people in just use photos in Wikipedia without permission, and can justify using them by the fact that Wikipedia is an educational non-profit web site. What I would do, if you can't find the source, just insert the picture anyway in your article, and say "courtesy of" whatever your source is, somewhere in the article, or on the discussion page. I mean not to encourage breaking rules, but I believe plagiarizing is more serious than using pictures without permission. --LibraryLion 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty useless on questions of copyright and use with/without/sorta with permission. I would suggest you ask Dbenbenn, who generally seems to know what he's talking about. Joyous (talk) 22:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Waterfall! How old is this picture we're talking about? If it was first published in the US before 1923, then it's public domain and you can scan it from whatever book you want. If the photo was taken after 1923, then it might still be copyrighted, alas. See Commons:Commons:Licensing for more information.

If it really is public domain, it would be wonderful if you'd upload it to the Commons. Otherwise, maybe fair use applies, and you can upload it here. dbenbenn | talk 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth (translation issues)

As far as I know, there are no official guidelines for the translation of poetry on Wikipedia. That's rather unfortunate, since this means such translations risk being pulled back and forth between the two camps (literate and precise vs. poetically satisfying) and never really getting anywhere. Personally, I think translations should be as exact and accurate as they can be, and that should be sacrificed only when correct understanding of the text is at stake. While I unfortunately don't know much German, I don't think translating "feuertrunken" as "fire-drunk" or something similar puts anything at risk (disregarding that it's pretty easy to figure out what it means in this particular case, I would in most situations be quite thankful for such a literal translation), while "with fiery rapture" is dictionary-wise pretty inaccurate.

Those are just my opinions, though, but one conclusion we can draw is that official guidelines would be a great help. EldKatt 13:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hornsby vs. Kent

Well Hornsby has 301 career home runs and he played over 600 of his 2100 games at other positions, so his total is not all at 2B. Can't find the pure totals for either yet, but I believe Kent is now the career leader at 2B.

Here's a list I just found in a recent article about Bret Boone:

Jeff Kent - 293 Ryne Sandberg - 277 Joe Morgan - 266 Rogers Hornsby - 265 Bret Boone - 251

Here's the article: http://seattlepi.com/baseball/231107_boone03ww.html

I was thining the same thing, Boone(36) is only 1 year younger than Kent(37), but I think Kent will hit more from here on out anyway. It depends, either could retire as soon as this year or play another 6 seasons.

Baseball "Rivalries"

Hello. Do you remember the rivals section that made its way into the MLB team pages? It's back and started by an anonymous user, whose IP begins with "24," which I believe was the same beginning of the IP as the one who added the rivals to the MLB team pages. Win777 18:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cookie cutter stadiums

Even though many books use the term, it's not appropriate for a NPOV encyclopedia. In any event, I encourage you to vote and make your case at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 21. --Polynova 02:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cookie Cutters are completely rounded, cut off from the world. I haven't yet completed the elimination of certain stadiums because Wiki went down for a short while in the middle of last night when I was doing maintenance. Zpb52 15:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

- The category was originally started to link together only the true "Cookie Cutter" stadiums. The ones that are rounded (or rounded square), enclosed, built in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and share many of the same design techniques: Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, Busch Stadium, Cinergy Field, Kingdome, Reliant Astrodome, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium, and Veterans Stadium. All of these were built for the purpose of hosting an MLB & NFL team (with the exception of Busch Stadium, in which case the stadium was retrofitted during construction to allow the football Cardinals to play there) and to provide an adequate place to play at a low construction price. I would not classify Stade Olympique in this category because it was built with the primary purpose of hosting the 1976 Olympic Games and later was retrofitted for the Montreal Expos and Canadian Football League play. I also would not qualify Shea Stadium (built too early, and not fully enclosed), Metrodome (shares none of the same design techniques), or McAfee Coliseum (not fully enclosed). Rogers Centre was built nearly 20 years after the rest of these (not to mention its unique design), and Tropicana Field isn't even capable of hosting a football game. I hope this clears it up a bit. --Zpb52 17:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cute Girls with Overbites

Er, don't create categories you know will get deleted. If it was meant to be a joke then, er.. :/ Hedley 21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI?

yeah --SPUI (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Bowl

Oops, the only thing I objected to was including the phrase "most dramatic game in NFL history". But I apparently reverted your entire edit by mistake. Sorry about that. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

I’m trying to fix it! Any suggestion? Ki-too 07:33, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yankees Logo Description

I cut down on the second logo's description on the Yankees page. Thanks. Win777 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Rayner

Thanks for the note! Nope - wasn't around that far back in time to know of the reference. I was a kid in the 70s, grew up watching Ray Rayner in his final years before he left Chicago. My friends and I still talk about his show, more now in reverence and endearment (growing up we thought it was just goofy, but the lens has blurred!) thanks for the feedback and contributions Barrettmagic 09:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Star Spangled Banner

Done as suggested. Just for kicks, you can find that rendition online here, find "Star Spangled Bannered". -Hmib 19:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Anarcho-capitalism & joke

A branch of libertarianim and certainly much more extreme! And no, I didn't get the joke. :X -Hmib 17:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got that alright, just didn't find it that funny. :( -Hmib 20:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. That was funny, though. -Hmib 20:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Slang

As long as they all survive somewhere, I really don't care. The effort to distinguish between slang and jargon seems faintly silly, though; and there probably should be more x-references. Septentrionalis 21:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STL Cardinals

This page is getting awfully long and detailed. Do you think we should condense the timeline and then put on one of those tags that says "See Main Article: History of STL Cardinals" and then put the detailed timeline in it's own article? Let me know what you think. --CrazyTalk 17:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Maris

That's a pretty good rewrite! Hayford Peirce 18:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was an avid Yankee fan during the 50s (not since 1964, however) and my impression at the time is that Mantle was not greatly liked by the New York press at the time, mainly because he struck out a lot, was a semi-hick, and (mistakenly, of course) in their view was not as great as Dimaggio had been. It was not really until the outsider Maris came along and threatened the Babe's record that they finally took Mantle to their bosom. Other people, of course, have written about this. I dunno if something about it belongs in the Maris article, or in the Mantle article (which I haven't read recently), or in both. I do think it should be somewhere, however. Hayford Peirce 18:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do it? I could spend a lot of time looking up articles and citations for stuff that you probably know off the top of your head. If you want to write it for the Maris article, I can take your stuff and see if it can be adapted for the Mantle article, which I'm sure it could be without much trouble. Hayford Peirce 21:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. I should have thought of the M&M boys myself. It was quite a summer.... Hayford Peirce 01:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: St. Louis Cardinals

Sorry, but I'm a bit lost on your message here. Was it in response to a comment I made or an action I took? If so, I'm not quite aware of it, so could you please make your meaning more clear? Thanks, Sango 123 19:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :) Sango 123 20:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Ninth again

I've brought up the translation issue on Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) in hope to catch some attention. Since we've talked about it before, I thought you might be interested. I should look into how to go further with the guideline thing, by the way... at some point. EldKatt (Talk) 11:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to call the very final bit (measure 843 and onwards) a fifth "movement" (in the hypothetical symphony within the symphony). It doesn't mark a major change like the others, and it's pretty accurate to see it as part of the fourth "movement". Above all, it doesn't fit in with the standard four-movement symphony structure that the whole comparison is made with. The problem as I see it merely lies in the description of it in the article, which is more than a little misleading. As you say, only the first bit is in any way "fugal". And it's not really fugal in the true sense of the word (real fugues, at least of any substantial length, are very rare in classical music anyway) which is why I changed it to fugato; even fugato might be an exaggeration, and just calling it "imitative" might be preferrable here, but that's another story. Most importantly, it doesn't describe the whole thing well. I'll change it to something more descriptive at some point, unless someone beats me to it. EldKatt (Talk) 14:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've met my alter ego, "CrazySpeller".--CrazyTalk 20:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fictional Squirrels

Okay, you asked. I haven't actually given much thought to the fictional squirrels category, but here's why it may be valid while 'Cute girls with big noses' is not. It is easy to tell whether an item is a fictional squirrel or not. For any given item, it either objectively fits into the category or it objectively is not a part of that category. Consider 'Cute girls with big noses'. How big of a nose does she have to have before fitting into the category? Ms. San Giocomo (sp?) doesn't seem to have a large nose to me. But maybe I haven't paid much attention. Is she cute? Some people think so, other people do not. So we cannot say objectively that she fits the category. In my opinion, her nose isn't big enough. :) --Yamla 14:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 'Possibly cute girls with possibly big noses' would almost certainly be an objective category. Then, I wouldn't revert the addition of the category on grounds of POV. I might nominate the entire category for a deletion, however. Speaking of which, did you ever consider nominating fictional squirrels for a deletion? --Yamla 17:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz

I saw your edit for The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and I was wondering if you would like join the new WikiProject Oz. It's a new WikiProject to help organize and edit all Oz-related articles. If you would like to join, please add your name under "Participants". Thanks. [[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that controversy. I wish you would join, since in order to make the project successful, I think we need people with all types of Oz-related background: The books, movies, and of course, Wicked. My strong point is the books, so a film expert would be an asset. Let me know what you decide. --[[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You would just need to be willing to work to create the best possible Wikipedia articles pertaining to Oz subjects (in your case, film-related subjects). I would like to see The Wizard of Oz film to be a featured article someday, and from what I see, you seem to know alot. The Project is simply a way to create standards and coordinate efforts to create the best possible articles. Also, joining the WikiProject would give you more backing: you can run things by the community, and a get consensus. [[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tough questions indeed. I think what distinguishes Wikipedia is exactly its openness. Sure, those yahoos can edit, but we can just as easily revert those edits, so in a way there is no point to vandalism, since it is just as easy to revert. I think what also distinguishes Wikipedia is its community. The meeting of the minds. Sure, one guy can write a comprehensive Oz guide, but the fact that we have literally thousands of people going through and editing each day, there can be verification of facts, questions raised about the accuracy of a subject, and thus in a way, Wikipedia can be more accurate than other sources. Sure, there are jerks and yahoos, but, so with anyplace in life. Also, Wikipedia is literally a one-stop information shop, no need to browse lots of different sites for various facts. Need to know about Jesus? Click. There you are. Need to know about autofellatio or The Wizard of Oz? Click Click! Instant information. As for the rip-offs, I don't know. It may be the license allows it. I'm just an editor. See GDFL for more info on that. I hope my rambling explained something. See also Wikipedia:Press coverage for more on the 100's of press mentions Wikipedia gets every day. I find it amazing. [[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 04:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Random questions

Would anybody care about Ward Churchill if it weren't for Bill O'Reilly making such a big deal out of him?

A number of Native American groups would, I should imagine. Kelly Martin 02:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Now, on to important things, something I was asked by a colleague, and you might know: How to use i.e. and e.g. together properly, as in this example that was posed to me:

[company name] has indicated that our routing problems, i.e. our inability to reach some websites, e.g. [company1].com and [company2].com, have been resolved.

Wahkeenah 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to do that is not at all. "E.g." and "i.e." should never be overused, and there is never any reason not to replace them with "for example" and "in other words" (respectively). Both abbreviations should be used sparingly, and never in the same sentence; furthermore, abbreviations (as well as contractions) should generally be avoided in formal writing. Furthermore, in the instant example, "i.e." is misused; "our inability to reach some websites..." is not a restatement of "our routing problems", but rather a consequence of "our routing problems". Kelly Martin 02:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

You should've left the "name of your face" thing. Anyways, just curious as to why you disagree with lower-case R. —Wiki Wikardo

I thought I had done so. Anyway, when I was being taught English grammar and usage, they told us that titles were spelled with capitals. Maybe the rules have changed since I was a kid. Wahkeenah 17:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't leave on the original vandalism. Anyways, yeah, you're right, but a book title ain't the same as an encyclopædic article. —Wuuuuuucy, I'm hooome

Re: Jesse White

Nope, I'm too young! Nevertheless, I created a stub for him because he deserves more than to be a red link. If you have the knowledge to expand the article, that would be great. HollyAm 00:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I'll definitely check out Harvey sometime! HollyAm 01:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Rivals

Yup they're back... kinda annoyed that it's returned so soon. I'm still trying to figure out how the Nats have developed so many rivalries less than a yr into their existence. :-) --Madchester 05:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am not supprised. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 19:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Phillies

Original research, no. As for the writer who knows, but he apparently has left some other ontresting comments on other pages, not under the same s/n, just kinda tracked around. As for your user page Megan Mullally yes and no, she is not as "nasaily" as here character on the show. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright Problem RE:Image:Minnehaha four seasons.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Minnehaha four seasons.JPG. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

The copyright holder, and
The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

The copyright holder gets the best protection of his work by licencing their work under an open content license like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another choice for licencing one's work. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag: {{GFDL}}.

The copyright holder can also release his work into the public domain, see here for images released into the public domain.

- Images from certain sources are automatically release into the Public Domain. This is true for most governments like the federal United States government. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments) However not all governments release their work into the public domain, such as the UK government (See herefor images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.

Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of Fair Use. To see if this image qualifies and then how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For any other sources of for more information see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that if you don't tag your images, they will be deleted.

P.S. If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --SEWilco 05:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Licenses

All this licensing talk is mumbo-jumbo legalese that makes no sense to me. I said in the description that I took the pictures, which is true, and dat's dat. Wahkeenah 05:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't specified a license under which Wikipedia can use the image. Wikipedia does not have permission, so the image will be deleted. And no matter how pretty the picture, dat's dat. (SEWilco 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Minnehaha four seasons.JPG

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Minnehaha four seasons.JPG has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

(SEWilco 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Marked on PUI as resolved. (SEWilco 06:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Because it has a free-style license, I also added to it Category:Images of Minneapolis, Minnesota (SEWilco 06:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Jeff Kent

Hello, do you think the remarks about Jeff Kent are objective? If we include the statements about Kent, shouldn't we mention the appearance that Barry Bonds and Milton Bradley famously are unsuccessful with interacting with good ol' boys? I mean, how many people have complemented Bradley and Bonds on their maturity and composure? Just seems a little one-sided. What do you think?--CrazyTalk 03:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, the whole thing should probably be taken out. It could just be Bradley mouthing off (something he's good at) and Barry Bonds is the ultimate prima donna, so it's not like they are on the high road. I had not previously heard of Kent being accused of being racist, I just figured he was a jerk. Wahkeenah 03:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 strikes

Re: comments on 3 strike rule on User talk:stevenwmccrary58#3 strikes; I believe the source will be The Rules of Baseball: A History of How They Developed by David Nemec, The Lyons Press, 1994, but I am checking on that. Thanks for the heads-up. Steven McCrary 15:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Got the book, you were right, I corrected the Baseball page. Thanks, Steven McCrary 16:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ballparks

Well, that could work with regards to the South End Grounds and the Polo Grounds, but I think there should be seperate entries for Tiger Stadium and Bennett Field and for Crosley Field and the Palace of the Fans since those have seperate wikipedia articles. - Farquard 02:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. The three South End Grounds are usually considered to be the same park, whereas Tiger Stadium and Bennett Park are really two different stadiums. The field was even rotated 90°. Farquard 03:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. It seems odd to me to date Tiger Stadium to earlier than 1912, but I guess that is a subjective viewpoint. Farquard 18:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of how it's set up now? I must admit it's simpler this way, although the articles on the earlier parks should be merged into Crosley Field, Tiger Stadium or Griffith Stadium as apropriate. Farquard 18:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for some reason I thought American League Park was at the same site as Griffith Stadium, and I was somewhat confused by the Baltimore situation. Do I have it right now? Farquard 18:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning on getting onto 19th century or Federal League teams' parks. If any one does want to add them, I would sugest putting them in a different table. Farquard 19:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Mack Stadium actually was 360 to left on opening day. They moved it out to 378 late in the season.Gateman1997 20:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it only had 360 to its original wall. The permenant wall as you say wasn't established till a later date. I just think it's better to have the opening day distance then the later year one since we also have the final distances from 1968-70 before they closed it.Gateman1997 20:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, we list both and label them opening day and later 1909 or something to that effect. As for "current" dimensions, this infobox is the one that was used for the modern stadiums. I'll adapt it to eliminate the "current".Gateman1997 20:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely for adding current and if interesting and/or available the opening day dimensions. Anthing more might be over doing it unless there was an extrordinary reason to list more then those 2 sets. As for the 360, I referenced BallparksofBaseball.com and Ballparks.com which are the most complete ballpark resources on the net.Gateman1997 22:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... what's your favorite baseball team?Gateman1997 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs fan huh? May whatever God or gods you believe in have mercy on your soul :) . You're right about the A's of course. They can be exasperating to say the least, but they've given me one world series win in my lifetime and they've been good enough the last decade to keep me eternally optimistic. Beane does good work with what he's got. Now if only our new owner can give us a new park I'll be on cloud nine.Gateman1997 00:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've always been a fan of the Coliseum... pre 1995. It was a pretty park before then especially for a multipurpose... now it's just sad. May Al Davis and his team rot in hell. It's like going to visit your aunt after getting hit by a car, she looks like crap. The new park is currently planned for just north of the Coliseum in a "ballpark town" kind of thing. The plan actually has promise to happen and looks good. The fallback is the Coliseum's north parking lot. And last resort is they leave town, probably to Portland or Vegas (of course if that happens we'll be down a Wikipedian because I'll be jumping off the Golden Gate)Gateman1997 00:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how we get attached to places where fun things happen. I've grown to like the Metrodome quite a lot, despite its reputation as being "sterile" and any number of other criticisms. These are folks who evidently like to watch baseball in the cold and the rain. Those who cry for the loss of the "Jewel Boxes" have forgotten about the cramped seats, the bad sightlines, the lack of parking, the restrooms that were from the stone age, etc. Although I must say Wrigley might be the best of the old ones, even if I am biased. I hated the old Sox Park, by contrast, because it was built for men of the average size for 1910, whereas Wrigley's seats and aisles are roomy. The only thing Comiskey had going for it was character... and characters. The game was undeniably entertaining there, at least during the Veeck years, but it was not well-designed. Wrigley was much better designed. Meanwhile, the much-lauded Fenway might be the worst. My brother was there last summer and had a "box seat" down past the Pesky pole, with a nice view of the Green Monster and a bunch of posts. He said it was the worst seat he's ever had at a ballpark. I don't know how roomy the seats at your Coliseum are, but basically every seat faces the infield, which is not such a bad thing, and is in contrast to the Dome here, which is a valid complaint. As far as the A's moving to Portland or Las Vegas, that's just silly. Those areas are too small to support big league ball. Now, if you start to hear rumors they're going to move to New Orleans, then be afraid, be very afraid. :) Wahkeenah 00:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America the Beautiful

Hi, Wahkeenah, and thanks for your very courteous review of my rather thorough analysis. I was tired of the skeptic crowd, etc. coming back to the page again and again. . . not knowing the history behind the poem and musical score. So I thought I would write it while I had the moment and inspiration. Glad you got something out of it!

You're right. . . why ATB wasn't chosen as the National Anthem in 1920 is an interesting facet of the story to research further. Wish Federer would have given a citation for it specifically, but, alas, I don't see one. Perhaps a newspaper/magazine search for that year in Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, etc. might yield something.

Funny thing. . . my 1929 Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia has no mention of Miss Bates or ATB. It mentions at length the Battle Hymn of the Republic, Dixie, and Yankee Doodle (and an 1832 piece entitled America). Amazing.

I did review your (and the other editor involved) edits before composing my analysis. (Keeping the editor/reader in mind) I appreciate you having a healthy respect for what actually happened in history, rather than what we as present day modern or postmodern people read into it - and thus display our biases and lack of knowledge of the past. Keep up the good work! --avnative 19:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm much in sympathy with you. My first President I remember was John F. Kennedy (which betrays my age, I suppose). In my educational duties I run across students all the time who actually don't know who Reagan was, much less did. According to them, Clinton was the first President of the United States. . . (rolling eyes)

And we wonder why Wikipedia has trolls, vandals, and well meaning but uninformed/misinformed folks making edits to it. My general theory is that the average editor is 14 years old, and the average reader is 11. So when I read something that is well rounded, and find editors who are far above average in their contributions, I take note. And believe me, I take excellent note of you! (smile)

Yeah, we'll see what future edits may bring. Sometimes folks have a chip on their shoulder and take easy offense, and sometimes you actually contribute to another's knowledge of the world. It's something I have no ultimate control of. . . but I contribute in the hopes that some of what I put out may stick around. Time will tell. --avnative 19:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

You bring up a very insightful point. . . and I'm inclined to agree with you. My Grandparents aren't around to explain these events anymore, but in my gut I think you have the emotional history about right. The Star Trek/Star Wars analogy drives it home. I think you're right. People like certainty and clear right from wrong, not anything too muddled that requires reflection. Hey, there's a Bush/Kerry analogy there in it too! (tee hee) --avnative 20:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Astrodome

I don't know. I think the Superdome was pretty Reliant.... until the toilets stopped working.Gateman1997

Honestly I wouldn't be too sure. The smell alone was supposed to be unbearable. Good thing no one ever bothered to tear the Astrodome down. Gateman1997 22:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I doubt the Saints will be using it for a while. If it were a retractable dome it might be better but that place is going to reek for months.Gateman1997 22:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'am sorry, but the half the roof blew off, and water has caused a lot of distruction. WikiDon

Bacall

Left a note for you in Lauren Bacall. WikiDon 02:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political Correctness

I prefer to have public discussions on public pages. If you plop your comments on the page I will be happy to respond there.

Date links

Hello there. I've been linking those dates so users' display preferences kick in. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year; toss a comment in if you're in the mood. –Hajor 13:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and for the 18th-dynasty joke. "Titicaca" is indeed an inherently funny word in English (the reference you give to WC Fields is good, and valid, and a fair bit more serious as a source; far better than "hee-hee, last night the Animaniacs said Titicaca" stuff that was there before) but the challenge we're facing is how to get that cultural referent in without trivializing a continent's geography to the point where we look silly ourselves. But yeah, if I was to go with anything, it'd be WC Fields a million times before Beavis and Butthead. –Hajor 14:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Judy, Judy, Judy"

I am pretty sure that line came from Tony Curtis imitating Grant in Some Like it Hot (or on the set of), or somewhere else. It was Curtis doing Grant, but third party imitators cut out the Curtis reference. Does that ring a bell?

And then Jim Nabors did it in The Andy Griffith Show, and then Gomer Pyle.

WikiDon 00:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Snelling

Hello, Wahkeenah. That was a very nice picture of Fort Snelling you contributed. Just wanted to say kudos. Jonathunder 01:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Canaries

Hi. First at all, I'm not funny. I'm a serious person. You can read about the Baltimore Canaries at Lip Pike, or if you prefer you can go to:

The next time, please, post any message to my Talk Page. Thanks. – MusiCitizen 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Hoax

Hi there! Regarding the Moon Hoax, the point is not whether you or I believe the accusations, simply that we should report them in a neutral way!

Hurricane Katrina Hoax

The problem with your claim is that no one has made the case except you. If there was a movement of people, with an established literature, and 6% of the US believing in a Katrina Hoax, then I would agree, but not if you just made it up.

Traveling Wilburys

About the guitar chord in the song End Of The Line, I do not want it included in wikipedia because it is classified as original research. Sure, it might be common knowledge to those who have listened to both songs, but as far as I know, noone else considers the fact that George Harrison borrowed a chord from an earlier work to be important. Wikipedia is supposed to report on common knowledge. That is, what is already known and what has already been demonstrated by important people in the past. It is not a place to try to advance your theory that George Harrison borrowed a chord from a previous song is very important and it was only because of a copyright dispute. Composers and songwriters borrow from and use similar techniques in their work all the time. I cannot find any evidence that the case you refer to is strikingly different to any other case of composers recycling their own work. If I remember correctly, isn't the chord in question just a d major arpeggio?

I added a bit of context to your End Of The Line article, in case readers unfamiliar with the lawsuit were stumped about what you meant. Be warned that other wikipedians may come along and remove your info, because they are trying to abide by the no original research policy I outlined above.

Also, please refrain from the personal attacks. You are not helping your cause by accusing either me or jgm of being nazis. Both of us are trying to make the article abide by wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Therefore, I will revert the article again to conform to those guidelines, and any discussion about your additions should be taken to the talk page of the article.

Regards, Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that I've actually seen the diffs of your edit, all you did was adding the wikilink, which is fine. Therefore, I will not revert that edition. Please provide an informative edit summary, which lets editors know what you are doing, rather than using your edit summaries for personal attacks. The song End of the Line *is* inherently notable, so I may work some more on that article. I still don't believe that the part about the opening chord is important, so it will probably be deleted or reworked, either by me or another editor. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vonnegut

Hey! I appreciate the editing that you are doing on the vonnegut page. Can you give any references regarding comparisons of Vonnegut's appearance to that of Twain or re you peddling original research? --Gaff ^talk 09:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the references to this comparison. I always thought that I saw a resemblance (both in appearance and in writing style).--Gaff ^talk 18:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon

(...re: not denying the truth of it... you're right, I didn't...)

I don't deny it because there is no need to do so. It's not relevant. Of course, the "until ... disagree with" part can be applied to almost ALL people regardless of anything! (Yes, you and I both included.) ;-)

VigilancePrime 16:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Series

Are you planning on reverting back to past tense for all the text? I had switched it to present tense to match the banner for each Series. It doesn't much matter, but they should be the same. It's weird to have "so and so defeats so and so" and then have the descriptive stuff in past tense. Wahkeenah 02:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after going through the Series listings, the present tense does work pretty well from a narrative sense. I'll change it back. By the way, do you have an opinion on whether the team names appear in the series listings (instead of just City Name (AL) etc.)? —Cleared as filed. 02:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a fight-to-the-death strong opinion, but just as with the past/present tense question, I think consistency is best. The overall listing is kind of a hodge-podge right now. The pre-1900 combatants all have their team names or nicknames, while the modern Series are presented in the old style of just the city name... and then someone felt the need to put a footnote explaining the two different New York National League entries! OK, I say lose the footnotes and use the nicknames openly, as with the earlier entries. The question is what to do with Boston in 1903. Conventional "wisdom" calls them the "Pilgrims" but that is apparently inaccurate. I would be inclined to label it as Boston "Americans", complete with quotes to make it clear that they really didn't have a nickname yet. I think that's the only oddity like that, the others all had nicknames by the time they found themselves in World Series action. Wahkeenah 02:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm on it. —Cleared as filed. 02:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos. I would have left out the "the's" in the headings, and just used them in the paragraph overviewing the Series. I was amused by someone projecting the Astros as the winners already. I don't think this is 1919. I also saw on the team pages that some a-none had listed "2005 possibly" for both the Stros and the Sox. That's a little silly. Wahkeenah 09:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I wasn't too sure about the "thes," but the names all become plural-sounding when you add the nicknames, and I thought it sounded weird without them. I wouldn't be opposed if they were taken back out, though. —Cleared as filed. 12:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Hill

Perhaps you think it's funny, and perhaps it is, but Graham Hill has nothing to do with the article Graham. If it were an article called Famous people called Graham, then your paragraph would have a place. As it is, it hasn't. --Stemonitis 08:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grahams

As the article says, they are hills over 2500ft, with 500ft of relative height on all side, anywhere in Scotland. I'm guessing this relates to whether or not we should capitalise the name - we capitilise Munros, Marilyns and Corbetts so I say we should. Grinner 09:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your fixing of the vandalism. No matter what one works on, it's becoming too hard to keep up with the vandalism. Wikipedia critics are justified this regard--anything you write can too easily be changed, and contributors have to waste time just making sure their content isn't hacked up. This wasted time also takes away from focusing on new projects. You have to wonder sometimes if it's worth it. --LibraryLion 21:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you always have to leave an article open for others--unless the vandalism is rampant, but one thing Wikipedia should do is at least make everyone register a name, so no one is identified by some IP address number, a number which many users will be part of. It may not reduce vandalism much, but at least it would be an extra step one would have to do to edit anything. --LibraryLion 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Cobb Page

You do good in reversing vandalism and adding factos and such, but I added a fact to the Ty Cobb page that you deleted. It was "*Shortly after his death, Cobb's body was on display in Georgia. But due to vandalism, it was closed." That is in fact a true fact, for I lived in Georgia at the time. Therefore, I will add the fact back. I really don't know how to varify it anymore than that I was there. Rhetoricalwater 02:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:San Francisco Giants

I thought that talk pages were supposed to be about the article, and not the subject matter. On a slightly unrelated note, where was the clear fact in that comment? ςפקιДИτς 14:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

Dear Wahkeenah, you deserve a medal for the first paragraphs of "Cricket"! And those numerous would-be-encyclopedists who were active in that article before you, they deserve a kick in the ass, and a hard one! I read "Cricket" in the summer in order to understand the game. No way! I couldn't believe the fundamental uselessness of the text in its old version. I went to hit my punching-ball for a while... Thank you, thank you, thank you! Walter (Waldirei 18:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

ps: Please explain to a foreigner (the good way you have proved to manage...): Why is it an insult to call your face "the most beautiful"?

The true test would be to find someone who doesn't know Cricket at all, and have them read it and see if they have any clue afterward. I'm the living proof. Phase one: I knew no more than there are two teams, a ball ist thrown from one team towards a batter of the opponents, then most times the ball is hit by the bat, and players start to run around. Phase two: Had the idea to consult en.WP in order to understand what the point of the game is and what could be so fascinating for some. Phase three: Was more puzzled than ever and got angry about the authors; bookmarked the page for later thourough study, but with little hope. Phase four, some weeks later - alas, your paragraph (and although modified, it is still your achievement) makes things completely clear in a few words! --Waldirei 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I even don't (and don't need to) have a clue about baseball. See? --Waldirei 08:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I quote you (...) about something I write? Anonymously, of course. No need to ask. Everything I utter publicly is quotable :-) (Because what isn't, I keep to myself.) No need to hide my identity. Anonymous quotes would be weaker. But I only praised these Cricket-paragraphs - you may still be able to write, let's say, less useful stuff ;-) --Waldirei 21:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

Hi, I only think it is appropriate to have it in the header if the person is commonly referred to using a nickname in general public usage, as in the case of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. I don't think Pamela Anderson is commonly referred to as Pamela "Pam" Anderson. Arniep 19:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I didn't exactly mean that as she was more often known as Pamela that would be a reason not to include Pam in the header. I used Lewis "Scooter" Libby as an example because in the media he is often referred to with the nickname between his first and last names i.e. Lewis "Scooter" Libby which is quite unusual. I only think people should have their nicknames in between their first and last names in the header on Wikipedia articles in cases like this if not, just say Ernest Banks commonly known as Ernie. Arniep 01:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Da Bears

Regarding former homes, what do you think about listing one-use sites, such as Chicago Stadium for the 1932 championship game, or Dyche Stadium for opening day in 1969? Wahkeenah 23:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, these one-use sites should be regarded as "misc. use" and not officially home fields. That's what is listed on one of my primary references: Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League (ISBN 0062701746). Thus, I have not entered one-use sites in "Former homes" and rather listed them seperately in their relevant articles. For example:

We already have a seperate 1932 NFL Championship Game article.
The Dolphins-Chargers game that was moved to Sun Devil Stadium because of the Cedar Fire is primarily only mentioned on 2003 NFL season.
The Patriots-49ers game that was moved to Stanford Stadium because of the Loma Prieta earthquake is primarily only mentioned on 1989 NFL season.

By the way, wasn't the Eagles-Bears opening day game at Dyche Stadium actually held in 1970? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are wondering, the Bears defeated the Eagles, 20-16, at Dyche Stadium on September 27, 1970. (link removed) (PDF file) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Thank-you for calling those other unacceptable non-articles to my attention. I will send them to AFD shortly. The Literate Engineer 04:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not going to give baseball special treatment. It's a shame you feel I've unfairly singled out that list, but unlike you, I don't believe that being the National Pastime somehow makes baseball (or anything else for any reason) a special case where editors don't have to comply with Wikipedia policy, entries don't have to be actual encyclopedia articles, and slang or jargon somehow becomes encyclopedic because of what kind of slang and jargon it is. The Literate Engineer 05:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you of vowel play

[4] - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Money and Beets, and Liver... ewwww

Hiya, I had never quite read my quote that way before, heh and I certainly agree with you. :"D Just to clarify, periods of time refers not to money's historical capacity to hide the truth, but rather to how long it can hold a specific truth back. I don't like liver either, I'll have to add it to the list on the next update; but I'll keep that recipe in mind in case it crosses my path in the future. Thanks! - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That beet recipe might come in handy. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I will bet a silk pyjama, there isn't any three-L lllama. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I hadn't ever heard of the poem before you gave me the first two lines - which of course prompted me to Google them. I can now add Ogden Nash to my list of poets that I enjoy. Thanks for the random bit of llama-related trivia, and for prompting me to learn something! Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Calm down.
If you dislike Wikipedia so much, why are you bothering?
From your tone, I'd guess that I'm more than thirty years older than you; whether I remember or not is, in any case, irrelevant. The main point is that Welch is a film actress, and sometimes (when she was allowed to be) quite a good one. There's no reason to think that an article on her doesn't belong here, but schoolboy sniggers about her breasts don't.
If you know Welch well enough to call her by her first name, why not ask her if she wants this gutter-nonsense in the article? --Mel Etitis ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 09:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holt?

Wahkeenah, thanks for the nice note, to answer your question . . . no I am not a "Holt", I went to Rollins College where the main road (the only road) through the campus was named for the long time and really the first GREAT president the college had, Hamilton Holt in the teens, 20's and 30's if I remember correctly, 1000 H. Holt Avenue is the address and it was always fun to steal his bronze bust out of the admin building. So nope I'm not a Holt but in a way I have your clan to thank for my degree ;).

Re:christopher reeve

The link name IS ALREADY IN THE LINK. I have not censored the link. You are restating its name explicitly FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISING THAT WEBSITE. That is spam, son. Either you yourself are the author of that website, or you have some personal reason for pushing it. Since you refuse to offer any alternative explanation, I am free to draw my own conclusions. Wahkeenah 14:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Maddox, the author of The Best Page in the Universe is currently writing a book and a comic book. His website is more popular than McDonald's website. Technorati ranks it as the 31st most popular "blog" (though Maddox does not consider his site a blog). This is clearly not some kid spamming his Geocities site everywhere; it is an actual website. I believe it has every right to be posted as an "External link" on the Wikipedia article for Mr. Reeve. Just because the man is dead doesn't mean criticism can't be pointed in his general direction. --Snafuu 09:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the tinman. --Snafuu 22:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. "I wish I would have died and not raised you" -Maddox's mother --Snafuu 01:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Hi there, could you please supply a source for Image:Alcatraz postcard 1965.JPG. Thanks! --Kilo-Lima 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comments

As above: your uncited, unverifiable, POV assertions are wholly inappropriate and nonsense in the wardrobe malfunction article. If you cannot comment rationally and with civility, don't comment ... and I will not respond to them or you hereafter. Instead, I will move that you get censured for your actions. End commnuication. E Pluribus Anthony 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Stadium

From what I understand they dropped it fast as part of the new park is being built where Busch 1 sat.Gateman1997 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually at the Golden Gate... but I had seen the continuing take down of Busch Stadium 1. Gateman1997 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Ramps

I trust your jocking, or joking, as you American's call it (not intended to be neferious at all) when you said the exit list for the highway 94 page was to long? Or wer'nt you not?--Gephart 05:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please watch the comets

"The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." -- couldn't agree more!

haha. ok you got me to laugh with that response. ;) happy hollandaise to you. I've self-reverted the complaint. -Justforasecond 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Alcatraz postcard

To qualify for fair use, it needs to have a link of where you got it. Even if it's fair use it needs to be in a page, if not it's a orphan fair use and it's speedable. If its yours, do a Template:PD and why it's PD intead. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just reload it and tag it as fair-use but with a source. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find nothing for a postcard so just tag it as fairuse, and say that you scanned it yourself, the copyright is probaly lost anyways so a Public Domain tag will work also. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesses

Hi. I have absolutely no idea what the correct version is. I was just a little bit troubled by seeing the guy referred to as "Ramesses", "Rameses" and "Ramses". This offended my sense of consistency, so I made sure they all reflected the spelling he has in his own article, namely "Ramesses". If we ever re-spell his name there, we'd need to make the appropriate changes elsewhere, including on the 10 Commandments page. Cheers JackofOz 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for all your messages. Cheers JackofOz 21:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing the Peanuts facts

Dear Wahkeena, I'm Janet6, a Wikipedia user--I want to know why you erased my info about the The Complete List of Peanuts Birthdates and Information. It isn't on the Internet, so you wouldn't find it anyway. Can you answer back? Thanks

Neil Sedaka

You apppear to have reintroduced the incorrect observation that the ballad version of "Breaking up..." quotes the doo-wop intro from the original up-tempo version, which it does not, in any version which I have ever heard, with the exception of one *very* broken karaoke track. Can you produce evidence that an actual release version of this song ever sounded like this? I'm going to take that back out; if you can, lay the cite on me, and I'll put it back in.
--Baylink 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to try to track down a copy; I've *never* heard it that way. Do you still have a copy?
--Baylink 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janet6

Hey Wahkeenah, there was a page on the Peanuts article about the kids' ages and birthdates... why did you revert it? I was going to read it today. --Janet6

Sockpuppet?

I have no idea why you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet, but I believe you owe me an apology. I believe that one glance at my contributions will disabuse you, but if it doesn't, please present your evidence for this truly bizarre accusation. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IF you are not an alternate persona of those other guys, THEN I apologize. There has been this "edit war" with this character who keeps inserting this editorializing about Reeves death, and when you deleted my neutral comments that discuss the questions about his death, but left in his "in dispute" nonsense, I jumped to the conclusion that this moron had struck again under yet another guise. Wahkeenah 17:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What appears to have happened is that, following up a trail from another article, I went to a user contributions page and followed up several diffs that were marked as top, trying to clean up the more blatant aspects of the mess. I made edited a paragraph that was blatantly wrong (see talk page for what I cut: if you really think I was accusing myself of possible libel, you must think I have a very elaborate ruse going on); it looks like before I got to this page, you made a larger change and somehow I didn't notice. So I made an honest mistake. A bad edit (given your intervening edit), probably not my first, but one of few, I believe.

For now, I will assume your good faith, even though it is clear that you will only reluctantly consider the possibility of mine. Either you haven't looked through my contributions list as I requested, or you have looked and still think I might be the sockpuppet of this agenda-pusher or, as you so politely put it, "moron". If the former, please look. If the latter, then please start an RFC to allow me to clarify the matter. And if you do look at my contributions and realize that you are wrong, I still would like an actual apology, not a conditional imitation of an apology. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Joke on Holiday article

I added a discussion section for the atheist joke on Talk:Holiday. Please participate. /* Pradeep Arya 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC) */[reply]

Baseball on Wikicities

Hello Wahkeenah, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedia. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

George Reeves

I looked into the history of this article; you probably noticed me revert it earlier. I've decided to issue insta-blocks to that 'editor', and he collected his first one straight after my revert. I presume his IP is dynamic, but it appears to persist for at least one editing burst, so hopefully, when I'm awake and editing, he'll be kept at bay. -Splash^talk 03:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vesa a.k.a. User:Projects (among others) can't even get the air dates right, and the rest is a POV that is well-covered in the interesting book I cited, Hollywood Kryptonite. "These" users also cannot write proper English, which is what gives away that "they" are the same user, despite "their" denials. Wahkeenah 00:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to vandal Wakkeenah

To all the vandals and so called just administrators, the air dates are minor problems, the facts and details surrounding Reeves suicided are not being written well enough, as everybody else is reporting, the fact that Reeves was to fight Moore next day, is also being reverted, this is pure vandalism. As far as spelling goes by Vesa or Projects or whoever, well, if you keep on repeating yourself and have no time, some spelling errors might occur, but it's not the spelling that counts but content which is being vandalised by so called just users and administrators of this so called just wikipedia. And it is obvious wahkeenah has some personal interest in this, proof: All over internet we have Reeves' death explained in detail and possible people involved, but over here he is taking everything down, the idiotic administratotors are reversing it, thus making themselves look stupid and ignorant by not realizing the historical facts.

Archiving talk pages

I think you may have taken my suggestion a bit too seriously. It's customary only to archive old discussions, leaving relatively recent ones on the page. (Without it, I have to create a new heading to continue our image-license conversation, so allusions to earlier statements would be confusing to other readers. And you will have other readers of your talk page.) You should also have at least a link to the old discussions, either as a separate page or an edit-history link, on your current talk page, so people can easily look at old discussions. Because it involves others' postings, Wikipedia treats talk pages as a community resource, although users have a lot of autonomy about how to adminster their own pages. You can read Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for the official "take". You might also take a look at other active Wikipedians' talk pages for alternative ideas. I happen to like having a link to each old conversation in a block on my talk page (as you can see), but I'm a pack rat. Saving old discussions on a page like /Archive1 or /2005 is probably the simplest and most common way. (That's how mine are organized; I just take the extra step of creating individual topic links as well.) BTW, thanks for the typo fixes. I'm having a really bad day for typos for some reason. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps

Please give an example of when it would be OK to use an image of a postage stamp. The wiki policy statement makes no sense. Wahkeenah 06:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create the template. You might want to post your question at Template talk:USPSstamp. But the license maintains that one can use a USPS stamp in an article or a section that discusses the stamp itself, but not in an article or section that is about the subject, using the stamp as a picture of the subject. In other words, the Postage stamp article could use it, and perhaps a section of Little Orphan Annie titled "Postage stamp" (that speciflcally talked about the release of the LOA stamp) could use it, but it couldn't be used as an illustration of Annie herself. I suspect this is because the US Postal Service itself only has a license from the creators (or illustrators) of Little Orphan Annie to use the image for postage and philately. That's the problem with restrictive licenses. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why anyone would want to discuss "the stamp itself" without discussing the picture on it. Without the picture, the only thing worth talking about is the denomination and/or the stamp's value to collectors. That certainly sounds like a rule invented by a committee. If I were you, since I didn't invent the template, I would let those who did invent the template be the ones to take the illustrations out, and otherwise leave them alone. Wahkeenah 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that a stamp discussion in the article makes sense. The point is that the license says it can't be used to illustrate the subject, only its use on a stamp. Don't shoot the messenger. If you want to argue the point, take it up with the people who created the license tag, or with the US Postal Service, who probably crafted the copyright license on which the tag is based. Proper image licensing is taking very seriously on Wikipedia these days. And I shouldn't have to point out to an experienced Wikipedian that the entire wiki philosophy encourages people to take action when they see action that needs to be taken. I happened to come across Little Orphan Annie during other work and discovered this license violation, so I removed the image and commented on why I did so, so that interested editors could address the problem. (This is in contrast to so many other editors who seem to feel their actions are so self-evident and self-justifying that they neither bother to add an edit summary nor post an explanation or justify their actions on talk pages.) Someone did come up with a resolution (although they failed to explain it), and although I am dubious about the action, it seemed to be at least nominally within the license, so I commented and got out of the discussion. But if you still wish to discuss image licenses with me, I would suggest you first read the current policy articles, starting with Wikipedia:Image use policy.

By the way, I hope you don't mind my inserting this comment in the natural flow of the section, but before your earlier posting. That latter item seems to be meant for the next section in your talk page. Being an apparent non sequitur in this section, I didn't want it to interrupt logical discourse. You might want to move it. You might also consider archiving your old discussions, because your current table of contents is too large and unwieldy. It's your decision, of course, but long-time Wikipedians typically archive old stuff as a courtesy to their correspondents; i.e., to make it easier to follow current discussions with you. Just a thought. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signing talk-page postings

You should always sign talk-page postings. Many editors don't think when they're posting that discussions easily and often expand to multiple editors with interleaved comments. They also frequently don't think about how confusing reviewing old discussions is when signatures are left out, or if people mess up the indentation or bulleting of interleaved conversation. It may be obvious as your writing, but coming back to review an old discussion can be as confusing as trying to read someone else's program code, without clear formatting and timestamped signatures. I speak from considerable experience from many ten-way conversations and re-reading of archived discussions in order to marshal facts. It's a very good idea to always assume discussions can get complicated; that way, you're never caught off-guard. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait — I just noticed that you did sign your posting, but it was buried in the text, where it was not easily distinguished from any other text with a link. Postscripts do make things a bit more complicated. It's natural to go the end of a block of posted text to find the signature, so if it isn't there, it throws one off. Because of this, I find it useful either to break two ideas into two separate paragraphs (signing the last), or to insert a "BTW" or similar subject-changer into a single paragraph. (When I split into multiple topics, if I anticipate people responding to them individually, I'll even sign each paragraph. Believe me, it can save a lot of confusion later!) Well, that's probably more than enough of my yammering about Wikipedia best practices. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Series

Yeah, as I'm going through these, moving trivia to the individual articles, it seems like 2 out of every 3 says either "some consider the best" or "some consider the most exciting", blah blah. I say just explain how the series went down and let the reader decide about the excitement level. If every game is a one-run game and Game 7 is ended in the bottom of the 10th, people will figure out that it was exciting.

BTW, feel free to look at a couple things in User:Wknight94/World Series. There's a new little section with one line explaining the most obvious highlights of WS history (it's called Highlights and lowlights now but that may change) and the gigantic section listing series is reduced into the table at the bottom of the article. Let me know what you think. Of course it's a work in progress. --Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, good point about the tense. I think I fell into the trap and didn't realize I was doing it! --Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Leagues

> For consistency, when editing the National League you need a sockpuppet named "Uncle Nl".

Ha! Ha! That's a good one! Actually, sometime in the late 1980s, before the consolidation of the umpiring crews, I purchased an American League umpire's cap--which I have worn from time to time--because it had my name on it, "AL". --Uncle Al (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> I added the sections in the lower portion of the NL page that I had mentioned. I have not actually altered the earlier text yet. Please review (unless someone else gets to it first)

I added SORT of the same thing on the American League page. I say sort of because the AL has nothing in its history to compare with the coming and going of NL teams from 1876-1899. I put this information in the "Current Teams" section, if for no other reason than listing all 14 (or 16) of the teams seemed pointless to me, just duplicating the standard MLB info box at the bottom.

Maybe you could do the same for the NL?

Oh BTW, from what I've read, old Wrigley was demolished in 1969, not 1966, but I've found no specific date. Remember the palm tree on the INSIDE of the fight field wall? --Uncle Al (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IPA

First of all, IPA is not only used in Wikipedia but also in dictionaries such Websters. Also, for people not familar with it, there are pages such as IPA chart for English which explain it very simple, so noone needs a PhD to understand it. But I see your point that people unfamiliar with it might have problems, and replaced your non-standard note (I doubt the second part of that is correct, anyway) with the most common explaination of how it is pronounced (it rhymes with fiddle), which should be easily understandable by everyone. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be civil. IPA is a Wikipedia convention; I sure don't have a PhD, and it's not hard to figure out, especially with the link to the IPA chart. Calling me a language snob won't get us anywhere. Cheers. --Baron Larf 05:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Reeves

I see you are getting angry, and I can certainly understand why, but I remind you that Wikipedia:No personal attacks applies even to anonymous users, and even to people who have not made positive contributions to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, but you presumably don't want to be in a position where if this ever calls for a formal decision, they have to sanction you as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I don't like having my comments removed. I realize you are having a hard time with this user, and I thank you for working on this, so no hard feelings, but in the future please let my comments stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's very persistant. He has a small group of pages that he keeps reverting, and as soon as I see one of them (usually Franjo Tudjman), I see that he's hit all of them again. Now he's after my Talk page, too. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also obsessed with Rocky Marciano, the Chicago Bulls and the NBA. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably just as obnoxious in Croatian as he is in English. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Best

Hi Wahkeenah. I saw that you reverted my edit to Personal Best without giving any reason in the edit summary or adding anything to the talk page, and I wondered what your reasoning was. I didn't remove the links because I'm a prude - I'm certainly not one! - and WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. However, I really don't feel that they add to the article. Finding an image such as a DVD cover would surely be a better way of illustrating the article. Besides, surely three links to different sets up screen grabs is excessive? WP:NOT a repository of links. Regards, CLW 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that was a tongue-in-cheek justification for including the links, rather than a serious one! As a compromise, I'll move the links to the talk page from the main article page so that your lesbian friends can still find them... CLW 13:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Español

Look over the es. wiki and see if you can understand any of it. I haven't really had much use for my Spanish on Wikipedia yet, except for answering a couple of Reference Desk questions. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I have es-1 and nobody has asked me any questions about Spanish. :) I could probably add de-1 as well, ja? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say, No, no, bad user in Croatian? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juaquina? LOL! You have to get an admin to protect your User page. But if it's protected, you can't edit it, either. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan Ryan

I was checking out the above image you uploaded and noticed that the public domain tag you placed on it was out of date and they want a more specific tag on the photo. I was going to do it, but I figured I should err on the side of caution and tell you about it. Cheers. Youngamerican 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Your edit summary here is a personal attack. I deleted the image because it had had an unconfirmed copyright status for over six months. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. CLW 12:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, calling me "some wiki-nazi" is a personal attack. I can't possibly imagine what you think I would have a guilty conscience about - I deleted the image in accordance with procedure. Please explain what you think I would have a guilty conscience about. CLW 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. There's no need to notify anyone before speedy deleting a speedy deletable image. CLW 13:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users can't be speedy deleted, but you could try Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Kindly explain where I have been "hassling registered users". CLW 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Game

You tagged the article with a POV sticker. Can you please go to the talk page and respond to my question? Thank you. - JPM | 19:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal House

Thanks for your vigilance about the Animal House article. Unfortunately, Jacrosse keeps on reverting. Is there some way we can get him blocked? It is clearly, at this point, straight out vandalism. Hydriotaphia 06:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Thought you might be interested to know - we have the same situation with the same editor and the same paragraph over in the Toga party article (check out the discussion page, it's longer than the article because of this issue). We asked for a mediator's assistance, and the mediator has asked for an explanation from Jacrosse, but he is not responding. J. Van Meter 11:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo copyright

Hi, would it be possible for you too add the information on which book the images came from, the name of the protographer and the year the image was taken. If the image is really old it may be in the public domain in the US. If the images is not that old you need to add {{Non-free fair use in}} and include a fair use rationale; if you need any advice, just ask.--nixie 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows a historically significant event, so it can probably be used as fair use on Bobby Thomson and Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), but not on Polo Grounds since it is not directly relvant to that article. So you need to add the source information to the image description page, and add {{fairusein|Bobboy Thompson}} {{fairusein|Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)}}, and then add the fair use rationale, you can copy one for historic images from here.

As for the battle cry, I have no idea :) --nixie 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All these images also need copyright information:

Image:Polo Grounds Manhattan Field.JPG, I found a public domain panorama to replace this one
Image:Polo Grounds original.JPG
Image:Polo Grounds after 1923.JPG
Image:Polo Grounds after 1911.JPG
Image:Mays 19540929.JPG

You might want to try looking on the Library of Congress for relate public domain images.--nixie 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched for polo grounds on the LOC and looked thorough some of the first hits. If know the names of specific photographers or players you might be able to find more historic baseball photos there.--nixie 03:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should work, http://www.loc.gov/index.html --nixie 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the image description page on the one I uploaded Image:Polo grounds panorama.jpg and try and incude the same information for the image you found.--nixie 03:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kmkshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kmkshot.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Longhair 06:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Reeves

Yep but it's been a week. it's worth a shot. If we have to reprotect, we always can. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Wahkeenah, please moderate your tone. Reverting a user with an edit summary of "HOW DARE YOU send my talk page an anonymous post to which I cannot respond directly. Get a real logon OR GET OUT OF HERE" is not appropriate. Other Wikipedia editors, whether they are logged in or not, should be treated with civility and respect. Anonymous users are under no obligation to register, and they are free to leave messages for you just as you are free to leave messages for them. If you wish to respond to a message left by an anonymous user, you may leave it on his discussion page. If you are concerned that he may not have a static IP address (although this does not appear to be the case), you may leave a copy on your own talk page as well, or take it to the article's discussion page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Being an anonymous user (and I'd suggest the abbreviation "anon" instead of "a-none") shouldn't really make a difference for the issues you cite. Just as with a regular user, you may discuss matters on the article's talk page (Talk:Apollo moon landing hoax accusations) or on the user's talk page (User talk:67.40.249.122). Users don't have to provide you with an opportunity or forum; you should just use the standard talk areas. I don't agree with all the edits he's making, but if you are not able to articulate your position instead of insulting him and refusing to discuss, it will be less likely that other editors will side with you. I'm not certain what you mean by "go[ing] to it". If I would like, I can see his user page at User:67.40.249.122, his talk page at User talk:67.40.249.122, and his contributions at Special:Contributions/67.40.249.122. Where else would I want to go? Also, I'd suggest you not selectively remove items from your talk page—it makes it look as if you have something to hide. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sports-Wiki

A couple of my couple of my friends (huge baseball fans) modified the Mediawiki engine (that runs Wikpedia) and built a sports-wiki that has some cool new features--blogging, voting, and the ability to post new articles. Everybody can vote on wiki-pages and the pages are sorted by the number of votes and comments a given other users. We think this system is cool because it allows people to post up their sports opinion or a sports news story and the best stories get filtered by other users to the front page of the wiki. Plus, the whole thing is a wiki, so that fellow sports fanatics can get together an build the largest sports encylopedia in the world.

We were wondering if you were interested in checking the site out. I didn't want this to appear spamish, so if you are interested, write back and I will send you the url.

--Awrigh01 04:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ride of the Valkyries

Hello, I have just seen the revert you did on this page. To clarify, I will describe the scene from a synopsis by Deutshe-Grammophon:

The Valkyries are gathering together on a rocky mountain top where they are preparing to take the bodies of fallen heroes to Vahalla on their flying horses.

Then, about eight minutes (in Solti's recording) later, Brünnhilde enters with Sieglinde. The theme of the valyries is repeated, but only by the orchestra and the valkyries, not by Brünnhilde. She does sing the theme briefly in Act II Scene I, but for less than a minute. It is also hardly a self-contained piece as it immediately segues into Brünnhilde's request for help. It is then repeated occasionally, even in scene iii of Act III. I have updated the page. (PS. If you wish to check for yourself, the libretto is here and the vocal score here.) --Alexs letterbox 08:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Peanuts"

Wahkeenah, I have responded to your comment on the Peanuts talk page about User:Gerald15. Janet6 14:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your tone

"If you would bother to read the preceding sentence..." is not an acceptable tone in an edit summary or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I read the preceding sentence and the articles on Cohan, Sherman, and Bostwick. There's no connection between Sherman and Bostwick, nor is there one between Bostwick and Cohan; as best as I can tell, this is someone's attempt to insert a witticism into Wikipedia, and that doesn't belong. If you can show the connection between Bostwick's name and the Sherman song, then do so. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your work in this particular case (referring only to that one phrase) is indistinguishable from random nonsense; the comment is unsourced and pointless, since it has nothing at all to do with Cohan. I can see from other users' comments here that you have a history of using an inappropriate tone, especially in edit summaries. Maybe you should consider the fact that other Wikipedians are commenting on your uncivil tone as a sign that your tone is inappropriate. In addition, please sign your posts on talk pages. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Cohan

I have taken the liberty of starting a discussion on the talk page of the George M. Cohan to discuss your edit to that article. Since it seems to be a controversial matter, perhaps we can discuss it there before adding it again. Thanks, --Hansnesse 01:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I hope the current solution is satisfactory. I do not think anyone indended offense at the inital reversion of the material, or subsequent reversion. I think everyong wants a better encyclopedia, and I'm glad we could discuss how to bring that about. Thanks for your work, --Hansnesse 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, however since there seems to be some controversy about explanation in the George M. Cohan article, perhaps the best thing to do is work out the wording on the talk page. This is primarily to prevent revert wars which are time-consuming and counterproductive. I'll watch the talk page, and hope to hear from you there soon. Thanks, --Hansnesse 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a discussion about the reversion on the article talk page. As long as we remain interested in writing an encyclopedia and not flaming each other, I think we can find something that works there. To respect the three revert rule, lets work out something there before making further changes. If nothing can be resolved, there are several recourse of dispute resolution, but for now lets try discussion. thanks, --Hansnesse 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your question on my talk page

No. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho Cucamonga

Hello Wahkeenah, and thanks for your contributions to the Wikipedia. Would you mind explaining what Rochester has to do with Jack Benny? The article currently reads, "Jack Benny Drive, a small street in the city, is named as a tribute to "The Jack Benny Program". (Coincidentally, the city also has a Rochester Avenue.)" The second sentence appears to be non sequitur, and I believe it was you who placed it there. Without any explanation to its relation to the rest of the article, it will be deleted.--Rockero 21:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I wasn't sure if the piped link to Anderson was enough to explain the connection, so I modified it a little. Please take a look and see if you approve. Paz, --Rockero 03:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Slutskaya

Moving this discussion seemingly accidentally placed on User page --Hansnesse 16:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image (and some others) were uploaded to Wikipedia and tagged with a general non-commercial permission license. Wikipedia changed its policy toward this license and by decree of Jimbo Wales is purging these type of images and wants images that are clearly licensed as GFDL, Creative Commons or public domain or can be claimed under fair use doctrine -Nv8200p talk 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's codified on the image use policy page also -Nv8200p talk 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Cohan

Get as tired as you like. It's not really a concern of mine. | Klaw ¡digame!

Jokes - good or bad - do not belong in mainspace articles. That's the entire issue. You can complain or cast aspersions all you like, but the fact is that your jokes are not relevant to the subject of the article. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asking me why I "waste" my time on this page, yet you're spending more time on the matter, leaving bizarre comments on my talk page, and re-inserting text that two other editors have removed. You don't own the Cohan page; I disagree with your content, and I haven't seen a compelling counterargument from you, since you're too busy posting silly notes on my talk page. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the post on Keithlaw's talk page. I think the best thing to do to avoid such edit warring in the future is to post edits which are likely to be controversial (even if it is just one user) to the article talk page first and request comments. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if I can be of any help. Thanks, --Hansnesse 20:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YDD is a great film, and the kind they just don't make any more, unfortunately. I never realized what a good dancer Cagney was; he's never mentioned in a class with Kelly or Astaire, but in terms of tap dancing, Cagney has to be right up there with the greats. Have you seen Singin' in the Rain (film)? That's more of a regular movie than a biopic, but it also has some great song-and-dance numbers. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turin vs. Torino

Hi, I responded to your question on my talk page. Andrwsc 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Trail

Hi Wahkeenah-- my name is Finko. Forgive me, but this is the only way I know of to send you a message...

I put up the stub about the constitution trail-- I was just wondering-- the section of the trail you refer to as being below street level-- do you mean up by Sycamore street-- that little nature preserve there, just off of the trail?

I am interested in adding to the Bloomington, Normal, and ISU pages... I think this wikipedia thing is pretty cool.

Anyway- thanks for adding to my stub. I can be reached at mattyoung67@gmail.com Or, maybe I'll just go make an "about me" page, like you did!

--Finko User:Finko 02:24, 18 February 2006

Edward R. Murrow -> Boston U.

thanks for the clarification. nice user name by the way :-) Oregon is pretty much my favorite state.--Alhutch 09:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none of the feel of a 90 year old baseball park!! There's a plaque about 200 yards away from the entrance that says this was the site of braves field, but other than that, you wouldn't know. the field is astroturf, with a track around it, and the seats are ugly modern looking metal bleachers. it's sort of an eyesore. but hey, we have 94-year old Fenway Park to the east, so i guess I can't complain about Nickerson. --Alhutch 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now that you mention it, the concrete does look about 90 years old on the concourse under the seats. I was just able to figure out who Nickerson was. Here's a quote from this article in the BU house organ : "It was named Nickerson Field as well, after William E. Nickerson, an MIT graduate who was the principal inventor of the machinery used to manufacture the first Gillette safety razor." And there you have it. I'm not sure about the police station being at the old ticket office. I know there's a daycare center for BU employees' children there. You can't miss that place, the roof sticks out like a sore thumb. hope i've been informative.--Alhutch 10:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely about the old ballparks. The Spanish architecture is a little out of place, but it's not really ugly per se. glad to help with the Nickerson thing. keep up the good work and I'll see you around the wiki --Alhutch 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to go take a picture or two. I'm not the best photographer, but I'll give it a shot. I've been meaning to take some other pictures for BU articles anyways. --Alhutch 11:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I left for Nickerson before your message about the triangle. I got some alright photos, but I was using a film camera, so it'll be a short while before it's developed. So the triangular notch would be somewhere in the middle of today's main bleacher section? would it be at field level? I'm not sure how one would be able to check it out from underneath, because it seemed like solid concrete from my recollection. I'll try to investigate next time I'm there. The gate to the field behind the bleachers is sometimes locked, but today it happened to be wide open. It was about 7 am when I got there, so I don't think anyone saw me. Kinda cool to think that I was standing on a field where three world series and the first ever AFL game were played. and by the way, you were right about the police station. it's in the spanish architecture building, housed together with the day care center. i'll make sure to let you know when I get the pictures. see you around --Alhutch 13:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, which arches exactly do you mean? the arches in this photo? the history on that page with the diagram that you linked to is very interesting. I think the fir trees that were planted to keep the railroad smoke out are still there today.--Alhutch 15:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The architecture really does seem kind of out of place. about the arches: there's a little alleyway to the left (our left when looking at the picture in my last post) of the spanish architecture building which leads to a little triangular courtyard. If you walk straight through the courtyard, you'll get to the three large dormitories beyond Nickerson. If you turn right you'll be at the wall behind the bleachers of Nickerson. At the end of that wall furthest away from the old ticket office, you'll come to a wide gate which opens onto a wide set of stairs that go right down to the field. turn right from the stairs and you'll be in the bleachers. turn right immediately after going through the gate and you'll be in a concourse under the bleachers where the concession stands are. The arches are filled in at the tops, but there's an open space underneath them so that you can see right through from the street (where the picture was taken from) into the courtyard. that open space is fenced off though, which forces people to go through the alleyway to get into the courtyard. If you go further down the street which the picture is looking at, you'll get to a sort of ambulance gate which leads onto a driveway that leads onto the field. It's not as complicated as I make it sound :-). I definitely know what you mean about spring. i think the windchill is about minus 10 here now, of course right after about a week of temperatures in the 40s and 50s, lulling us into a false sense of spring.--Alhutch 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway's seats are very cramped. and i've been in those seats that face the outfield on several occasions. it's not pleasant to crane your neck to the left for the whole game. i'd love to go to a game at wrigley some time. Maybe a red sox - cubs interleague game. Next time I'm out by Nickerson I'll poke around some more and see what I can find.--Alhutch 17:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URL For Sports Wiki

Hey Wahkeenah - Thanks for writing back. I was out of town for a couple of days. The url for the site is (url removed because it won't let me save otherwise, spam filter problem I think). If you take a look at it, tell me what you think! --Awrigh01 21:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal League

Wahkeenah--

I would like to know what you consider "spelling & factual mistakes" in my recent revision of the Federal League, and why you felt the need to completely revert it. I am a baseball reseacher (member of SABR since 1982), and the Federal League has been one of my areas of special interest and expertise. I assure you that what I wrote about the Federal League is quite accurate, from the antitrust case they brought before Kennesaw M. Landis to the discussion of the pennant race to the fact that Marc Okkonen (whose work is still specifically quoted in the article) wrote a book about the Federal League.

Please, what are your standards and reasoning for this? I plan to revert to my earlier edit, as the information I'm including expands knowledge of the subject, but I would like to know what makes you think the work was inaccurate. - Couillaud 02:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman Actors

I need more actors (especially guest stars) who appeared on Smallville, the live-action Superboy TV series, the Supergirl movie, the various animated adpations of Superman, Lois & Clark, etc.User:TMC1982

Image copyright problem with Image:Baby Ruth sign 1935.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Baby Ruth sign 1935.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. SteinbDJ 03:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you look at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use and see which of those make the most sense. The book isn't old enough for the image to be public domain. If the book provides more info about the photo (such as the fact that it is in the public domain), you may be able to select a broader tag. Hope that helps. SteinbDJ 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason this can't be fair use. You just need to include a tag and a description of why it's fair use. SteinbDJ 13:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Baker Bowl aerial1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Baker Bowl aerial1.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. SteinbDJ 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Carmen Electra 048.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Carmen Electra 048.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Camden-Comerica.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Camden-Comerica.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to take you up on your suggestion to modify- Category-Plane Crash Victims

I'm attempting to edit the above-referenced category; however, when I click on edit this page, it comes up blank.

I'm trying to add Barbara Olson and create a new alphabetical category - O; and correct the J.P. (Big Bopper) Richardson entry by placing it under R where it belongs, and enter it as in this sentence.

I read the tutorial, but that didn't help. Any advice you can give me would be appreciated. Hokeman 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Cates

Saying she looks exotic is a personal opinion so... we can't say that. Arniep 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be far more productive if you would discuss verbiage, find sources, and so on rather than tell me Arnie won't allow it. thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're tired of arguing with him, don't. He is not making any new points. There is no need to allow his attitude to drive you away from an article you are interested in contributing to. I will assist in any way I can should you choose to contribute to that article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BIOB.JPG

Deleted. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separated at birth

Hey, no I like the list, even though it's OR. I added one at the bottom that's striking to my eyes. Now I need to make the Boman Irani article! Hope the list pans out. Cheers -- Samir ∙ T C 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DAP brochure.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DAP brochure.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camelback Bridge

Hi Wahkeenah- Finko here

I added a stub about the Camelback Bridge, then somebody added a picture... thought you might be interested

Cheers!

Tawkerbot2

The page was hit by a squidward blanking vandal, the IRC feed that the bot uses had some problems and it caused the bot to misname a few reverts / grab the wrong diff but it still was a *lot* better than the squidward vandalism it showed. The feed appears to be fixed now and all is operating normally. -- Tawker 00:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Miller quote

I like the quote you added to the Dennis Miller article. Do you happen to have the source for it? dbtfz ^talk 02:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally reverted your latest edit. Don't worry, I'll fix it in a second. :) dbtfz ^talk 05:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Shea_postcard_1964.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Shea_postcard_1964.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh What a Beautiful Mornin'

I've added Oh What a Beautiful Mornin' to my watchlist and I'll help keep an eye on it. I'm tending to give Rovno the benefit of the doubt because I'm at work right now (lunch time) and can't do much more until I get home. I'm not aprticualrly optimistic about Rovno's edits, but I can hope.

I noticed your comments to Rovno on his talk page. Please don't lower yourself to other's level, no matter how exasperating they can be. (I have a permanent set of bite marks in my toungue from this, but I try to walk away and take break when it occurs). RJFJR 17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical term: erasing the all the text of an artcile is called blanking not deleting. Deleting means removing the edit history too and requires an admin.

Duke-UNC rivalry

Any interest in helping me edit the Duke-UNC rivalry entry? Remember 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrimmages

Just thought you might be interested to know that the dictionary definition of the word "scrimmage" is "Sports- A practice session or informal game, as between two units of the same team." While I like your new wording for the Field of Dreams article better (since most people do think of football when they hear "scrimmage"), I thought you might like to know all the same. Thanks! -Digresser 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

I've been perusing through your edits and finally got to here. First off, good work on the Leinart vandal, as he may soon be known.

I'm seeing a lot of talk on here on people taking offense to your tone in editing in the past, and I'd like to help if I can in the future. You've greatly increased your positive tone in talking, now just don't fall prey to the troll; as you have not with Leinart. Stay positive, and good editing to you! T K E 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Showing a learning curve is decidedly a good thing. T K E 08:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This pissed me off more than anything else, the part at the bottom. So it's an example of how I handled it. T K E 08:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Leinart Vandal

As a heads up, I put in a checkuser request to affirm it's one user. Of course, do not comment my submission on its page. T K E 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal has been confirmed by Bureaucrat Essjay as a lone vandal. T K E 05:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nickerson/braves field

i just got a shiny new 6 megapixel digital camera, so I should have a bevy of nickerson field photographs coming your way in the not too distant future. sorry this has taken so long, but the last batch that i took on film did not come out well at all and lost resolution when i scanned them, so i didn't even bother uploading them to wikipedia. see you around, --Alhutch 00:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. good work on the matt leinart situation.

Re: WGN-TV

The complaint was about a couple of sentences mentioning WGN-TV's use of on-air branding. I feel that it doesn't belong, partially because it makes the article seem amateurish. Also, since they've never called themselves anything on-air other than WGN, there's no point mentioning it. Check the previous versions and judge for yourself. Rollosmokes 04:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Mile

What you say is true, but at the same time, it would be nice for them to explain why they remove something. For all I knew, they could have blanked it as an act of vandalism. I didn't write the bit about uniforms, I just saw someone removing it, and found it a little suspicious.--Drat (Talk) 12:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

So what precisely are you saying? Am I allowed to have that on my page or not? Your quotes seem to cancel each other out. BTW the IP user who removed that bit happens to have heavy interest in an article I prod tagged earlier. They removed the tag only ten minutes before they edited my userpage.--Drat (Talk) 14:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the section, but it is no longer quite so polemic. Still gets my message across though.--Drat (Talk) 14:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Snelling image

Hello. I suggested one of your images of Fort Snelling, Minnesota may be suitable for a featured picture. The response was that it is indeed a lovely photo, but the small size would likely disqualify it. Do you have a larger version of this image you would be willing to upload? Jonathunder 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maz and Forbes

Good idea.--M @r ē ino 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit jihad

What a wonderful term :) And you're absolutely right, Jill Carroll is a great example of right-wingish wacky theories being proved utterly and inescapably wrong. - Jersyko·talk 03:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

namely that captivity and tortue do not necessarily produce any useful information—have to agree there. Which is why this is such a horrible problem. - Jersyko·talk 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite the stubborn refusal of the accusations to die"

Perhaps youd do me the favor of explaining what is POV about this phrase - it seems to pretty well encapsulate the reason for having the page at all. For great justice. 23:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it tries to put the small minority on an equal footing with the vast majority, and skews the discussion statistically unfairly. Wahkeenah 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? I don't see that it has anything to do with statistics, it just says that the phenomenon is persistant, which it is. The second half of it says that no one to speak of agrees. Never mind - it's not a big deal. For great justice. 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger

Yes, that's it! Thanks - do you have any sources for it? I'll have a dig around... For great justice. 00:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hoax

BTW - I've replied to other issues on my talk page. Re the hoax category, I feel like 'hoax' has to have an element of deliberate fraud, otherwise you're going to end up with a categoy that includes every debunked scientific theory, every minority belief, every common mistake etc. For example, are people who do not believe in global warming 'hoaxers'? For great justice. 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I see where you're going, but I worry that extending the meaning beyond things that have been uncovered as fraudulent basically equates 'hoax' with 'conspiracy theory'. For great justice. 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 191 linkspam

Hi there — I noticed you removed some spam from American Airlines Flight 191. The user who added it, 68.98.103.108 (talk · contribs) seems intent on promoting his site, http://super70s.com. I'm not entirely sure what to do; I asked for opinions at Wikiproject spam, and deleted the links on the advice of JiFish. A short conversation ensued on 68.98.103.108's talk page, in which he defended the inclusion of his links. Do you think this merits an RfC? Fe e zo (Talk) 04:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MonkeyBusiness041706.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MonkeyBusiness041706.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Chadwick references...

...but actually what I was looking for is a reference that says that the inscription calls him the "Father of Base Ball." I can't make out the inscription in the images... I'm trying to clean up List of people called the father or mother of something. I've found enough other references to his being called the "Father of Base Ball" that I don't really need the gravestone inscription, but I'd still like to have a reference for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wehadababyitzaboy

Good one! I'd forgotten about that ad. BD2412 T 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Perry

He is in the WWE Hall of Fame and who died and made u the kings of wikipedia Tim Conway Does he still live in Gallatin,TN?

Re: JFK

I'm curious to know what your take on the JFK assassination is, since I didn't see any of your edits offhand. I was intrigued by the various conspiracy theories at one time, but over the decades I have pretty well concluded that Oswald was definitely in on it and possibly the only one in on it. I was pretty sure he was guilty of something at the time, just because of his flippant demeanor about the whole subject. But as with the Lincoln conspiracy, we will probably never know the facts for certain.

Most of my edits on the JFK assassination article are from back in the late 2003 to early 2004 timeframe. What I am certainly convinced of at this point is that there is likely no evidence that could ever arise this far after the assasination, that is going to put the matter of who did it authoritatively to rest. Even if we found a complete written confession by a random CIA agent, or the head of the Secret Service (to give two random examples of the theories out there), I suspect there would be people who would be skeptical of it anyway, so I guess I believe the Wikipedia article will always be an exercise in presenting multiple points of view, in balance. Personally, I suspect Oswald was involved (particularly given he killed a police officer 30 minutes after the shooting, a fact I don't think is really disputed), but I can't discount others being involved by way of evidence. I suspect Oswald and conspiracy will always be a part of the discussion.

A lot of the edits I did that still seem to be mostly intact were in the sections 'Background to the Texas Trip', and 'Reaction to the assassination'; I also annotated the black and white photo showing the motorcade route, which came from the Warren Commission.

If you ever want a reminder of what the assassination was like for the people that were there, check out http://www.reelradio.com/se/index.html#klif112263 sometime. It's an hour long audio stream of KLIF between 12:30 and the time at which the president was officially declared dead. Not everything in the broadcast turned out to be true, but it really gave me a sense of the chaos and confusion the event caused. It gave me a frame of reference in which to contribute to the article, which granted that someone killed the president, yes, but that John F. Kennedy was also killed. For all the disputes about who killed him, noone has ever disputed that JFK was shot to death on November 22, 1963...and that event was a tragedy by any standard. Skybunny 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. I guess the link I provided there now is a pay-for-play, or at least requires registration. That used to not be the case, so it may not be worth the trouble. Apologies, there. Skybunny 00:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply to random observations

I agree, absolutely and without reservation, that IP addresses should not be allowed to edit.

I have about 250 articles on my watch list, and every time I see an uncommented edit by an IP address I have to check it out, or at least I try to. Recently a couple of them have gotten more clever and put in a comment such as "grammar" when vandalizing.

The serial comma: My understanding is that the comma was short for "and". So "A, B, and C" means "A and B and and C".

I think the serial comma avoids ambiguity in places.

Religious skepticism: I was an atheist for awhile, but I gave it up. No holidays!

I still take holidays.

Wasting too much time on wikipedia? That is not possible.

I've had to cut way down. If you look at my user box, I was really overdoing it in Feb. Bubba73 (talk), 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War Memorial Stadium Style Cleanup

I didn't mean to offend you by adding the style cleanup tag; I have every intention of coming back to work on the page. But you really shouldn't just remove a tag and tell someone to fix it themselves - that's why we have a community! There are people out there who are specifically good at editing style, and if you don't have the tag on the page, they won't know where to find it.

Have a look at my comments at Talk:World War Memorial Stadium. -Pjorg 20:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball franchise post-season droughts

You asked "What is the standard?" It looks to me, from your corrections, that you've got it figured out. The author's intent was to show how many years NOT winning. You can't count 2006 yet, of course, because the outcome is unknown. So the World Series drought for the White Sox is necessarily ZERO, for the Red Sox it's 1 (just 2005), for the Marlins it's 2 (2004-2005), for the Angels it's 3 (2003-2005), for the Diamondbacks it's 4 (2002-2005), for the Yankees it's 5 (2001-2005) and so on. The longest, of course, is the Cubs at 97 (1909-2005). I can see your confusion and that of others who have attempted to deal with this page. The more intuitive usage is "it has been 98 years since the Cubs last won it" rather than "they haven't won it for 97 seasons." Like you would say "it has been 1 year since the White Sox won it", not 0. Most if not all sources would word it that way. Arguably, if this page continues to be a source of confusion (which it has been for awhile), it should either be written in the more intuitive way, or else zapped (at least that portion of the article; the rest is conventional). Wahkeenah 12:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right on my confusion. To me, as long as the info is consistent, it's not too confusing. As far as how it should read, I like it the way it is. Like you said, if the Red Sox won in 2004, didn't win in 2005 and then win again in 2006, they endured a one year "drought". Seems reasonable. Again like you said, it would be silly to say the White Sox have gone through a one-year drought when they're defending champs! I say keep it the way it is... I'd be more likely to raise an issue about 1904 and 1994. If the Jays won in '93 and then won again in '95, it's hard to swallow that they went through a one-year drought when there was no Series during that "drought". But that's hair-splitting that I'm unlikely to pursue. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hadn't even thought about the 1904 and 1994 situations, which frankly throws a spanner into the entire bloody concept. That's why it makes much more sense to simply say that a team "has not won since..." whatever year. Consider the cancelled 2004-2005 NHL season. Using this article's approach, the most recent Stanley Cup winner started the 2005-2006 season arguably with a 1-year drought, even though they hadn't played a game since having won the cup. That just doesn't seem right. If anyone else gets into the article and tinkers with it further, I might just take the initiative to change the approach to "number of years since last win" and "number of years between wins", which seems more intuitive. Wahkeenah 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say which approach is better. What about the Phillies who didn't win any World Series until 1980. Can you have a "haven't won since" column when you've never won?! As far as cancelled seasons, it might be more intuitive to leave them in. As a Mets fan, I say it's been 20 years since they last won in '86, not 19 years because of the '94 strike. Then again, I suppose, with enough clarifying footnotes, you could make almost any approach work. BTW, I was planning on getting in there and table'izing the last few - just makes it more readable to me. If I get there before you, I'll probably institute your "won since" idea. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just heavily edited this page, I agree that the current system is good. Even for 1904 and 1994, the city's fans had to endure a year without a pennant or a championship, so I'd call it part of a drought. Anyway, I hope my revamping wasn't too radical. --BlueMoonlet 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:In the Big Inning.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:In the Big Inning.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 18:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon

Thanks for taking your issues to the talk page - let me know what bothers you, and we'll figure it out. For great justice. 23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greensboro Massacre

Why do you keep deleting a link to an award winning documentary produced by a resident of the Greensboro Community? The only "pay" aspect of the blog/site is a PayPal link for people that want to order the film. Can you actually see the site? We just redirected it (6 hours ago) from another server. I just can't imagine you deleting it for any other reason.

Also, why did you uncorrect my fix of a broken link (the Duke Law Professor article)? Thanks, Spcoon. 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Tough call. On the one hand, the film does seem to have won a couple of festival awards, but they appear to me to be pretty minor. I am disturbed by the fact that 1) the link is to a blog, as I don't feel those are usually appropriate unless it's a very well-known one, and 2) it does have that Paypal link at the bottom, which makes it lean toward the commercial end of the spectrum. I personally believe you're justified in removing the link. Having said that, remember that an admin's word is not law. Have you considered asking for some possibly consensus-building discussion at WP:RfC, or at WP:SPAM? I'd rather see a little more discussion than have you and User:Spcoon get into an edit war. Joyous | Talk 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the page for an RfC, so we can get some other opinions. If Spcoon is a new user, he may be uncomfortable using that page himself. Joyous | Talk 15:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line between advertising and not-advertising can be so tenuous sometimes, I find it interesting and informative to get opinions on stuff like this, just to use as a reference in the future. Joyous | Talk 15:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

As I interpret the user rights page, I think it's ok to use them within the Fair Use guidelines, as long as credit is given. Copyright issues scare me, though. You might send a message to User:Superm401, who seems pretty on the ball with this issue. Joyous | Talk 02:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in Baseball

I saw that you reverted my edits to This Week in Baseball without giving any reason in the edit summary or adding anything to the talk page. I thought my addition helped to clarify when and for how long Ozzie Smith was host of the program, as opposed to simply saying he was host "for a time." I also mentioned that the show stopped production for a year, which is a significant fact. Could you please tell me why you think these needed to be reverted? Thanks. Anson2995 16:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the comments you left on my user page. There are two issues here, as I see it. The first is when Ozzie Smith was the host, and the second is whether the show stopped production, first in 1998 and again in 2006. I'll post my comments on both issues on the talk page for the article. Anson2995 17:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Daily News photos

First, if the image was published before 1923 it is public domain; thus, it can be included freely on Wikipedia. Public domain images should be tagged using one of the public domain image tags. If the image was published after 1923, you may be able to use it under fair use. You should look at both fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use before uploading any images with that justification. Specifically, see the checklist as well as the acceptable and unacceptable uses. One of the examples they give of unacceptable uses is "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo." This case is somewhat different because the Chicago Daily News is not a press agency and no longer exists; however, there is still an organization (Chicago Historical Society) controlling reproduction rights. They demand fees for some uses, so republication could hurt their revenue; this is a fair use criterion. Basically, I wouldn't use any copyrighted images from this source without permission from the CHS unless the photos are already famous. The ones from before 1923 are fine, though. Superm401 - Talk 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had only skimmed it before. However, copyright owners don't have the right to say whether (or how) you can use their content under fair use; fair use is for situations where you don't have permission. Also, the page's instructions come down to, "The Chicago Historical Society encourages use of these images to the extent permitted under the fair use clause of the 1976 Copyright Act." If you do use the image under fair use, you don't have to follow their requirements, but some form of credit should be given. Superm401 - Talk 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you should use that photo. It's not particularly famous or important, and you're potentially harming the CHS's revenues. If you want a second opinion, put {{fairusereview}} on the image page. Superm401 - Talk 23:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, totally

Hey. Sorry about removing your comment, dude. It was a mistake. I was checking Violet's contributions and noticed she left the "user" out of her signiture. Won't happen again. ACS (Wikipedian) 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Apollo 14 golf.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Apollo 14 golf.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Marvin_meets_Rover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marvin_meets_Rover.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Thanks for reverting it. josh (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

No, fair use is not just about money. See WP:FUC. Logos should not be used decoratively, when text suffices. ed g2s • talk 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Electra

It may constitute systematic bias - but if it has a caption explaining the circumstances, then it's better than no picture at all. ed g2s • talk 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said systematic bias - as in it could form part of a greater bias. Any photo will have some bias attached to it (flattering / poorly lit). ed g2s • talk 22:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin image

Such images should not be uploaded to Wikipedia, unless they are in themselves notable and the subject of an article. ed g2s • talk 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo

Hi, I just wanted to point out that although your edit to Blazing Saddles is correct, there's some amount of sense in "first man never whip mongo." I misheard the line myself, thinking Mongo meant that everybody else had literally beat him with a whip at some point, and Sheriff Bart was the first one to "spare the rod," so to speak. Just FYI! MFNickster 05:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 191

Please check the talkpage. -- max rspct leave a message 18:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Skilling

I don't believe Collins' statement about Skilling being skillful really belongs in the Tom Skilling article. Your reasoning? — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were both WGN employees, both very popular (in Chicago, at least - sorry if you've never heard of him) and because it goes along with the high esteem in which Tom Skilling is presumed to be held (in marked contrast to his younger brother Jeff, obviously). Wahkeenah 00:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Chicagoan, too. I've not heard of Bob Collins, but admittedly have not listened to radio much. But I still simply don't see the notability of the comment. For example, would you find it worthwhile to include in an article on Heather Graham that Demi Moore said she was "cute"? A one-word comment from one celebrity about another just isn't worthwhile enough to include in an article, I think. Feel free to write follow-up replies here. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert again, since you've not replied. We can follow up on the article's talk page if you like. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've never heard of Bob Collins and you seldom listen to radio, that makes it non-notable? The two were colleagues, and Collins was the top-rated morning radio guy in the city. I guess that's not notable enough. Wahkeenah 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the comment is a single-word comment from one celebrity about another, it's not notable, as I made clear. Please remain civil. Would you agree to respect the opinion of a random third party brought in via WP:3O? — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 01:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, to Hades with it. Civilly, of course. Wahkeenah 02:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I'll consider the matter closed, then. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF: (1) "Because you've ... " (2) "To Hades with it. Civilly ... " (3) Wikinanny remark. Really, please stop it. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU started it. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. Wahkeenah 02:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, how do you feel I started it? We don't own articles, we don't own edits or contributions. WP:BOLD: "And, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be." — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard back from the original user, who thanked me for fixing his spelling mistake. Wahkeenah 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really doesn't change policy; you didn't have his permission at the time. But really, at this point, I couldn't care less. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will either ask the next time or I will let the user look stupid. Thank you for your contributions. Wahkeenah 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In such a situation, you and I would have no problems whatsoever. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

According to the Copyright Act of 1976, all creative content, including lyrics, is automatically copyrighted. Using any of it would be considered copyright infringement. Yes, it's possible to assert fair use, but you're not providing a rationale, not even describing the actual content you're using and not abiding by something at the very core of Wikipedia - it is a free encyclopaedia, not just in terms of not charging people to use it, but by having it under a copyleft license, so anybody can use it. --Rory096 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not. I will, however, remove them as I see them, if they aren't asserting fair use correctly. --Rory096 03:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon hoax

See my reply on [[5]]. Oh, I see you already have! --Guinnog 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there are a few folk like you who help make the article a better one by listening to and being patient with those believers. Are you in Oregon? I've spent some nice times there. --Guinnog 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The One on the Right is on the Left

No problem, I was glad to help. It appears that rory096 has some personal vendetta against this article, I'm afraid that by correcting his edits me and you have inadvertently become subject to some editor's pathetic power game. After all it's pretty condescending to cite the Copyright Act of 1976 when you don't even understand the legal basis of fair use. Oh well, it appears that the article will be deleted anyway, and I don't want to enter in some edit war because of it. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name, if not the thing

For great justice Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Hmm... really? :) I'd very much like to put your statement to the test, and have a world without religion so we could see if you're right :) EuroSong 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Stadium

Thank you for reverting the New Stadium section on the Yankee Stadium page. There are a bunch of people (all unregistered) who keep on changing it to that long passage that has no place there. The New Yankee Stadium article has all the facts of that writing.

Now if only people will respond to my suggestions on the Talk page. --Milchama (Talk) 00:31 07 June 06 (UTC)

Ride of the Valkyries

I would like to know why you reverted my edits. As I have explained here, Brünnhilde does not even sing in this piece. She does sing some Hojotohos at the start of Act II, but these are without the familiar brass theme in the orchestra. Please have a look at the libretto and vocal score. Also, please provide a reason for a full revert, instead of just removing other people's changes. I have left the phrase about Brunnhilde in. I feel it would be pointless for me to remove it until you read the libretto. --Alexs letterbox 23:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please! Read the libretto here. Brünnhilde does not sing in this piece. I have seen Die Walküre on stage three times, and own two complete ring cycles. Brunnhilde does not sing at the beginning of Act III where the piece resides. Because of Wagner's leitmotif system, she may sing bits and pieces (less than 10 seconds at a time) throughout the rest of the cycle. Have you even seen the opera?

Warning

I would strongly urge you to try to be civil.

James F. (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Electra

I should take this to some sort of arbitration to resolve this beyond this cycle, and perhaps add this to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.--Nick Dillinger 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serial comma

I'm sorry, but I believe it adds clarity and is better at distinguishing different parts of a list. I'm certain you would agree that when we speak, we do not say, "She went to the store and bought eggs, bread, cheese." There is no "and" implied by the second comma. Please go to the following link, and you will see what I mean. [6] Michael 01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and in the Fran Drescher article, the use of the serial comma is perfectly appropriate. Michael 04:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the macaroni and cheese rule is making you hungry, perhaps you should go get something to eat. :-) Michael 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Carmen Electra

Why do you and your buddy Ed_gs2 insist on posting that mug shot of Carmen Electra on her page? It is inherently biased. It carries the assumption that she's a career criminal. In fact, the charges for which that photo were taken, were dismissed. Your insistence on posting it amounts to pushing a point of view. Wahkeenah 10:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wahkeenah. I think the mug shot belongs to the Carmen Electra article because it's the only one free image we have for this person so far. Also, it illustrates a small incident on her bio that is already cited on the article. We should not think that anyone seeing that image would run into the conclusion that Ms. Electra is a "carreer criminal". For instance, in this specific case, as you noticed, the charges were dismissed, meaning that completelly innocent and well-mannered citizens may appear on mug shots. Anyway, I'm still trying to find another free image of her, to be used as the main image on the article. I will let you guys know about any developments. Best regards, --Abu Badali 03:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll see what you can come up with. Meanwhile, kindly explain why it being the only "free" image (lifted from a website notorious for scandal-mongering) compels you to post it. Wahkeenah 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Wahkeenah, I believe that biography articles are greatly improved by pictures, as it is of the reader's greatest interests to know how the subject looks like. As we do have an usable image of Ms. Electra, I think we should use it. Looking for a better usable picture is a great attitude. But I can't see how removing the only one usable picture can be of any help. Besides, as I mentioned before, that very picture illustrates an incident on her bio, an may be used to illustrate that incident on her article. Wish me good look in my quest for a better picture. Best regards, --Abu Badali 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"rv image removal without edit summary" - You know very well what the issue is. I would like very much to hear your justification for promoting the point of view that this actress is a criminal. Wahkeenah 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Wahkeenah. I don't believe Carmen Electra is carrer criminal. And even if i did, I don't see as posting a (real) picture of her would promote my views. Best wishes, --Abu Badali 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment might have "crossed in the mail" with the above. Anyway, it's not so much that the picture is unflattering. If someone took a picture of her walking along the street in public, that would be fair game, even if it was not the best picture. But posting a police arrest photo is tabloid stuff and carries its own inherent point-of-view, which is to ridicule the actress. The only good thing is that this page has not been vandalized nearly as much as the pages of some other glamour-girls, such as Pamela Anderson. Wahkeenah 04:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you put too much weight on the police arrest photo thing. It's just a picture of her. Surely not the best one, but it's not going to make everyone believe she is a criminal. With you gentle permission, I'm readding the mug shot image to the article, and restating my compromise with you and Wikipedia as a whole to do my best to find a better free picture of this notable lady. Best wishes, --Abu Badali 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, if you can, what wiki rule requires that you post a photo in an article. Wahkeenah 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, Mr. Wahkeenah. I don't believe there's such a wiki rule. I'm sorry if anything a I said made you believe in the existence of such a rule. --Abu Badali 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no such rule, why do feel compelled to post that picture? Wahkeenah 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UC)

I have already mentioned a few reasons, "I believe that biography artices are greatly improved by pictures" and "...it (the mug shot) illustrates a small incident on her bio that is already cited on the article". Please, let's not start to walk in circles. --Abu Badali 04:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, a small incident. But you're as stubborn as I am, so I might as well wait and see if you can find another photo that doesn't paint her as a criminal. Wahkeenah 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being stubborn make us improve Wikipedia. Being lazy make us abuse Fair Use. It's done. --Abu Badali 05:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem is with making fair use of a magazine cover or the like - at least until a Wikipedian manages to snap a picture of her. bd2412 T 06:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be moot - there's a (crappy) non-mugshot image of her now. bd2412 T 06:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Ritti

I encourage you to continue the fight against the vandalism of this poster. I know I will and I appreciate your help with it. Rrude 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching my typo (re: ongoing vandalism). Rrude 03:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Novasource will continue to track this guy and we can hopefully get him banned for his vandalism. Novasource has already started by giving him a warning on his page. Rrude 11:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Polo Grounds Manhattan Field.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Polo Grounds Manhattan Field.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhard T 09:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also specify the source for:

Just state specifically which book they came from. Thanks! -SCEhard T 10:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groucho

Mark Evanier has said Groucho was becoming senile in the last few years of his life. We want biography not hagiography. J.J. Popplewick 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of lyrics from K-K-K-Katy

Just to clarify: I removed the lyrics from the article because public domain lyrics belong on Wikisource, not on Wikipedia. The transwikied page is at s:Transwiki:K-K-K-Katy, and when the transwiki process there is completed, a link may be added from the article to the page. In the meantime, I have removed the lyrics again. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Thanks. TheProject 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics do not belong on Wikipedia. Whether or not the process at Wikisource completes (Wikisource, after all, may choose to delete the transwikied text outright), the lyrics cannot stay. TheProject 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not exactly only "so I say". Don't include copies of primary sources. And by the way, yes, we plan to scan all articles looking for lyrics. Care to help us with that? (Obviously, there are some articles on Wikipedia which do have primary source texts, which are only included if they add to the article other than just "here are the lyrics".) TheProject 22:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lyrics

Although you may find them useful, that doesn't change the fact that full dumps of the lyrics of a song written after 1923 is an unambiguous copyright violation and cannot remain on Wikipedia. If you really feel that the site as it is constitutes a "pretentious weblog", I'm sure there are some places you can propose improvements in general, but I don't really see the relevance to removing copyrighted materials... (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, your talk page is rather long. If you'd like some assistance archiving your older messages, let me know. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get snippy, I was just trying to help. I'll leave you be. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

The easiest way to do it is to create a new page at User talk:Wahkeenah/Archive1 or a similar title, and just cut-paste as much of this talk page as you want into it (I usually use a Notepad window or something similar to hold the text I'm moving). Then, add a link to the archive at the top of the talk page. If you need more help, I'd be happy to archive it for you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really any harm in archiving by blanking, since the page history does keep a record of old conversations. You might want to keep the most recent discussions around. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball franchise post-season droughts

I think we tried to revert that one guy's screwup at the same time, and ending up double-reverting. Sorry. d:) Wahkeenah 01:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my bad. I accidentally reverted myself the other day and didn't even know it! Hopefully it's all better now. I have no idea what that other guy was doing but I'm glad he triggered me to find my earlier mistake... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na Na Song

It's a shame that people have been so sarcastic and controversial about the Steam article. It appears that you have taken good care of it for the longest. Now you are getting negative comments from dim wits who really do not know what they are talking about. Apparently you are right about the Billboard books. I found out that they are not written by the staff of the magazine, but by independent authors giving conflicting stories (though Billboard probably also hawks them to rake in more money). You are also right about that the White Sox started the sports tradition, too. If it wasn't for baseball, nobody under the age of about 50 would even remember it. - User:Cooperstown77 10:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (152.163.100.132)[reply]

DVD Cover on Adara michaels

Hi, Wahkeenah.

I noticed you readded the image Adara_michaels_dvdcover.jpg (which is a dvd cover) into the Adara Michaels article. Unfortunatelly, that use of that image is against Wikipedia policy for dvd covers (see the cover art item at WP:Fair_use#Images). As the {{dvd cover}} template says, such images can only be used "to illustrate the DVD in question". Also, please consider using an Edit Summary for you contributions. Now, with all due respect, I'm reverting that article again to remove the dvd cover. Hope you understand. Happy editing. Best regards, --Abu Badali 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Electra

I just wanted to add I completely agree with you on your comment on that abu guy. He is completely wrong for that mugshot.

World Series

The extraneous stuff in the first paragraph, which you have now deleted, was added by a user who got somewhat bent out of shape over the fact that this is not a "true" world's championship. If you've got some time to kill, please see the extended and pretty much inane dialogue I had with him and others over this subject, on that page's talk page. I thought it was sufficient to explain where the term came from. I think you might have rubbed out that explanation. Maybe putting back some of it would simplify matters. Truth to tell, however, I doubt very many outside the USA even care about the baseball World Series unless they already care about Major League Baseball, in which case they already probably understand anyway, so it does seem like overkill. As was this. d:) Wahkeenah 10:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look a little closer - I didn't delete it, I moved it all to the third paragraph. ;-D I agree it's viable information, I just don't think it needs to be in the first two sentences. Like I said in the edit summary, most people going to that article will be interested in baseball, not the international-awkwardness of the name of the series. Really, I was being generous leaving it as high in the article as I did - it seems more suited for the trivia section. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of interest

Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Meow"?

That was an, um, interesting edit summary. Any particular meaning to it? bd2412 T 23:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Meow]...is a shorthand way of saying "catty remark", which is more creative than "npov". Wahkeenah

Ah, that is funny. bd2412 T 23:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Metropolitan Stadium aerial.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Metropolitan Stadium aerial.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

The Babe - Thought you might like this one, buddy! He is my all time favorite because he was the REAL deal! He used hot dogs and steaks for fuel instead of steroids! Baseball Hall of Fame Babe Ruth Video Oh yea, and his bats didn't have CORK inside of them! lol Cooperstown77

Superman Returns

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. CovenantD 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now been properly warned not to revert again. CovenantD 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the warnings you've received on the article's talk page... Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. CovenantD 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report me for, what again? Giving you appropriate warnings? Reverting your POV and speculative edits? Whatever it is you think I've done wrong, feel free to report it. CovenantD 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have made peace now. Wahkeenah 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Saw Her Standing There

Please explain regarding "standard Style".--Patthedog 20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #1, fair use images are not allowed outside article pages. Please remove these from your user page. Thank you. howch e ng {chat} 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your compliant has been noted and logged. Wahkeenah 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that it's not my complaint; it's policy. Sorry. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 06:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must agree with Howcheng, and I was planning on leaving you a message later. Please remove them from your user page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So noted. Wahkeenah 11:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Now I know why it's called the "F.U." policy. Wahkeenah 11:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wahkeenah. Please note that you don't have to remove all the images, just the ones whose copyright holders haven't given us permission to use. Let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Blame the lawyer-gods, not the wiki-gods. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC

To my knowledge, we've never been sued. A copyright infringement lawsuit could be devastating, especially if successful, so Wikipedia goes to great lengths comply with the law, to remove copyrighted material and to respond promptly to copyright holders' concerns. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Nevertheless, it's probably better to follow the law, rather than break it until we get caught. Especially for something as trivial as putting images on user pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia for Song

I didn't know that I've Been Everywhere was used in ads... very good observation, and I must say that the way you included the Trivia about Joaquin Phoenix was well worded. Crisco 1492 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a fact, and we'll see how everyone feels about it... either way, it is an interesting thing. I didn't notice that Phoenix, Arizona wasn't included in the song though. Crisco 1492 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals logo

Hi Wahkeenah. That is weird. I also checked it and couldn't see any difference between the Cardinals and Cubs. I dunno. Maybe the Card's logo file is corrupt, you could try re-uploading it. I posted a message about it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Logo weirdness, maybe somebody will reply. If no solution works, maybe we'll have to file a but report or something. Herostratus 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that? Sizing it as 101px instead of 100px works. This I cannot explain. Herostratus 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I was tryin without much luck to find more of the western league pennent winners Smith03 04:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exit to Eden

You readded a link to celebritymoviearchive.com to Exit to Eden (film). I have removed it again because I strongly feel this violates WP:EL. The site appears to be blatantly violating copyright. The link doesn't add anything useful to the article that couldn't be gleaned from the movie itself. And the site is commercial. --Yamla 14:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Would you rather I posted the screen captures themselves and claimed fair use? As they keep telling me here, "Wikipedia doesn't censor". And that site has no popups, so it's non-intrusive. As far as "adding nothing" to the movie... have you ever seen it? 0 + 0 is still 0."

I don't believe the screen captures on that commercial site add anything to the article, nor do I believe that site is following fair-use. Wikipedia policy is not to link to sites violating copyright. I have no objection to nudity, I just object to linking to that particular commercial site. --Yamla 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Define the practical difference between what they are doing, and what many articles do here when they post screenshots. And don't give me the "commerical site" argument again. It's a totally free site. You're not compelled to buy anything. Besides which, other commercial sites are on here. Consider the hassle I got into for posting your same argument in reference to the Greensboro Massacre#Video article where this guy was trying to push his own video... ("Greensboro's Child") and he won the argument, somehow. Oddly enough, I get a warning message when I connect to it. Not so with this site you're griping about. Also, I have no connection or personal interest in that site, it's just one I ran across someplace. It's a useful resource and it doesn't cost a dime."

The practical difference is that Wikipedia officially tries to determine which of the images are fair-use and has a strict policy about it which gets enforced when we find a violation.. Just because many articles here use images in violation of Wikipedia's policies does not mean that we should condone this. Additionally, external links are generally not appropriate and rather than justifying why one is not appropriate, we should really be considering whether that link is appropriate under WP:EL. --Yamla 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Enough already. There's a double-standard here. So what else is new? Do you intend to check every last link on this pretentious weblog and determine which ones are violating copyright? Not bloody likely. You just don't like this specific site. Fine. You win."

I have 3,153 pages currently on my watchlist. I check every one of them to make sure they are not violating copyright. Unfortunately, this is only a small fraction of the total article count on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Stevens

Rise Stevens is still there, with its history. I'm going to delete the Risë Stevens page and read some more about what I think I'm doing. ForDorothy 16:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I really f****d up this time. The first time I copied the Rise Stevens page onto the Risë Stevens page. I then put the redirect template at the top of the original page, but I didn't understand the way it looked in preview, so I stopped right there. Then I got your message. I re-read the instructions, and I really thought I knew what i was doing. I'm afraid I've lost not only the history but the article itself. I've been looking at "Contact Wikipedia," trying to find out whom I can contact to see if the damage can be undone. I'm heartsick, and I'm sorry, and if you can offer any help, I will never try to redirect an article again. ForDorothy 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you

I think there might now be two identical articles out there, with two non-identical histories. I'll be reading some more. Again, thank you. ForDorothy 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's her Carmen. She'll always be my favorite. I think I'm going to nominate the new page for speedy deletion (once I learn how to do that) and start again from scratch. ForDorothy 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea. Now I have something to look forward to. I've only ever heard her sing; I've never seen her. And I see that she was in something called "The Chocolate Soldier"--something else to look forward to. Thanks. ForDorothy 18:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've never seen it with the tilde, but I've always pronounced it with one. And now that i have searched Habanera, I feel (kinda) confident in saying that it does not have one. I intend to correct myself accordingly. And to tell everyone I know. But first I'm going to "meditate" in the garden. ForDorothy 19:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove that tag immediately

Remove that tag immediately? Who pray tell are you? Immediately? I think not. See the comments on the talk page.

The dreaded octa-gone. You get one of these, you gone.

George Reeves

Why did you revert the adding of the heading in this article that it needs it sources cited? There is not one source or reference cited in this entire article. (a few minutes later)- Nevermind, I'm an idiot, you added the references, that's why you removed it. Sorry.

Apollo

Wahkeenah, as near as I can tell you and I are on the same side regarding the Apollo hoax crap. Instead of fighting with each other over silly stuff, it might be better if we worked together on getting the article to meet NPOV standards. Your call. Jim62sch 06:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadia

Thanks for that; to me it is a mock-learned plural, almost as bad as "virii". Fair that we mention it, but this guy has moved and renamed categories (stadiums -> stadia) and recategorised dozens of articles to conform to the new categories. Blech. --Guinnog 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

faux facsimile 1845

Did you recently delete scads of talk?

fake fake? No, I fool around with romance languages at my peril, but only for discussion. No intentional virii. I mean that no 1845 printing is extant (I think, or I would not be coy). A real fake. --P64 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did immediately pursue this matter, re early printings of the Knickerbocker Rules. It is on hold until baseball-almanac next accesses digital archives --files from which material on the website has been selected, cropped, otherwise derived. --P64 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I have been needlessly indirect, although there was no good reason to say anything at all.

I suspect fraud in the collectibles market with baseball-almanac a minor victim. Maybe baseball-almanac hopes to catch a thief. That's all for now. (Really all for now, as I have burned this end of my Labor Day weekend candle to the point where Labor Tuesday will be challenging.) --P64 07:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of Baseball

Judging by your past work, you should revisit Origins of baseball when you have some time. I did talk a lot after messing a lot. At least, experienced editorial comment on the "See also ... References" issue will be appreciated, but if you are a student of baseball history there is more, more. --P64 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"That question was raised almost two years ago. The current article does not make that statement. No hay problema. Wahkeenah 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)"

See Talk: Origins of baseball. Is it appropriate to delete entire sections such Thomas Wilson and Century mismatch from Talk pages? Key features: mundane ("you made this mistake: . . .") and obsolete (mistake long corrected). Note, other talk pages do have overwhelming mundane obsolete content. --P64 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your input

Hi, Wahkeenah. As someone who seems to watch my talk, you may be interested in expressing your opinion on my RFA. I will appreciate your input, regardless of your opinon. Thanks in advance. Best regards, --Abu Badali 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nessie

I wonder what got that guy's goat so much? Thanks for your good-humoured and civilised support there --Guinnog 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed. I am ashamed at how much I enjoyed the Santa Claus comparison, but he kind of walked into it. Oh well. --Guinnog 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thanks for showing me it. I love James Thurber and vaguely recall reading the story many years ago. --Guinnog 23:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside to Bubba73

He'll say that NASA is the only source. Wahkeenah 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASA was the only one there. Too bad CBS didn't have a camera set up to show the landing. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Yankee Stadium

Hi,

The anti-stadium people have started to make their edits on the New Yankee Stadium page, by putting an anti-stadium slant on it. They even removed the pro-stadium section of the article, and renamed the controversey section, "The Merits of Parkland". I've made changes, but I'm sure they will change it back. Groundbreaking is scheduled for tomorrow.

Milchama 20:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

us 51 star flag

At some point, someone is liable to nail you for "Original Research"

2 things:

Obviously, the 51 star US flag is not my own design. You can read all about it at United States 51-star flag. I find the accusation that I made it up a bit absurd, and it seems like you're trying to pick a fight or something, which is odd, considering I've never heard of you before.
You should sign comments on people's user pages. It's only polite. Like this: --jacobolus (t) 18:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Diamond

Yes, nobody calls them "fair poles" but that is what they are. If a batter hits the poles, it is therfore a home run. i.e the pole is in FAIR territory. Therefore the poles are called FAIR POLES even though they are so calusly called Foul Poles. --GaryWill (t) 19:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-modern baseball

I saw your comment on the Giants/Dodgers rivalry talk page about being a fan of 19th century baseball. I've got something of a nascent interest in the area myself. I'd be grateful if you'd critique/edit a few such articles to which I've recently made major contribs:

It's not glittering prose by any means -- I know you can help make it better.

Tangentially, I think I've seen you cite the Jerry Lansche book "The Forgotten Championships" -- if you have a copy lying around, I'd be interested to know if it has any info on the Hall Cup, "baseball's earliest existing World Championship Series trophy". [7] It was given for the 1888 NL/AA championship. (Amazingly, there is not a smidgen of info available via Google on the topic -- which simply intrigues the hell out of me.) But a friend of mine got a photo of it at the HOF recently wben I asked him for some Temple Cup shots: [8]

Thanks in advance for any help. I won't even take umbrage at your dislike of baseball's greatest team. Woodshed 10:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's even more maddening, then, if Glory doesn't mention it. It probably isn't historically significant; yet, the HOF displays it. Very intriguing. Woodshed 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A shmoo?

Sorry, but my user name has nothing to do with schmoos? I'd never even heard of them until you told me. Ashmoo 04:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Victory March

Answer: When the lyrics to the verses were written in 1923 or later. The music was written earlier, as were the lyrics to the chorus, but apparently the lyrics to the verses were not written until later in the 1920s—most likely 1928, since that's when the song was copyrighted.

The original music and the chorus are now in the public domain, but not the verses. IANYAL, but I did take copyright law in law school, so I do know a little about this. :)

Thanks... — Dale Arnett 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wumbo

Sorry, I do not have enough expertise to tell who is right and who is wrong in your dispute over The Pink Panther. You may want to start a WP:RFC over the article or the user or another form of mediation. I could help if there is a simple vandalism, sockpupeeting, 3RR violation, etc. For the content disputes you need a better expert than me abakharev 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Detroit whale

The last time I visited Detroit (June 4, 2006), the murial was still there. I haven't read anything about a removal of it, but I can't say for sure that it is still there on the current day. I plan on visiting next month, and I'll see if it is still visible. --Mrmiscellanious 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps?

OK, since you seem to be the resident expert on images, I have a question for you: What is the wikipedia policy about screen-captures from Google Maps? As an example, let's say I find a building I want to write an article about. The building is visible in Google Maps. Obviously, I can point to Google Maps as a link (if I can figure out how, which I haven't so far). Or, I could capture it and make a picture of it to display in the article. Presumably, their images are taken from public-domain sources, i.e. U.S. satellites. But there could be more to it. What's the rule? Wahkeenah 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://maps.google.com/help/terms_maps.html, the images are "...provided under a nonexclusive, non-transferable license..." , and "you may not use the imagery in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purpose" and "you may not copy, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate, modify or make derivative works of the imagery, in whole or in part.". Also "You also may not rent, disclose, publish, sell, assign, lease, sublicense, market, or transfer the imagery or any part... " well, you got the point. My guess is that it's not considered free enough for Wikipedia's standards.

I believe their source is not public domain. Maybe commercial satellites, not sure. Best regards, --Abu Badali 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Baseball Project

I am aware of this. I have notified the photographer here. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:LittleRedRidingRabbit2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:LittleRedRidingRabbit2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

something positive

Well, I've learned something positive today - rendezvous is spelled with a z. Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

Good stuff in The Barley Mow - glad to see a couple of other versions. Jer ome 07:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake-Shore Park

Thanks for adding the Lake-Shore Park stuff. Writing yesterday, I supposed there must be a distinct article on Lake-Shore (where the lovely image would belong) as opposed to Union, but I didn't get around to looking until this evening. Unfortunately, see Lake Front Park - a really bad article that I just moved from Lakefront Park. (The only link inward is from the astonishing J. Haley by the same author.)

Have you seen the name "Lake-Shore Park" used elsewhere? Or did you simply write the caption by reference to the Union BBG article? Maybe the latter is a mistake by the principal author, 9 March 2005, a slip of knowledge from the modern Lake Shore Park or a slip from describing the east side of the site in relation to the lakeshore. (That is not in the 1986 edition of primary source Lowry which says essentially South, Washington St; East, Illinois Central RR.) --P64 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. (Re below, you have answered by implication: contemporary newspaper research rather than modern reference works.)

Let us pass on the number of articles and on typography: capitalization and one/hyphen/two words. What about "Lake Front" v "Lake Shore" --is that also a matter for your 30-year old notes? --P64 05:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I lost the following note last hour. Since then, [1] I have edited the Union BBG article as described here, and [2] you have Talked from your old notes on 1870s Chicago newspapers, which include no sighting of "Lake Front" or "Lakefront" among many things the ballparks were called. Here it is verbatim. --P64 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While flexible, you are inclined to call it Lakeshore Park (for continuity with South Side and West Side Parks). Continuity?

With "Lake Front Park" (albeit numeraled) appearing in the recent reference lists of major league ballparks, that needs to be in the main space. Since this evening, we do have both Lakefront Park and Lake Front Park. In the text, there is more flexibility, and I will simply add a note re Shore and Front to the Union BBGrounds article for now.

Dexter Park (Chicago)

Can you recommend a source for baseball or sporting venues in 1870 or earlier? --P64

CovenantD

User CovenantD has been bothering other editors the same way you claimed in his talk page. I'm making all the complainers aware that we're that he has been doing this to several articles and editors.

I wrote him this: From my understanding you were blocked for 6 hours because of your 3RR violations in Clock King, please use the time to think about your actions. You've been a very inconsiderate user. the purpose of wikipedia is to make well sourced informative articles, not un sourced uninformative articles that don't ilustrate the content. If you don't like the topic, go to an article about a topic you like and provide research, tables, infoboxes and images according to guideline. Thank you--The Judge 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever need me to rv his rv's or an intervention write me a comment. --The Judge 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking maybe all complaines should do a well intended intervention on him so he realizes edit warring and chopping off adticles is not a good idea.--The Judge 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please refrain from edits such as this one. Talk pages are for discussion of the article itself, not a repository of links. You know this full well. --Yamla 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Hansen

Hey, just wanted to tip my hat to you for starting the Bernice Hansen article. It's great to see fellow wikipedians starting interesting articles about stuff that is a little bit obscure but still notable and interesting, know where I can find more info on this person?

Elomis 08:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exit To Eden (film)

You asked: "Would you prefer I post a screen capture within the article? I know they say "wikipedia is not censored", but I don't think it's right to assault the casual user with adult imagery, without some warning first."

There's no reason whatsoever to include screen captures in the article about the book. For the article about the movie, there's already some images so I don't think it is necessary there. --Yamla 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Great Piggy Bank Robbery

Afraid I know nothing about the source of that phrase - the article is the first time I've seen the reference to St. Louis Blues suggested. Maybe it could be connected with Bessie Smith, since she recorded the song (including a film of it), but that would be a decade or two prior to the cartoon. --Davepape 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By pure coincidence, I just came across a site with the answer. http://members.aol.com/EOCostello/ has a massive list of Warner Bros. cultural references; under "L" it says that "Love dat man" actually comes from Beulah, of Fibber McGee and Molly. Google shows other sites supporting this claim, e.g. [9]. I'll add this info to the article. --Davepape 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis NA, NL

Wahkeenah, Just now I provided a central account of what I did when lost in categories a couple days ago. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball players#player Categories. Now I will Talk briefly at pertinent Cincinnati, St Louis and Washington articles. --P64 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [Cincinnati Reds talk] and Talk:Washington Nationals (NA). St. Louis talk --I'll try to get to it. --P64 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I haven't been editing this for a while but I genuinely couldn't see any reason for the tag. Let's see what happens. --Guinnog 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water

Mr. C. has a 24-hour block because of 3RR. Bubba73 (talk), 16:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:3RR violation on Rosie O'Donnell

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Gwernol 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above ran from 00:52 to 03:52 on 15-SEP-06. Let that be a lesson to me. :) Wahkeenah 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was not enough, since you continue to revert war without using the talk page. Your disruptive behavior will get you blocked again if you don't start to show some good faith. Carfiend 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you seem interested in following policy, but I just thought I would warn you that "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings." Since asking you to use the talk page and not revert war is not harassment, you should not revert. Carfiend 01:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict over edit-warring allegations

I thought this edit [10] was making the situation worse, not better. Please try to be more patient or else just ignore him; there are enough good editors watching this that we can reasonably expect to improve the article. The main thing stopping that just now is the friction between some contributors. I have warned Carfiend a couple of times not to make things personal; I have to give you the same advice. I can revert any more unencyclopedic additions that I see from him on your talk page, if that helps. --Guinnog 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was from 24 hours ago. I am now in much stiller waters. :) Wahkeenah 02:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Glad to hear it. :) --Guinnog 02:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wahkeenah - a new height in revert-warring behavior

Reverting without comment on the talk page is one thing, without even bothering to fill in the edit summary is another. Please stop it, or you will be blocked again. Carfiend 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Park

You wrote at User talk: P64 last fortnight: One interesting thing is that a horse would be so famous they would name a track after him, which gives an idea of how much interest there was in the subject then. It's as if they were to rename Santa Anita Park as "Seabiscuit Park".

Fashion Race Course in Brooklyn and Eclipse Park in Louisville were named for race horses and the Louisville baseball club was named Eclipse (Eclipse Base Ball Club?) for the horse or the park. I think it indicates both high interest in particular horses and low interest in proper names.

The 1870 team also played a couple of games at a site called Ogden Park, possibly when the racetrack was in use or something.

Do you know the dates for those games? Have you compiled site data systematically (nearly complete seasons) for the 1870 White Stockings or any other NABBP team? The game logs by Marshall Wright (the only published logs, I believe) do not identify even the city. (Wright, Marshall (2000). The National Association of Base Ball Players, 1857-1870. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. ISBN 0-7864-0779-4) --P64 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a SABR member?

No rush. Really I am curious first what early site data you have compiled (none, I infer), second what you have noted and may be willing and able dig up from notes and share. Even for Chicago 1870 in particular, home/away is more important than Dexter/Ogden. I don't know of any source but contemporary newspapers. --P64 03:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian space historians

Do you have a reference to Russian space historians that say that Gemini 6 was the first space rendezvous? Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ballclub names

I wonder what you think of the section Brooklyn Eckfords#Name and I hope you will comment at Talk:Eckford of Brooklyn#Name. I anticipate eventually putting some of this material in a general article like NABBP so that ballclub articles can handle some of it by reference to the general one. --P64 05:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Carnation Building as Daily Planet.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Carnation Building as Daily Planet.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulls

Nice looking shot; thanks for adding it (and for the kind words as well). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:LookUpInTheSky.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:LookUpInTheSky.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trivia in MLB.COM

The history of MLB.COM owned by another party and its transfer to Major League Baseball is a true fact in history and it has nothing to do with advertising. There is no justification in removing this entry. Rgl168 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been reported to the administrator

Your name has been reported to the administrator for the continous removal of legitimate information regarding the article MLB.COM. I am not a laywer, nor worked for any law firms in this world. Rgl168 18:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hello, Wahkeenah, I'm Shadow1, the mediator working in the case requested in the Mediation Cabal by Rgl168. In order to improve communication during mediation, I'm asking the parties involved to explain their reasoning on this page, so that I can see both sides of the issue. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't any "winning" in disputes, but I'll talk to Rgl168 if that's your view. Shadow1 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: America the Beautiful

Stop removing valid, documented information just because you may not like the truth (that the song's melody is from a German composer). I see you have other complaints against you for this. Grow up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.152.199.196 (talk • contribs) .

You have to provide a source. I see another user reverted it also, for the same reason. Wahkeenah 06:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnehaha Falls

You really think a picture of water really helps the article? What is in that picture that isnt displayed better in the other pictures? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant redundant in that its showing the same thing the other pictures are showing. Can it be removed? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it at least be moved to the gallery then? there are too many pictures on that article wp is not flickr. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arisch

Thank you. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket/football/rugby/thanks

Despite our disagreement about American football and rugby, we seem to be pretty well agreed on what needs to be done with Comparison between cricket and baseball. I think we have a group of people together there now who can greatly improve the article now. All it takes is the will to change it. Thanks for keeping up the good fight. But – if you check out American football#History you'll find American football is a direct descendant of Rugby Union. And I would like to thank the sportsmen of the United States for eliminating the line-out. John FitzGerald 14:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Note to self: The following paragraph was re-posted at various times by allegedly different users: 64.12.116.132 and 67.162.212.254 and "LittleOldMe". Wahkeenah 02:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Wahkeenah: If you care to review my contributions, it will be quite clear to you that I am not engaging in sock puppetry, and I do not appreciate the allegation. I have clearly stated my stance and in every way I have followed the guidelines to assist you to resolve this dispute amicably.LittleOldMe 10:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) You have done with (3) reversions on Lance Bass. It is considered vandalism. Please use the talk page. SImply claiming vandalism does notmake it so. Thank you. 64.12.116.132 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted the reversion you claim is vandalism in the César Chávez article. I must agree that all evidence points to him being a Mexican-American. You refer to a discussion (ad nauseum), I could not find it. The only comment I found was justifying why he is labeled a Mexican-American. Perhaps you can respond there before you continue.

I have no axe to grind here, I was just patrolling recent changes and happened on the edit war. Please discuss it before it escalates further.

Regards

LittleOldMe 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the anon editor you were edit-warring with on Lance Bass. Please, next time, use a better method to resolve a dispute than edit-warring. Although I think you were 'right' in terms of WP:BLP, this is not the most productive way of resolving these issues. Best wishes, --Guinnog 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been repeated attempts by (apparently) various users to revise the wiki policy manual on biographies (and always in the same poorly-written phraseology) to "allow" race and sexual orientation to be cited in the opening paragraph... including, if I recall, the one who just posted the above. That's what this is about. Wahkeenah 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, which is why I blocked him and not you. All the same, next time let me or another admin know, or else raise it at AN/I or something. Best wishes. --Guinnog 23:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- He'll just come back as another user. This started (or at least my part of it did) with user Cliesthenes and the Rosie O'Donnell page. User Dcflyer was actually fighting this vandal before I was, and I'm guessing Cliesthenes and its many sockpuppets have "reported" him also. Unfortunately, the admin who blocked me for 3 hours at the time of the Rosie O'Donnell dispute did not bother to look any further into it, so I concluded admins were not really interested in the details. Maybe it was just that one. Anyway, if I see further attempts at that same vandalism on Rosie O'Donnell, César Chávez, Lance Bass and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) by (apparently) that same user, I will let you know. Wahkeenah 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please do and I will try to help you as best I can. --Guinnog 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting comments from your talk page

Please do not delete other people's comments from your talk page. If you feel that they are unfair then you can state why in your response and, if neccessary, you can request mediation.

Regards

LittleOldMe 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

César Chávez

Please comment on why you feel it is so important that César Chávez is not given the hereditary label of Mexican American. Do you feel that it is somehow demeaning?

A discussion has been started on the article's discussion page which I invite you to join.

If you do not offer an opinion then I will ask for comment so that we can find consensus.

Regards

LittleOldMe 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been repeated attempts by (apparently) various users (including the IP address who "thanked" you) to revise the wiki policy manual (always in the same poorly-written phraseology) to "allow" race and sexual orientation to be cited in the opening paragraph. That's what this is about. Wahkeenah 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply and for stating your position clearly and concisely. Now that I have heard your side of the argument I have come to a sympathetic understanding of your position. I admit that, contrary to Wikipedia policy which urges the assumption of good faith, I came to the conclusion that you were engaging in an edit war out of malice. I apologise for making that assumption and taking that stance.

In my defense I wish to note that you ignored requests from dissenting editors to engage in discussion.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so it is a learning process for me, but hopefully I can continue to make a positive contribution and I hope that our recent disagreement will not lead to animosity between us.

Regards

LittleOldMe 10:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I got you wrong, I apologize. Wahkeenah 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Apology accepted.

LittleOldMe 12:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Big Thank You

Thank you for standing your ground against Cliesthenes and its numerous schizophrenic incarnations. It is clear what Cliesthenes is. It is a hater, a wannabe gay basher. It is clear what its motives are. It actually stated it word for word in a recent comment: to label all known "homosexuals" as "homosexuals." It thought it was clever with its changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). It thought it was clever to make changes to other articles, e.g., Chavez and MLK, as a form of back-up. It thought it was clever to use sockpuppets, proxy servers, and other IP tricks. But it failed to realize that the edit histories do not lie and that they leave a trail. It continued to use the same phraseology and make the same grammatical errors. It continued to target the exact same set of biographies. It continued to try to descredit each of us through its "warnings" on our talk pages. The hypocrisy of its comments are comical. It even awarded itself a barnstar on its own user page. What a joke! But at least all of this has been put on the record now and can easily be referred to the next time it returns. -- Dcflyer 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very perceptive. It crossed my mind as well, that it actually might be pushing a "gay agenda." This was based on comments left on my talk page by its potential predecessor sockpuppet of Spazik007. But as you correctly said, it is POV/agenda pushing either way. Thanks again for the great work. -- Dcflyer 01:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Jay (slang) proposed for deletion

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Jay (slang), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Jay (slang). If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kander 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Thanks for giving the green light on this. I've added the information from the article to the relevant Wiktionary article. Kander 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comerica Park Whaling thing

It is gone, replaced by a Verison advertisement. --Mikerussell 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the distance markers painted on to the green outfield fence, I think so, in fact I remember thinking how much advertising was now on the outfield wall in right and especially left in front of the bullpens. I don't think there is a distance marker on the left field line at all, I was looking because I wanted to see how much they shortened it up from the first 4 seasons. There may be one in straight away center and down the line in right. Hopefully they were smart enough to apply some peel away vinyl or other application that preserved the underlying artwork of the whales, becuase it could be possible to 'drape' the wall with advertising, but who knows, that might be too logical. Anyway, back to work. --Mikerussell 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overtime

Hi,

Please see my message at Talk:American football. Thanks -- Mwalcoff 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got no objection to your new addition. -- Mwalcoff 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry manilow

I was looking over the history and talk page of Barry Manilow. Thanks for taking care of all that nonsense about homosexuality that people continued to put in. Weatherman90 02:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't about the weathermen until now - quite ironic indeed :). Music of almost every generation has been criticized as it first hits the mainstream, especially in the 50s with Elvis, but the music has gotten progressively worse as time has went on. The thing that bothers me the most about new music is the casual and constant use of shock words, particularly the F word. I can't say I hate the sex references in today's music too much because then I would be a hypocrite as I enjoy music like the innuendo laden ZZ Top.

I actually discovered the gem TSOP a few months ago while browsing through a disco collection. Weatherman90 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Square (slang)

Please refrain from removing content from the Square page, in a lame attempt to conceal your own square-ness. If this continues, cool non-squares will be dispatched to your house to beat you up. That is all User:146.57.92.37 07:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. He's persistent. I've added the page to my watchlist, also. If necessary, we can semi-protect the page, but let's hold off on that to see if it's needed. Joyous! | Talk 13:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about mentioning it. If he notices, fine. If not, fine. Joyous! | Talk 13:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist trap

I made significant changes to the page Tourist trap and from the history page it looks like you have spent some time working on it. Please take a look and let me know what you think. This is my first attempt so... Jeepday 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sweeney

Sweeney appears to exist [11], although the article here is...not great. Perhaps you could take a moment to write an actual sentence instead of the garble that's there? Joyous! | Talk 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now. I hope my comment above didn't come off as rude: as I read it this morning, it appears a little brusque. If so, I apologize. I was editing under the influence of allergy medication, and I didn't trust myself to fix the article. Joyous! | Talk 12:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War II or the Second World War

The terms are generally synonymous although most American(U.S.) historians tend to use the "World War II" or "World War 2" designation, historians in the United Kingdom and Canada have standardized on the "Second World War" and consequently, the "First World War." You will find both conventions in use throughout the internet and unless there are significant reasons for choosing either system, I will defer to applying the designation: "Second World War" to only articles pertaining to a British or Canadian subject. Encyclopedia Britannica: "World War II also called "Second World War" conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45. The Wikipedia article on the subject describes it as: "World War II, or the Second World War, was a worldwide conflict fought between the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers, from 1939 until 1945."

Bzuk| 15:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

When reverting good-faith edits, it's polite to give an explanatory edit-summary. The editor you reverted on César Chávez doesn't understand what your problem with his edits was, and frankly, neither do I. When people communicate, it makes it a lot easier to come to consensus quickly, and without bad feelings. Thanks, Mak (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations, periods and commas

Explain to me, since you seem to be an American, why you use a British form of useage in regards to the placement of a comma and a period when quoting. Here is the common answer to placement: "When it comes to commas and periods, though, logic doesn't enter into the equation, at least not in the United States. Universal American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, regardless of logic.

         ~"Diane," she said, "put the book down and go outside for a little while."
         ~"I will in a minute," she replied, "as soon as I finish this chapter."
   This rule applies even when the unit enclosed at the end of the sentence is just a single word rather than an actual quotation:

See the following google search: <http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=commas+and+periods+in+quotations&meta=>

Bzuk| 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources -- some examples

This is the only example I can think of off hand Dust My Broom but I saw some really good ones recently and I'll send the articles to you when I get the time. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore Mattisse. No specific citation style is required. Naming the sources in the text of the article is perfectly acceptable. See WP:CITE if you'd like more information on the multiple ways to cite sources. -999 (Talk) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user appears to be a troublemaker. Check User_talk:Hanuman Das#List of articles repeatedly disrupted by Mattisse and her sockpuppets for investigation for a partial list of other articles she has pulled this kind of crap on. -999 (Talk) 18:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hodag

I've never heard of a Hodag. Is there supposed to be one in the Mall? Appraiser 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The season is limited as well as the venues. This is a good place. As well as Canadian locations and Hidden Beach. Appraiser 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HHH Metrodome

Thanks for the heads-up. Since I left WP:PW as a result of a few teenage editors who were ruining the encyclopedic viability of the project, a few of them have followed me to all of my other edits to revert my removal of obscure, non-notable pro wrestling tidbits. My apologies for any offense I may have caused. - Chadbryant 07:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Smith

Interesting issue. You might get some outside opinions on whether NPOV concerns are applicable in a direct quote by dropping a message at the Village Pump. That's a page that's widely read by many regular editors. Joyous! | Talk 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell

I just want to know what in the world you have against Scott Mitchell. He is my former employer of whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for. You keep removing him from the Notable Alumni section of the Illinois State University entry yet he is listed on by their cited website as a notable alumni. I would simply like an explaination.

Re: Photos

Well, basicaly yeah, the policy says (among other things) that "fair use" material should only be used when: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." (emphasis mine). I realise not everyone is entierly happy with this (see lenghty debates at Wikipedia talk:Fair use), however creating free content is one of the five pillars of the project after all. I'm not trying to compell you or anyone else to do anyting. I simply added the photo request template to the article's talk page to alert the comunity as a whole that a photo is requested, people are free to do nothing about it, just as they are free not to write about scertain topics, but sometimes Wikipedians with photography as a hobby will check those categories and help us get the photo we need (I would if I could, but I'm not even on the right continent). Even if they have never even seen the article in question. Keeping unfree images in the articles "while we wait" have proven to have a clear tendency to discourage anyone from actualy replacing them. So sorry that I upset you, but "that's the rules" I'm afraid. --Sherool (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I compelling others to do research for me? The images are deleted in acordance with the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm also adding the {{reqphoto}} templates in order to alert as many people as possible that the article need a free licensed photo. As for what determines if a image is "replacable" or not, well it can be tricky sometimes, but mostly it's fairly obvious. Take Dolphin Stadium for example. That one is IMHO a no-brainer, the stadium is very much accessable to the public. Anyone within a reasonable distance off it can simply drive over and snap a few photos of it. I'd say that qualifies as a "subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created". If all we required was that "a free licensed photo can not be found within 5 minutes on Google" we would never get free licensed photos of anyting. If you have a seriuos complaint about how the policy works Wikipedia talk:Fair use is the place to go, and there is always Wikipedia:Deletion review if you feel a particular image was wrongfully deleted. --Sherool (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ballparks

Nah,don't worry about it. I'd been working for a few days on it and then thought for a moment I'd lost everything since I'd followed a few links in the preview screen and ended up somewhere completely different. I went back a few times, though, and found my edits, still in progress. I balked at saving it without completion because I'd left a few blank, but I did it anyway, since I'd scared myself half to death.

I continued on, and apparently you jumped in and filled in the blanks as well as adding a few things. Since it was 2:22 when I completed it, and I had to be up at 6:22 (I set my alarm weird times) I didn't want to do the work just then, and decided to do it today. I would have done it this morning, but a coffee spill took up most of my time before I had to head off to school. Got a break now, so I'll merge your stuff in. There's some good stuff there, and you fixed some of my grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as rewording things at times when I couldn't do it properly. The only things that I wouldn't put in are the references to the championships won (as the section is focused more on physical architectural features), the references about 5 times in a row to Dodger Stadium, and the mention of Babe Ruth getting a short porch. Weren't you the one I argued with that about on the Yankee Stadium page? Aside from that, the only problem is that with the added text, the pictures probably won't line up with the text for the stadium, so I'll probably switch or move a few of them. Silent Wind of Doom 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klobuchar

I was advised by an admin, Will Beback, that adding these boxes before the individuals in question are seated presumes that they will, in fact, be serving as senator from wherever (after I had put one up on Jim Webb's page). So I merely trying to establish consistency per the guidelines of Wikipedia, see [12] - it seems pretty clear cut. Fishhead64 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in Talk:Keith Ellison (politician)

While your statement about Byrd is true, it isn't really relevant in discussing the article about Ellison. Thanks, Andjam 12:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:"Satanosi"

Good point - Satanosi is a bit extreme - I had a feeling I couldn't get away with it for that long :). I've replaced it with a humorous news headline. Weatherman90 03:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. I only follow the right ideas which happen to be right. I see no good reasons to change my beliefs - so I will not be changing them any time soon. Weatherman90 04:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh...that would make sense. I'm used to playing defense against User:Notapotato. Weatherman90 04:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We actually go "way back". To make a long story short, we have belonged to the same forum for almost 2 years now and had been quite vocal about our political differences there. Just recently he discovered my page here and decided to do some damage. Weatherman90 04:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear. It's always good to be open to new thought, and The Factor is certainly a great program. Which reminds me - I missed it tonight. With me, I obviously lean heavily to the right, and need to work on the open mind thing a bit more. As great of an author she is, that's what too many Ann Coulter books can do to you. Weatherman90 04:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer that question I would have to know your age, but Notapotato is about 3 years from the big 4-0. The type of work he does here certainly seems a bit out of his age range. (Your replying style seems to work better) Weatherman90 04:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the replying style - I actually meant the bullet points as opposed to my old method of repeatedly identing it which got a bit too far into the middle of the page. I have heard a lot of good things about a democratic congress and a republican president or vice versa - and can see how it would work well. I guess I have the next two years to see for myself. I've already got my McCain 2008 shirt - but of course the entire nation would be once again drug through the age issue as with RR. Weatherman90 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Dark Star (radio personality)

I've nominated the article Dark Star (radio personality) for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Dark Star (radio personality) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Star (radio personality). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Dark Star (radio personality) during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. EnsRedShirt 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Missunderstand the prod has been removed and it is now in AFD. EnsRedShirt

As for your comments on Elonka's talk page...

I think they are uncalled for, I am NOT trying to personally attack, just noting that at this moment there is no claim of notablity on the page. This was thought of going to speedy a couple of months ago, removed an AFD suggested but never acted upon. You have ample chance the save the article, and even linked to an article I recomended ttttto help improve the article inquestion. You have ample chance to save the article, why complain and make unfounded statements about myself? EnsRedShirt 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of T. D. Mischke First off The city pages awards, including the amount of them, then you have how he got into radio (which I got to say is pretty dang unique), and the Atlantic monthly article in the links section. I don't see any of those in the Dark Star (radio personality) page. As for the personal attacks, you are assuming my position as that I am pro-KSTP and anti-WCCO This is simply not true. As I asked here why not improve the page and get rid of some of the non-needed stuff so that it fits WP:BIO instead of complaining??? EnsRedShirt 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hurricanes

You got that right - we are about as far from an ocean as you can possibly get in the U.S.A. Weatherman90 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mitchell

The scott mitchell article is finally up for AFD. Just thought you'd like to know and maybe comment on it since you have been active in the discussion.RedBirdI55 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hood's receding glaciers.

I noted your exchange with Katr67. I have her talk page on my watchlist since we are collaborating informally on the Oregon Wikiproject. I have retrieved an article from the Oregonian archives through Newsbank which you might find useful. The bibliographic info is: Milstein, Michael (March 26, 2006). "Mount Hood meltdown". The Oregonian. Portland, Oregon: Oregonian Publishing. pp. A1. Newsbank is a subscription service, and the article, of course, is copyrighted, so I can't post it in full. I'd email it to you, but you have not opted to register an email address for the "E-mail this user" option to work. If you want a copy of the text, feel free to email me from my user page with an address to which I can send it. -- "J-M" Jgilhousen 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, registering your e-mail address in your Wikipedia preferences does not cause it to be displayed. Other users can use an input form to send messages which are then forwarded by the Wikipedia server to your registered email account. Nonetheless, many Wikipedians do not opt in, and I don't want to appear to be pressuring you to do so. It just makes it handy for exchanges which are not appropriate for public posting, as in this case, copyrighted material. Now, back to the subject at hand. I'm elbow deep in work related to the Politics and Government subgroup of WikiProject Oregon, so did not take time to carefully study your particular deletion issue. I'll try to do so soon, and post for you here a few permissible excerpts from related press articles. "J-M" Jgilhousen 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie O'Donnell

Hey, I noticed on the talk page that you had used bullet points or asterisks to indent your reply to someone. Didn't know if you were aware that a colon will indent your reply on a talk page.

I'm going to type this right underneath what I just typed as an example, to show you how it indents.

And two colons, to show you that it indents it further.

Hope this was useful info? Thanks. NickBurns 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: By whatever name...

I'm only mercurial while editing Wikipedia, as my list of contributions will attest. Actually, I chose the user name after trying lots of others, but, alas, finding that they were already taken. —Quicksilver^{T @} 03:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP

I don't know precisely what BYT meant by "WP Christians". Probably "Wikipedian Christians". WP is usually used here to mean exactly that, Wikipedia. Many of the overhead guidelines are accessable by shortlinks that begin with the acronym, such as WP:NPA which BYT was just chided about today. Of course, in the context of the Rudolph article, it could have meant "White Power Christians" for all I know. I want some of the same things as BYT wants in there there but it is hard editing alongside this person. You've been pretty patient though. I appreciate that. — coelacan talk — 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on Keith Ellison (politician)

As you have contributed in the past to the Keith Ellison page I notify you of a current request for comments on that page. Your input would be helpful.

Talk:Keith Ellison (politician) This is a dispute about where in the article about US Rep. Keith Ellison’s (first Muslim in Congress) ties with the Nation of Islam should be discussed. Whether since they were in the past they can be consigned to a segment enumerating the year of their maximum impact or if such enumerating lessens their impact which is held to be ongoing.07:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

question

I agree that killing people is morally wrong. Is this a person? You can answer here, I'll check back at your page. Or you can totally refuse to talk about this, that's your prerogative too, there'll be no hard feelings on my part. I know some people don't like to travel this route. — coelacan talk — 06:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Please review Wikipedia policy concerning "fair use" and please do not swap a free image for one with dodgy stautus due to copyright. Jonathunder 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church

Yes, I figured as much, but that's really a dangerous thing to joke about when there's not really any way to tell who's being serious and who isn't. Thanks very much for the clarification. — Dan | talk 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Another vandal

Hi Wahkeenah, thanks for letting me know about Ajent. Ajent's edits are largely unhelpful, but they're not blatant vandalism. What I did was to tell him alternatives to editing mainspace articles using the test templates. Take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism to see how we deal with vandalism. If you have any additional questions, please let me know. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

Remain polite per WP:Civility.
Solicit feedback and ask questions.
Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! --Kjoonlee 05:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I was aware from the start that the part had already been deleted from the article.) I would like to point out that "other people are more uncivil" is a logical fallacy; it does not help in any way. --Kjoonlee 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klobuchar picture

In order to avoid a minor revert war, I sent an e-mail to amy@amyklobuchar.com as listed on the campaign site, asking permission to use a photo. It might not be active anymore, but it's worth a try. Maybe they will offer something better than that snapshot someone posted. It's not bad as free photos go, but it's not exactly Senatorial. Wahkeenah 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the snapshot we're using isn't great, but I'm sure shortly next year there will be an official portrait taken by a U.S. government employee that we can use. In the meantime, there is no doubt that the one downloaded from Klobuchar's web site does not conform to Wikipedia:Image use policy. Even if a staffer responds to your e-mail request, it's unlikely that the copyright owner will be adequately identified. Just be patient for the official photograph. Thanks. Appraiser 18:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that if somebody on her site says "go ahead", they might be overstepping their authority? Wahkeenah 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Yep. Unless the person responding says, "I was the photographer, and I hereby release it into the public domain." Or, "The photographer was an employee of Klobuchar for Senate, and as the legal Chairman of the Board of the organization, I hereby release it into the public domain." The rub is that even if the person with the authority says, "I grant permission for you to display it on en:Wikipedia," that's not good enough for Wikipedia:Image use policy, since everything here is free for use, including commercial use. Appraiser 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anthony

If somebody had unlimited money, it would be interesting to try to "rebuild" the waterfall the way it looked when Father Hennepin first saw it. As if the settlers didn't screw up that waterfall enough as it was. :) Wahkeenah 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
How about removing the lock and restoring the Stone Arch Bridge to it's original state? Appraiser 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I meant fix the big gap that was removed when the Corp. of Engineers put in the lock. Appraiser 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty

I'm not too keen on the death penalty, but I wonder what would have been the better way to deal with John Wayne Gacy? Wahkeenah 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Mainly I don't trust the criminal justice system to get the right perp. I think police departments are more interested in diffusing public fear than catching the right criminal. How many were released when DNA technology acquitted them? 100s. One mistake in 10,000 is too high for me. Appraiser 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

I firmly believe that the universe hosts beings that are more knowledgeable, more powerful, longer-lived, and more compassionate than humans. The scale of these traits may lead us to believe that they are all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal, and all-loving. But our perception does not make it so. I also believe that all phenomena would be explained by science, if science were sufficiently advanced. Another person may call these beings Gods if they want to, but if they really are interested in being worshiped, I'm not very interested in getting to know them. Appraiser 19:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So

I guess you spend alot of time on Wikipedia? Have you ever talked to girls? Really, they aren't as mean as Sally from the second grade. I hope you consider going outside. Well, see you later. User:70.114.250.236 03:32, 28 December 2006

Image:Bill Oreilly.jpg

As you'll see at WP:FUC, a free image does not have to exist for an image to fail the first use criterion. A copyrighted image should not be used if a "free equivalent is available or could be created". Since O'Reilly is a very public figure, it is possible to create a free alternative, and the image fails the first fair use criterion. —ShadowHalo 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was easy, nor did I state that one existed. I didn't even say that someone else needs to create an image, though that might be nice. All that I said was that the image does not meet the criteria for use on Wikipedia. —ShadowHalo 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, I have not hassled any editors. The only think close to that of which I can think is notifying DonWilson that the image will be deleted unless the image is indeed irreplaceable. I don't see how that constitutes hassling him. Wikipedia does not state that all articles of people must have pictures of them in the infobox; as such, I'm not asking that anyone add one there and, as you've called it, trying to make others do my work for me. Unless you have anything to contribute regarding whether or not the image is replaceable, I won't be responding any more as not to allow this disagreement to escalate. —ShadowHalo 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using a book cover would not work since the {{bookcover}} tag states that images from book covers can only be used to illustrate the book covers themselves. Your frustration is understandable though; I'll send an email to oreilly@foxnews.com to see if they'll release a picture and see if that gets us anywhere. —ShadowHalo 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could, similarly to the way Image:Oreilly.jpg is used in the section about The O'Reilly Factor (don't worry about the vandalism on that image, I'm on it). I'd recommend using the cover of Culture Warrior since there's also an article about it. —ShadowHalo 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ski-U-Mah

It's pronounced SKY u mah Gopher backer 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Taco Bell

Sorry about te warning, I misread that you took out some vandalism yourself. I want to commend you on that. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 04:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowHalo

Wahkeenah,

I ran across your discussion with ShadowHalo regarding his marking of images for deletion. Your discussion was similar to one that I had with him before (see here).

At that time we agreed to put the issue up for request for comment but were not able to - a minimum of two editors are needed to put sometime for RfC and because of the nature of the dispute (many editors being effected by his editing, but all unconnected) I could not find anyone else who thought exactly as I did. The matter was put to mediation instead but rejected by the mediation committee because it is a matter best put to RfC ... Catch 22. I can see on ShadowHalo's talk page that a request for a third opinion has since been struck out for the same kind of reasons.

Would you support a RfC on the issue? A record of the RfM is here. See also the images that were effected at that time (almost all deleted now), here.

Regards, --sony-youth^talk 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto regarding requesting for comment not on the editor but the interpretation that any picture of a living and performing artists is not fair use solely because a photo could be taken. I dispute that genuinely replaceable images for all of these could be taken in practice (yes, in theory, but not in practice). I also think that it is demoralizing to editors who work hard to upload these images that a rule could be interpreted so obtusely, many times in their absence.

I have some constructive suggestions on how to get around this problem but need some time to write them all out and will be away until Sunday. I would like a RfC solely on the interpretation of the rules. I believe there are many editors interpreting them like this but don't think that it is correct and, because of the disparate nature of the editors affected, it is difficult for them to have a right-of-reply in a community forum. I'll contact you next week regarding my constructive suggestions. Hope you had a good New Year. --sony-youth^talk 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]