User talk:MisfitToys/Archive 4

Lady Cunard

Are you sure about your edit that the Lady Cunard mentioned is the wrong one? The parentage of Nancy Cunard seems to support the statement that the widow of the 3rd Baronet was indeed the person referred to. MisfitToys 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you added the link to Nancy Cunard, I failed to note the where the "#" went to. Therefore I thought that I had the wrong Cunard in the first place and removed the endnote that indicated she was a Cunard by marriage whereas Nancy was a born Cunard. Realizing now that I had identified her correctly in the first place, what I should have done (if anything) was just specifically identify her as the former Maud Alice Burke. Am I on the mark now? House of Scandal 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we have it now. MisfitToys 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for your interest in the Hazel Lavery article. Until I started expanding the stub, I had no idea about her connections to Michael Collins, etc. It's fun when a subject matter leads us in an unexpected direction. House of Scandal 11:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gordon

I moved the page from Joe Gordon (baseball player) to Joe Gordon if that's ok with you. It's obviously the most well known Gordon as the rest been redlinks for a while. If a article is created on them a dablink can be formed. I'll fix the links. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the move was reasonable, though you should have moved the disambiguation page that was at Joe Gordon to Joe Gordon (disambiguation) first (rather than dimply deleting it in the move), and then moved the article for the baseball figure; it's fixed now, I think. MisfitToys 20:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plum

Hello here's some info on it if you want to add or re-word if it makes sense: Pliny the Elder, implied that the apricot was a kind of plum, and had originally come from Armenia. Thus the scientific name for apricot became the starting point for mythology and verifying narratives to explain the Armeniaca name. Nareklm 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised it a bit; I think it makes more sense now. MisfitToys 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleting cats

Hi, I see you have been deleting cats from several articles on recently died sports people, can you explain me why? SportsAddicted | discuss 05:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was deleting Category:2007 in American football, not Category:2007 deaths. Individual deaths shouldn't be in this category, since individual deaths aren't entered in similar categories such as 2007 in film or 2007 in science. The more appropriate way to handle this area would be to start a deaths section in the article 2007 in American football (or 2007 in football (soccer), 2007 in NASCAR, 2007 in cricket, etc.). See 2006 in baseball#Deaths for an existing format example. MisfitToys 02:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I do not really agree, but I see your point. SportsAddicted | discuss 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem would be that not only deaths and births, but also individuals with notable achievements in the year (MVP awards, various titles and honors) would get added to the category, resulting in a jumble of names with little way for the casual observer to quickly identify why the person is in the category. I suppose a different solution would be to create subcategories such as Category:2007 sports deaths under the existing deaths category (keep in mind I'm not actually advocating the idea), but I'd strongly suggest you bring up the idea on the Biography Project talk page before going forward with it in order to get some feedback. Also, please don't list every sports death in the 2007 in sports article, or the article gets very unwieldy; 100 to 150 names for the entire year is sufficient (see 2006 in sports#Deaths, for example), with the rest being listed in articles for individual sports. There's a sort of gradual hierarchy to such articles, and not everything needs to be listed in every place. MisfitToys 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smith's blue butterfly

Thanks for your careful edits of this article. I have entered a new edit to respond to your good question on Punta Gorda. You are correct that it is a lighthouse in Humboldt County, but it s also a coastal point in S California. cheers. Anlace 05:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the note because the wikilink went to a disambiguation page for two other Punta Gordas (in Florida and Belize), so the geographic meaning was lost. Thanks for following up. P.S. I've revised the article to create a better link, and added notes to the disambiguation page. MisfitToys 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great follow-up MisfitToys to amend this disamb page on Punta Gorda. Best regards. Anlace 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance

I was wondering if you could update the wiki-table of current Governors in the Democratic Governors Association article to reflect the 2006 election results. I would do it myself, but I am not very familiar with wiki-table formatting. --TommyBoy 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MisfitToys 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism

Hi, MisfitToys. Thanks for the valiant effort to help the Jeannette Piccard article. It looks like it led to a maze of pages and some proposed merges. I wish you luck straightening them all out. I tried to incorporate those into a reworded sentence, a little expanded from your edit, which I am happy to discuss. Thank you also for your expansion of the conflict in the Episcopal Church. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat nonsensical to have multiple pages for sexism, sex discrimination and gender discrimination - particularly since sexual discrimination already redirected to sexism; and it appeared that an editor was trying to make a distinction between sex and gender discrimination based only on their own guidelines. And no offense, but the Piccard article as worded was pretty clearly on the pro-ordination side; the revisions seem fine, as long as both sides and the repercussions are explained. It's important to remember that both views need coverage. (But I'm still not a fan of the "eloquent, intelligent and well-liked" line in the intro, regardless of whether it's accurate.) MisfitToys 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced "eloquent..." with citable descriptions and removed the "kind of POV" comment in the source. Hope that helps. -Susanlesch 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better; thanks. MisfitToys 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-34 Tank

We appreciate your copy-editing but this article is up for FA after a year of hard work and you are introducing multiple errors. Please show just a bit more caution. Thank you. DMorpheus 01:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? I'm looking over my edits, and I don't see any problems (here's my main edit of the article). I linked 85mm gun at one point to 'D-10 tank gun#History' because that's where the background of the new gun was discussed, not because the D-10 had an 85mm gun (I think that's the only one of my edits that you reverted). I linked Gorki to Nizhny Novgorod. I linked ZiS-4 to '57-mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2)' because both models were discussed there; I linked T-54 to T-55 for the same reason (and later, T-54/T-55 as well). I'm sure I linked all the other guns to the correct articles, and my other edits were pretty straightforward. What are the multiple errors? MisfitToys 20:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the vast majority of your edits improved the article. The errors have to do with gun designations. On Feb 4 you wrote that the D-10 was an 85mm gun; the D-10 is a 100mm gun. The 85mm guns on the T-34 were the D-5T, the ZiS-53, and the ZiS-S-53. The KwK 42 75mm gun did not appear in combat in 1942; the KwK 42 is the gun on the Panther, and would not have been seen before july 1943. I imagine you meant the KwK 40, which is the gun on the Pzkw-IV G, and would indeed have been deployed in combat by mid-1942. Finally the KwK 43 was the L/71 gun found on the Tiger II and Jagdpanther. The context of the article is clear that the Tiger I's gun is intended, and that is a KwK 36.

I was initially thrown off by your usage of the term 'torsion beam suspension' but you're not incorrect. I was wrong to think you were in error there.

I hope you continue editing this article. Cheers. DMorpheus 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't say that the D-10 was an 85mm gun - but the article for the D-10 included the background of the 85mm gun, which is why I linked to the History subsection. MisfitToys 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting

I do appreciate your edit of the article, but the reason we (the Scouting project) don't put country/association specific links of this nature in international scope articles is that the editors from the other countries complain about the article becoming (usually BSA/America) country specific. Rlevse 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. MisfitToys 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 9835 - Peer review

Hello. I noticed you had edited the article Executive Order 9835 in the past, which is now up for peer review. Eventually this will be followed by an attempt at Good Article status and maybe one day, FA. Any input and or editing help you could or wanted to contribute would be greatly appreciated. I think the article is good and has the potential to be great. Thanks in advance. A mcmurray 05:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your comment on the peer review page. Well I am all about levelling it out. I think in hindsight, historically speaking, that a lot of the Communist hysteria during that period was whipped up by a combination of factors from both sides of the aisle. I certainly don't want it to sound reflexively cynical. Any ideas and or contributions would be most excellent. And I will continue to research. I have found some additional info about some of the Supreme Court Cases surrounding the order, do you think I should include a sub section in the outcome section?A mcmurray 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a note I have copied this discussion over to the peer review page, if you would like to respond there, that way it will be in the archive.A mcmurray 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Leo T. McCarthy

Any reason you deleted two valid links to this article? For most of his life, McCarty has lived in San Francisco and is a naturalized citizen. Please revert. Ronbo76 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I see you bumped them down. Sorry. Ronbo76 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran churches

Right now there are very few articles on Lutheran churches, and several have been recently put up for deletion including the one I authored. On the talk page of Holy Cross Lutheran Church (Atwater, California), you wrote about Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). Does this article qualify in these standards? The same person put the two articles up for deletion, and I couldn't see a difference among other churches not put up for deletion. --Nehrams2020 07:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Holy Cross qualifies under the suggested guidelines (which I believe set somewhat too high a bar); you'd be in a better position to answer that, particularly regarding the architecture and local significance. I've noted previously that Holy Cross isn't particularly large for an LCMS congregation in its area, but it's currently the most substantial article for an LCMS church (though it needs better referencing) and has a number of good photos. MisfitToys 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment right after you did, and I will be able to add references. I appreciate your comments, I know this church isn't the greatest example of an excellent LCMS church, but I still think the number of LCMS church articles needs to be expanded. I live in San Diego during the college school year, but when I return home for the summer, I can dedicate some time to including references from local newspapers. If when I add the sources and further information you think that it should be deleted as not following the guidelines then, let me know and I'll put it up for deletion then myself. --Nehrams2020 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USC Coaches

Hi MisfitToys, I've actually corresponded with you before regarding your excellent work on these pre-McKay coaches. I started most of the stubs on these individuals, thus they are on my watchlist, and was impressed by your remarkable ability to dig up their histories. While there are two left, it's Suffel (co-coach of the 1888 team) that's been the most confounding to me. --Bobak 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll give you something I have, which is certainly not enough with which to start an article: California death records list a Frank H. Suffel who died on March 15, 1937 in L.A. County at age 70. If that's him (which seems reasonable), he would have been the same age as Goddard, about 21 in 1888. (Going by other death records, his wife's name may have been Lucia, and she may have died on August 19, 1934.) That's all I have. As for John Walker, I've found virtually nothing to go on, particularly given the common name; USC guides don't even list the college he attended. MisfitToys 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNA grammar

The problem is clearer if you remove "help" the old sentence would read

In chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones compact and organize DNA, as well as controlling its interactions with other proteins in the nucleus.

The new and problematic sentence would read

In chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones compact and organize DNA, as well as control its interactions with other proteins in the nucleus.

Do you see the problem? I'm not good enough at grammar to explain why this is wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is. TimVickers 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was in the old sentence as well; try taking out the first verb and subject ("compact and organize DNA") and you get: "In chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones controling its interactions with other proteins in the nucleus." That's obviously bad. My revised version, without those four words, would read: "In chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones help control its interactions with other proteins in the nucleus." I think we can agree that that's grammatically correct; once you re-add the first section, you get: "In chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones compact and organize DNA, as well as help control its interactions with other proteins in the nucleus." Another way to look at it: Start with the following two sentences, and then replace the bracketed (repeated) part of the second sentence with the words "as well as": "In chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones compact and organize DNA. [In chromosomes, chromatin proteins such as histones] help control its [DNA's] interactions with other proteins in the nucleus." MisfitToys 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter service vehicle

Hello! Thanks for your copyedit to winter service vehicle. However, the Wikipedia Manual of Style does request that for international subjects, the variant of English used by the creator of the article is retained. It's not a big deal, but plenty of lame edit wars have taken place over this subject, and some editors can get very tetchy if you try to Americanise/Britishise their favourite article. Have a good day! Laïka 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me; I was mainly trying to make the wikilinks as simple as possible (changing the spelling to tire rather than formatting the link as [tire|tyre]). MisfitToys 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've kept it as tire; some British people do use tire, while very few American people use tyre. Laïka 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Rush ounces

There was a very extended discussion on this very point during the FA process - please see. If I may make a request . . . please don't make any further changes on this the California Gold Rush article for the time being. It goes live as the FA on the Main page in one hour. We are already dealing with substantial vandal traffic. Your forebearance is appreciated! NorCalHistory 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the discussion now; in the absence of identifying which form of ounce this is, there should be a footnote from the word "ounces" explaining the problem, or you'll have other editors doing the same thing I did. MisfitToys 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, I'll try to slip in a footnote to that effect between the vandals. NorCalHistory 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Baseball

File:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg

Hi, and welcome to the Baseball Wikiproject! We are a group of editors who love the sport of baseball and work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this sport.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Starting some new articles? Please add {{Baseball-WikiProject}} to the talk page of the article.
Looking for something to help with? Please see our article to do list or project to do list. You may also be interested in joining one of our task forces, we have task forces for baseball players, Old-time Base Ball, and Little League.

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow baseball editors can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.

--Borgarde^talk 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

It is not appropriate to change the date style in an article against the concensus established on the talk page. Please be more circumspect in the future, especially when dealing with national varieties of English and/or date styles, as such unlateral changes are known to provoke edit wars and harsh feelings if not properly discussed beforehand. Thanks for your consideration. Kaldari 18:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft, there's been no prior discussion or dispute about the date formats in that article, let alone a consensus on the issue. As I also noted, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formats related to topics suggests by inference that if British English is used in the article, then British date formatting should also be used. Articles about British people should use British English, and the date formats should match that. I'm a bit bewildered that some editors are arguing for the use of American English in an article about a British writer. MisfitToys 19:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Coleman

I haven't found any information on his birthdate other than November 4th. I will look into it some more. Thanks for the edits. Have a good day! Dincher 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Stone

"a young gay teenage boy", as opposed to an old gay teenage boy. I didn't catch that when I made the one change. Oh, well. Freshacconci 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having seen the film, it seemed to me that the character was possibly 11 or 12 rather than a teenager (I don't recall that his age was specified). MisfitToys 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

WOW, thank you so very much for an excellent copyedit of tomorrow's featured article. It went through a lot of unlinking at FAC, but that was stunning. Thanks.--Alf ^melmac 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. MisfitToys 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for copyediting - classification of transsexuals

Cheers, Lwollert 00:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Oops, should have done this a while ago - very many thanks for the great copyediting you've done on various pages I've started (Agnes Newton Keith, Violet Dickson). Big improvements all round, so, as they say in my neck of the woods, ta muchly for your efforts. Cheers Jasper33 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Park, Chicago (park) to Washington Park (Chicago park)

I disagree with your move given the general convention at Washington Park (disambiguation) for community areas and parks. Please explain if you have a reason why it should not be moved back on the talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted at Talk:Washington Park (Chicago park). MisfitToys 03:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Hasan Dani

I should leave this note of thanks for your excellent copyediting. The article looks so tidy now! --Isles Cape^Talk 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyeditor's barnstar

Hi, I usually have the mainpage featured article listed on my watchlist so I can revert vandalism to it. Over the past months I've seen that your name invariably shows up in the log, making various copyedits to those articles. So when this new barnstar was approved by the community a little while ago, I immediately thought of you as a deserving candidate for it. Just wanted you to know your efforts are noticed and appreciated. Very best wishes, WjBscribe 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much!! (I've moved the barnstar to my user page.) MisfitToys 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy Gulf Service Station

That's the church, thanks. Sorry for not responding sooner, but I've been a bit snowed over with work this past week, and tend to just come home to stare at the computer screen when I can. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IL-03

Hi, I just took a look at the Illinois 3d district page. I already split the economy info into its own section and out of the geography section. I also think that having a section on the demographics of the district is important; there's no way to write an article about that district and not mention white ethnics. I will poke around my copy of the Almanac of Amer. Politics and see what I can come up with today. The history section will be harder to find sources for. If you've got any suggestions, why don't we take this to the article talk page? Meelar (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Christ, am I really editing Wikipedia again? I guess I am. It's good to be back--I had taken about a yearlong break so I'm very much not-up-to-speed.

The demographic info was something I planned to include when I added a section about political leanings. I've already got the historical boundaries, though it gets a bit difficult to be exact about the Chicago boundaries between 1913 and the 1960s due to the scarcity of precise maps and the fact that district definitions were explained according to now-obsolete ward boundaries; I'm more inclined to indicate a general outline based on the streets which formed most of the north/east/south boundaries. I can compile presidential voting for 1832-1868 based on county totals (the district was outside Cook at that point, and defined along county lines), but 1872 to 1964 is still a problem because of the lack of vote totals for individual Cook County townships and partial Chicago wards (and occasionally, partial precincts); there are a few sources for Chicago voting for president by complete ward, though ironically not by complete districts. The history of voting for House seats is readily available - though there have been 90 elections, so the question becomes how much to include (for instance, Clarence Darrow lost a close race here in 1896, which is certainly worth mentioning). I've tried to look at what's in the articles for other districts, but they're generally quite brief; I've also looked at a few UK constituencies, and Canadian ridings might also be helpful. I'll add this discussion to the talk page. MisfitToys 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Knowles

Regarding Peter Knowles: Perhaps you've double-checked this already, but the article states that in the 1968-69 promotional tour "Wolves represented Kansas City" (linking to Kansas City, Kansas); you should be mindful that Kansas City, Missouri (across the river) is larger and more prominent, and that if only the city name is given, the one in Missouri is more likely. MisfitToys 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, and especially the copy edit. I hadn't double checked whether it was the correct Kansas, in fact, I hadn't checked at all. I just wanted to add a wikilink to the word, so I chose the first Kansas which sprung to my attention. Lazy, if I'm honest. Also, if I'd known the article would have been linked to on the front page, I'd have made sure all the links and grammar were top notch. Ah well, for now I'll just remove the link from Kansas all together, since I don't know which Kansas it is... that is, unless you would like to take an educated guess. My knowledge of American geography is poor, I'll leave it to you. Thanks again, take care! -GilbertoSilvaFan 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the link to the disambiguation page. MisfitToys 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for your helpful edits to the article Noah Lottick. Yours, Smee 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My pleasure. MisfitToys 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy

I'm curious as to why you changed several of the blue links in this article, since they lead to the same exact place they did before your changes. For example, you changed Philadelphia to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - when you click on the link, it leads to the article for Philadelphia and notes it was redirected from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which suggests Philadelphia by itself was the more accurate way to do it in the first place. Am I missing something? Thanks. SFTVLGUY2 14:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was generally skipping redirects (links should generally avoid redirect pages); 'Boston', for example, redirects to 'Boston, Massachusetts', and 'choreographed' redirects to 'choreography' (as of a few weeks ago, 'Boston' was merely a disambiguation page). For some reason, the Philadelphia article has apparently dropped the state from the title (a rather nonsensical move, IMO, in contradiction of long-established city naming practices). MisfitToys 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

You did such a fantastic job on a page I was editing that you were the first person I thought of for help, sorry about that :p The article Knights Templar is currently undergoing the Featured article process and points raised have been that the text is "too flowery" in places and the History section needing 'tightening up with a some more concise writing'. The editor nominating the article is also actively fixing points as they are raised so some fixes may have already been made and I'm sure your touch would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Alf ^melmac 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a go at it. MisfitToys 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job, thank you. You came up with links to a few subjects, that I didn't even know we had subjects! ;) --El on ka 20:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it induces satisfied deep breathing on seeing the diff you made. Many thanks.--Alf ^melmac 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Minnesota Twins

Can you move 2006 Minnesota Twins to 2006 Minnesota Twins season for consistancy. Thank you. ---CWY2190^T^C 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done; I also moved the rest of the series of articles. MisfitToys 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

congressional districts

I added infoboxes in Minnesota's congressional district articles (e.g. Minnesota's 1st congressional district) and have a couple of questions. Where did you get "white collar", "blue collar", and "grey collar" info for Illinois' 3rd congressional district? For %urban and %rural are you using land area or population? (I used [1] as my source, and chose to use the population numbers.) I really think the template ought to be modified to add another line, (%urban/rural popluation and %urban/rural land area). --Appraiser 14:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases (urban/rural, blue/white/gray), the info was from the Almanac of American Politics 2006. I think we should keep in mind that House members represent people, not land. MisfitToys 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've since discovered that the urban/rural figures are based on Census housing data; the Census Bureau defines housing as being either ruban or rural, so the land issue doesn't come into play at all. MisfitToys 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Camisa Negra

Thanks for doing a copyedit of the article. In the future, make sure not to fix links to redirects that aren't broken though. ShadowHalo 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with WP:Baseball

There have been some problems latley between User:Ksy92003 and User:Kingjeff, possibly involving a WP:3RR violation on the Template:2007 Baltimore Orioles season game log and another dispute between User:Ksy92003 and User_talk:69.201.134.220 involving spaces in game logs. I was wondering, since you are an admin and have more expirence, can you keep your eye on the situation and talk to the users? Thanks. ---CWY2190^T^C 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could take a look, but I think getting in the middle of this one would be a mistake on my part - I have some moderately contentious history with Kingjeff, which I noted when I was nominated for adminship (see my reply to question #3). Given my previous confrontation with him over a somewhat similar article, I think you would better served by asking an admin who would be more clearly regarded as impartial. MisfitToys 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out what I received shortly after your message to me re: Ksy92003 (talk · contribs): [2]. Amazing coincidence, don't you think? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh.) Well, I'm about to log off for the day; maybe I'll get to this tomorrow evening. MisfitToys 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that really was just pure coincidence --Ksy92003 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look here, here and here then you'll see what the issue is about. If you take a look here, I brought the issue up simpy because this isn't worth getting into a revert war. Kingjeff 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Proposed Deletion of List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana Requested

Someone has proposed deleting this spin off from the Fort Wayne page. Please drop by and comment. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my comment, suggesting that the list be revised to become part of an article on religion in Fort Wayne. MisfitToys 03:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for your copyedits to Frank Bell (educator) - not the first time a page I've started has been the beneficiary of one of your wonderfully thorough visits, so cheers! Jasper33 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Chicago Landmark has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Research and Technology Studies

I have reverted your edit to Desert Research and Technology Studies. You did not cite a source for your claim that the name was derived from that of the British military unit, rather than being arrived at independently. Please cite sources for your facts. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chekhov

Thanks for your helpful edits to the Anton Chekhov article. I agree with almost all of them. You had a query about "Petersburg". That seems to be what Chekhov called it in his letters, for some reason, and books about him do the same: so I thought I'd go along with the sources.

I can't wait for the ordeal to be over now. Apart from yourself, few people have helped the article. Someone with the very best intentions has spent ages undoing all the carefully combined refs, so littering the page with tag rows; I wish they'd just respected the prevailing reference style of the page, which adhered to CMS style as far as possible.

By the way, do you only work your magic on front-page articles? I'd love you, if you could, to give a once-over to George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore. It's an FA which I've contributed a lot to, though I hope George never has to go through the indignity of being on the front page like poor old Anton. Many thanks. qp10qp 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually go over the FA just before it appears on the main page (though lately I've been delayed a bit by personal matters), but I'll try to take a look at Calvert - I might not get to it until next week, though. As you note, there are blessings which accompany obscurity. MisfitToys 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. No rush with George. In fact, I doubt any one ever reads that article. It was carefully done, though. qp10qp 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

You removed the commas in the dates. I had thought I had accidentally left them out and added them back. Where does this formatting preference come from? Here is the proper format policy from my understanding. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comma will automatically appear if the date is presented in U.S. format, even though it's not actually there; I usually delete them to save space (minimally, I admit), though I'll only do it if I'm making other edits. It's no big deal. MisfitToys 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)

Hi, just thought I'd acknowledge your work on today's featured article, Hamersley, Western Australia. As an aside - when I first put the refs in, for some inexplicable reason "page" didn't work on the {{cite news}} template, so you'll probably find quite a few around the place using "pages" for singular page as a result of that. Orderinchaos 03:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Regarding the page refs - yeah, I had a problem with that, too; apparently it works differently with the 'cite book' template, because later yesterday I tried to revise the refs on another article I've been working on and it didn't work the same way. MisfitToys 17:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ananthabhadram/archive1

Submitted Ananthabhadram for a peer review. Would you care to take a look? Aditya Kabir 05:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a copyedit on it previously, and took another quick look at it. In terms of cinema of that region, it's not my area of expertise and I'm not sure I'd have any specific suggestions, but you might want to look at FA's for other films for some ideas. MisfitToys 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Chicago 2016 Olympic bid has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Belgian Forces

MisfitToys,

Saw your edits on Free Belgian Forces. They didn't look bad, but something happened on the final edit and entire sections of the article got blown away - hope that wasn't your intent. I have reverted the article to the first edit you made. W. B. Wilson 04:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually MisfitToys only moved two sections, as far as I can tell all the content is (or rather was) still there.--Caranorn 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The view I had showed the "Fusilier Battalions" section with only one or two sentences and then some of the text from the "Air Force" paragraph with the intervening text and headings not visible at all. Not sure what was going on with that. Oddly, the text looked normal when comparing versions, but not in the main article view itself. W. B. Wilson 16:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I restored the bulk of Misfit Toy's edits. Text looks normal in both views. W. B. Wilson 16:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out the problem; it seems to be some problem with the reference formatting (I was combining multiple refs), but they all seem to be correctly formatted. Will look at it some more. MisfitToys 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found my mistake; fixed now. MisfitToys 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Command

Hi Misfit... thanks for your help with the article... proof reading has never been my strong suit.Balloonman 03:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago 2016 Olympic bid CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
In the past you have edited Chicago 2016 Olympic bid. This week it has been selected as the WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the week. Each week a Chicago related article in need of attention is selected as the Chicago COTW. Feel free to come help us improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Brand

Thank you for adding the DOB to Brand. May I ask where you were able to find it? I have quite a few bios I've started where I was unable to find that info. Thanks. Aboutmovies 21:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Security Death Index (http://ssdi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi). It was a lucky break, as deaths as early as 1964 aren't as well covered as those more recent. MisfitToys 10:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see if I can track down anymore. Aboutmovies 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Douglas Park (Chicago) has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Landmark Stubification

Four weeks ago, you contributed to the WP:CHICOTW when Chicago Landmark was the article. This week, we are attempting to stubify the numerous redlinks with a goal of getting over half the redlinks stubified (we began with about 25%). This will improve our chance of getting it approved as a featured list candidate. When reviewing this weeks contributing editors your name was absent. You may want to choose a redlink or two from Chicago Landmark and create a stub before this week's project ends so that you can be a part of our drive for featured list status. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Landmark Stubification

I am writing you because you either (1) edited Chicago Landmark 5 weeks ago when it was the WP:CHICOTW (2) edited it or created a stub last week when we had the stubification drive for it or (3) you nominated an article to be the CHICOTW in the last few days.

I have finally had a chance to take a tally on last week’s stubification effort. Based on my manual count we now have 109 bluelinks on a total of 241 landmarks. Preliminary indications were that for our article to be successful at WP:FLC we would need to eventually rename it (something like List of Chicago Landmarks) and get the majority of the landmarks linked. Based on my cursory count we need to write 12 more articles to get to a majority. It would be great if you might be able to assist by creating a couple stubs to assist in this effort. Here are some of the stubs that were created during last week’s efforts: Black Metropolis-Bronzeville District, Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Arthur H. Compton House & One North LaSalle. Among the articles still redlinked are 2 buildings on this week’s CHICOTW, Magnificent Mile (Perkins, Fellows & Hamilton Office and Studio, Woman's Athletic Club). Recall that each redlink on Chicago Landmark has a footnote to a reference that gives you enough info to create a stub. If you create a new stub please add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages so that we can keep track of the progress. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR FYI Pioneer Zephyr

FYI, Pioneer Zephyr is at WP:FAR. See the talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official notice Pioneer Zephyr has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Rogovin article

Hi ... If you have a moment and interest, you might help out on the Saul Rogovin article. I am trying to avoid an edit war. Thanks.--Epeefleche 14:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T Corporate Center GA

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
1908 Chicago Cubs season is the current Chicago COTW You were a contributing editor to AT&T Corporate Center during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Editorial contributors: ChicagoPimp, TonyTheTiger, (Daniel Case, Korg, Madman2001, MisfitToys)
	Good Article

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SI

Are you finding the SI articles in some internet archive, or do you physically have these magazines? Nishkid64 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LA84 Foundation's library has a collection of back issues. There are also about two dozen articles on J. R. Richard in The Sporting News between 1976 and 1984, about half before the stroke and half after. MisfitToys 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for your edits to Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones. Article looks better, thanks for your time! Any ideas about additional info from some other citations? Yours, Smee 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

More contemporary reviews would be useful, but you'd generally have to get into newspaper records. I suspect there was probably an article in TV Guide as well. MisfitToys 20:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, good ideas, thank you. Smee 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dummy Hoy Baseball library link

Hi, I moved the link to the discussion page. Talk:Dummy Hoy. If you want to discuss further, I have marked that page on my watchlist. //Tecmobowl 08:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the discussion there; I can't say I'm surprised, as I certainly identify with the problems regarding his deletion of ELs as well as his rather intractible attitude. I had a long argument with him over the Jake Daubert article a long time ago, too, as he insisted on removing a lot of factual material, claiming that discussions of defensive statistics were unnecessary. I also took particular note of the comment that a lot could be understood by noting how negatively other editors (and admins) react to him. MisfitToys 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He had a particular "vision", to coin a phrase, of how things should be on wikipedia, based on his interpretation of the guidelines, and absolutely refused to compromise on anything that went against that interpretation... although he was much more forgiving about his own rules violations, such as promoting his personal website, edit-warring... and sockpuppetry, which he has tried twice now. He was pretty much under the radar with this kind of stuff until a couple of months ago when a critical mass of ill will built up and he doomed himself. And near as I can tell, he's not intelligent enough to figure out where he's going wrong. Baseball Bugs 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Landmark WP:FLC

You helped us at WP:CHICOTW create and improve List of Chicago Landmarks. This week we have nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Landmarks. Feel free to make comments about its candidacy or to come by and help respond to the comments of others. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Baseball Project

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College baseball related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college baseball WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you!

Colors

I dont know if you care about this but, Can you go to Reggie Jacksons and Jeff Nelson (baseball player) talk pages and vote for what colors they should have in there infoboxes, thanks--Yankees10 23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]

WPChi falling on its face?

I hope you have been following along at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates#List_of_Chicago_Landmarks. If you have, then you may have noticed that the only drawback that seems to have emerged is the number of redlinks in the list. If you check in at WP:WIAFL this should not be a surprise. There is nothing much else really to complain about, IMO. I have said from the initial CHICOTW nomination. Unfortunately, once we worked on the page we found preponderant redlinks. I have always known this would be a problem and asked for help creating stubs. You may recall I encouraged us to spend an [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/COTW/History/CLstubification entire extra week creating stubs]. This still fell short of getting the majority of articles linked. I continued to suggest that we attempt to create stubs. This whole effort six weeks ago seems to have brought down WP:CHICOTW. Since this attempt to get people to create redlinks for a budding WP:FL people have stopped participating in the CHICOTW. This week marks the fifth week in a row that there has been no significant editorial contribution during the CHICOTW. I would say I am afraid to lose CHIICOTW support by mentioning this, but since NO ONE has come by to help this week, it could not get any worse. If anyone cares about getting an FL at CHICOTW for our past efforts it might be a good idea to express such concern by creating 5 or so stubs from among the redlinks at List_of_Chicago_Landmarks. Since I have already created about 3 dozen I have mentioned on the discussion that I am standing pat with my contribution to this concern. However, if any of you cares, feel free to make some stubs. The 20 minute stub instructions are still available. If you create any such stubs list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages so that everyone can help you to clean it up. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More help needed

If you have been following along at WP:FLC#List_of_Chicago_Landmarks you know we need help creating stubs for the List to make it a more useful list and help it achieve WP:FLC status. Since I reminded people of this 7 stubs have been created. We need about 40 more to be safe although we may have a successful candidacy with the article as it stands.

Some of you may also be following the success of WP:CHICOTW at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW/Good Articles. For the last 4 weeks no one has been very active. Thus, I am fearful that Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Crown Fountain, & Art Institute of Chicago Building will all fail at WP:GAC when their turns come up. Also, Magnificent Mile did not experience the collaborative spirit. Our reputation as a successful collaboration is at stake. In addition to making stubs for the FLC we need your contribution to our collaborations. I am sorry to pull you away from whatever other wikipleasures you may be experiencing, but we need your help. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits on the William Stacy article

Thank you very much. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I appreciate your edits. Regards, ColWilliam 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Beach Hotel

What is your source on the hotel being South of 51st Street. I have a lot of info that much of it was north of 51st. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP lists the address as 5100-5110 S. Cornell, which would be south of Hyde Park Blvd. (51st Street); also, it was included in the NRHP as part of the Hyde Park Apartment Hotels Thematic Resource (TR), and the nomination form (http://www.nr.nps.gov/multiples/64000176.pdf) places the location of the associated sites as being in East Hyde Park. Based on all of that, I felt safe in describing the location as being Hyde Park (south of the boulevard) rather than Kenwood (north of the boulevard). But I agree it's possible that parts of the property were on both sides. MisfitToys 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nappy's apostrophes

You can read that "must" any way you like apparently: you must do it or it must be so for this to happen. MoS failing to clarify style by a stylistic failing (although I do tend to see it the same way you read it). Anyway, it does recommend including it in the link in the next sentence. Cheers Yomangani ^talk 23:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the example they used - a link to a subject (Jane's Fighting Ships) with an apostrophe in the title - suggests (to me) that the subject isn't run of the mill possessives. MisfitToys 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as clarity goes an even better choice than the preceding must. Keeping possessive apostrophes inside the link, where possible, makes for more readable text and source seems fairly clear though. I didn't used to link them like that, but the trailing black apostrophe and "s" started to bug me and then I noticed the MoS recommended it (though now it appears that depends on how you read it). Yomangani ^talk 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Series pages: dates

Hi MT, I wanted to respond that I had merely tried to standardize the formats of dates/stadiums/cities to the other World Series pages. On some, I found the year with no wiki-brackets and added brackets. On others, I found no year at all. However, now all 100 are the same format. Can you please consider allowing them to be there and represent a full date?Entirelybs 22:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of superfluous, don't you think? After all, the article deals within an event confined to one year, so repeating it serves little purpose; I'd prefer it if they all omitted the year rather than included it. In addition, if the dates are eventually linked to the corresponding dates in baseball, the issue of the comma won't be a problem. MisfitToys 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But, I wasn't trying to necessarily fix everything, but I was trying to standardize and make them all the same from that regard (there were 4 or 5 different styles in use). Do you suggest I (1) actually remove all of the years from all of the games on all WS pages... (2) make them all the same with the years for now... or (3) should it be put up for vote/discussion on some talk page (and if so, where)? Thanks for your reply. Entirelybs 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest bringing it up on Talk:World Series. MisfitToys 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocko Conlan

Kudos for supplying the supporting links that today's entry in the "Ron Liebman" sockpuppet army was too lazy or obstinate to do himself. Baseball Bugs 00:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was more likely a case of not knowing how to insert the reference formatting. MisfitToys 00:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but his sarcastic comments in the edit summaries, directed at certain individuals, lecturing us about various things and ignoring what we ask him to do, are right in line with the "Ron Liebman" approach. I know this guy's M.O., he's been at this since January. Baseball Bugs 00:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I see your point now that an unusually named new user reverted my edits (thanks for the rv back). MisfitToys 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tell you about MisfittToys but you beat me to it. :) I'm guessing I'll soon see a red-link user named "Basebal Buggs". Baseball Bugs 22:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dalkowski FAR

Steve Dalkowski has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deir ez Zor

I see that you painstakingly changed the date formats in the text of this article. In future save yourself the effort coz here's the thing: it doesn't matter if you put [[8 June]] or [[June 8]] it always is automatically formatted by the html parser as 8 June and June 8 - see?! It's why I now always put dates in wikilinks because I can never remember which way to format it in ordinary text! Regards Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that only works if the reader has preferences set; if no preferences are set, the dates appear as they are entered. MisfitToys 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Maps

All township maps for Illinois are going to be revamped and are in a sort of process. I have that new Cook County township map, so I have to take that and work with it first, then another guy is going to add colors to fit in with the other townships so they all look basically similar. So, in short, it will be done, just be a bit yet, sorry.--Kranar drogin 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social conservatism

I think the social conservatism references need to be changed in the article on the 3rd district. Although some of the views held by 3rd district residents would be classified in some circles as "social conservatism", I think most residents do not classify themselves as conservative in any sense, but still have those beliefs. The reasoning for those beliefs do come from a conservative idealogy. It is more of a "Third Way" district. There are probably more people in the district that are pro-life and hold that as a liberal/progressive belief as opposed to a conservative belief. Longissue 05:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the description of social conservatism comes from an external source (The Almanac of American Politics), and the material under the article for social conservatism clearly applies; whether district residents think of themselves as conservatives in any sense isn't as relevant here as whether objective observers would apply the term - and they clearly have. We shouldn't shy away from appropriate terminology simply because it's not preferred locally. MisfitToys 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BS

I see your contributions all over the place... doing those minor little things... so here's a barnstar for you. Balloonman 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Now this is a completely unrelated question... I just looked at your userpage... and have to ask, do you know Rev. E. Brown the missouri synod minister in Lahoma OK---he graduated from the Ft Wayne Seminary in 2004 or 2005? If I didn't know better, based upon the articles you've written I would suspect that you are him. Balloonman 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Barnstar moved to user page) No, that's not me; though my brother lives in FW, and attended CTS a while back. MisfitToys 20:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to ask... I could see him (or his father also a LCSM minister) working on the same projects/pages that you do... he's a HUGE baseball fan. Only, he would have started some Star Wars pages as well ;-) Balloonman 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Holtzman

I enjoyed the comment on your RV.--Epeefleche 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no need to scare off potential contributors - even if they edit an article to add an item which is primarily about them. I'm aware of the possibility that the editor was, shall we say, a bit younger than me. MisfitToys 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Jackson

Can you please go to Reggie jacksons talk page and vote for either A's or Yankees colors in the infobox--Yankees10 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]

I commented on the issue a while back; given that I could easily go either way on the issue (and would be perfectly OK with either result), I don't think voting without a comment would be useful. MisfitToys 20:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago tagging

I am having difficulty determining if you are from Chicagoland. If you are not please forgive the following message. I hope the time and place for the Chicago Meetup are convenient. Your reply would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From there, but not living there now. MisfitToys 21:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Scioscia

The Manual of Style section that you refer to (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names) says only that care should be taken to be clear in distinguishing between situations where a person has a stage name vs. a person changed their name vs. a person goes by a nickname ("Mike" vs. "Michael") form of their given name. Contrary to what you have claimed, there is nothing at all in the section which says the common form needn't be included in the identification of the subject. Quite the opposite, both similar example given in that Manual of Style section (John Edwards and Bill Clinton -- prior to you changing it in Clinton's case) quite specifically do give the common form in exactly the same way as is done in Scioscia's article. Mwelch 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify here, I don't believe the point of that MoS section is not to say, "Do not note that Michael Scioscia is better known by the name 'Mike'." I believe the point is simply to say, "When you note that he is better known by 'Mike', please be certain that you use phrasing that doesn't mistakenly give the impression that he changed his name." In other words, going back to Edwards, do not state it as "John Edwards, born Johnny Reid Edwards, . . ." because although the statement is technically true, it makes it sound like he formally changed his name. State it as "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards . . ." because that makes it clear thathe just commonly goes by the form "John" instead of the full given "Johnny". Mwelch 00:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Clinton article back to the way it had been for a long time; it wasn't simply a case of my changing it for personal reasons, as it was longstanding Wikipedia practice to avoid pointing out that someone was generally known by a familiar form of their given name. The relevant line in the guide is: "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name." I.e., it is not necessary to specify that Scioscia is generally known as Mike, as this is evident from the article title; including it in parentheses serves only to dumb down the article for readers. Parentheses of that nature should be used only when someone is generally known by a nickname completely different from their given name (e.g. George Herman "Babe" Ruth, Edward Charles "Whitey" Ford). The section title's reference to common names clearly indicates that the issue of pseudonyms or stage names is completely separate from the issue of familiar names. (BTW, "Mike" isn't actually a nickname per se, but merely a familiar form of a given name.) Contrary to what you state, the section makes absolutely NO reference to how the introduction to the Clinton article should be formatted, but simply points out that if (as in this case) the person goes by a different form of their name than the formal version, a redirect page (or disambiguation page) should be created so that users looking for William Clinton find the correct article. Indeed, the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names CLEARLY states that Clinton's article should be formatted as William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946).) The reference to Edwards is obviously intended to explain a situation significantly different than that of Scioscia; Edwards' given name (Johnny) seems like a familar form but actually isn't. The guide is simply explaining that editors should not write "John Edwards, born Johnny Reid Edwards" because it incorrectly suggests that he legally changed his name; instead, they should include the familiar form "John" in parenthese because it clarifies that that is not his given name. You're incorrectly reading things into the guidelines for examples intended for completely separate situations. MisfitToys 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Rizzuto

Where are you getting the 1918 date? I did a search for Rizzuto and 1918 and came up with nothing useful. Do you have a source that actually explains the whole thing? We've got two independent sources explaining the 1916/1917 flap. Simply pointing to some books that say 1918 and then speculating that the lie means he was born in 1917 counts as original research. In short, in order to list his birthdate as 1917, you really should have a source that explains how the other two sources got it wrong about 1916. Pointing to old record books doesn't do it when there's up to date source that explain the whole shebang. Rklawton 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was officially listed throughout his career as having been born in 1918; as I noted, that's in both The Sporting News Baseball Register and the AL Red Book every year. I never said the 1916 date was wrong, and never made the speculation you suggest, but simply added material pointing out the contemporary records and subsequent revision to 1917; other editors reverted the formatting in other areas. I'd probably stick with 1917 for now based on the birth certificate issue, which I find more reliable than the purely anecdotal evidence from Chass and others. Also, the HoF is still listing him as having been born in 1917. MisfitToys 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only evidence we have for the birth record is from Chass - a source you have just dismissed. I don't think it's appropriate to discount recent, reliable sources without using an even more recent, reliable sources that explain the error. Anything else is original research. Note also that this article has been hit with a plague of sock puppets from an editor pushing the 1918 view. Rklawton 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discounting Chass as a source, but the fact is that he's providing evidence of two different years, and one of them is based only on his own story while the other he supports with a public record. This will eventually get sorted out, but for the time being I think we need to go with the more established records. MisfitToys 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Judge Article

Could you add some references on the information you might have given to the Judge Wikipedia Article? Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksuwildcats10 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you mean Joe Judge? I could look up some more specific references if you point out what material you think most in need of it; obviously, things like his year-to-year batting stats are available in numerous places. MisfitToys 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of The Old Barn Restaurant

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Old Barn Restaurant, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Old Barn Restaurant is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Old Barn Restaurant, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenthal

Hi, following up on your edit summary comment about the timing of starting the article, it was your red link that prompted me to start the article and the link you gave with this edit :-) Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought :-) MisfitToys 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ron liebman a.k.a. User:Mike caragliano and many others

This user shows the signs of being another of the never-ending socks of the banned User:Ron liebman, both in type of edits and in attitude. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you don't regard a response of "baloney" as particularly helpful? I'm shocked. But I'd certainly like to find a way of working past his recent edits. MisfitToys 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one way is to report him to an admin to get him blocked. I did, and he did. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Eddie Plank problem. Dealing with today's Liebman socks got me to the point where I was using a machete instead of a scalpel. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now working with an admin to take some more concrete action against this guy, who is also infesting other wiki pages: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

I award you this barnstar for your consistent cleanup and wikification of DYK articles. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! (Barnstar moved to my user page) MisfitToys 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Home copyedit

Thanks for copyediting Fun Home! I really appreciate it. However, I've got minor questions about two changes you made, and I'd like your opinion on them. I've posted at Talk:Fun Home so other interested editors can chime in (although I often find that I'm the only voice on that page, it rarely hurts to let conversations be public). Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Desoille‎

Thanks for your MoS fix! Robert K S 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

Please refrain from making such edits again. I have reverted your edits because they violate WP:MoS. Specifically, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form where it states

"When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]] — and easier to type. This syntax is also applicable to adjective constructs such as [[Asia]]n and the like. Hyphens and apostrophes must be included in the link to show as part of it for example [[Jane's Fighting Ships|Jane's]] or [[truant|playing-the-hop]]. Keeping possessive apostrophes inside the link, where possible, makes for more readable text and source." (emphasis added)"

If you have any additional questions/comments, please use the talk page or contact me on my talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the guide; what it means is that if you weant the apostrophe to be included in the link, then you must put it within the brackets. It does not mean that you must include the apostrophe in the link. In the example, Jane's Fighting Ships is the title of a book, so if the last two words are omitted from the text then the apostrophe should be included to indicate that it is part of the article title. (Put another way, the use of the apostrophe in the word Jane's does not indicate possession - belonging to Jane - but is retained as part of the book's title.) Another example would be the film Weekend at Bernie's; the 's is part of the title, and should be included in the brackets, rather than formatting it Weekend at Bernie's. If you refer to the title as simply Bernie's, then you should format it as Bernie's, rather than Bernie's. The rule doesn't apply to typical situations in which possession is implied by the apostrophe. MisfitToys 21:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation, but but from my reading of it "Keeping possessive apostrophes inside the link, where possible, makes for more readable text and source." doesn't make the distinction you claim it does. It is all one word and splitting a word up in order to link only part of a single word makes for awkward reading. BTW, possession is not implied, it is explicit in these instances...that is the function of the apostrophe. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the referenced section states explicitly "...apostrophes must be included in the link to show as part of it..." Your claim doesn't seem to have merit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is intended to mean "...apostrophes must be included in the link [if they are] to show as part of it...", not "...apostrophes must be included in the link [so as] to show as part of it..." The meaning is not to make something mandatory, but to explain how to do something if the editor wishes it to appear a certain way. Including the apostrophe within the brackets actually makes the text less readable if simple possession is indicated. Another point: if the intended interpretation is the one you suggest, why would the MoS writers have chosen an example which so clearly lends itself to my interpretation? Wouldn't they more likely have used a person's name as an example? MisfitToys 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I chose the example and wording was in order to make clear how it worked, and advise that taking the apostrophe inside makes it more readable, without issuing an instruction. This is because you otherwise get a colour change in the middle of the word. IMHO it is a bug in MediaWiki not to treat hyphens and apostrophes in the same way as letters here. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 22:49 17 September 2007 (GMT).

That strikes me as an odd position; not only does it waste text space by forcing you to repeat the title, but IMO the link appears gaudier with the apostrophe inside it. Anyway, if it's merely your opinion that it's a bug (it might be intentional), then I think the MoS should be worded to indicate the style used is a matter of preference. MisfitToys 22:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Help

Hi Misfit Toys, I am looking for some guidance in uploading an image, in particular the proper tagging of an image given all the concerns of copy-vio recently. The reason I am coming to you is that you have done some editing on an article that I created- St. John's Lutheran Church and School (New Boston, Michigan). Which by the way I am remiss in thanking you for all the great copy edits you made to the article- thank you! The image is a picture of the church and school that I created and was wondering if you could steer me to the proper image tag. I do not want to retain any sort of rights to the image at all. I have never uploaded an image before so I am reading up on the procedure. Since the article has made it this long without being tagged for deletion, I figure it's time to expand it. Appreciate any advice you can lend me. Cireshoe 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm the wrong person to ask; I've never uploaded an image to Wikipedia. You might look at Wikipedia:Uploading images, and perhaps post a message on that talk page if you need help. MisfitToys 01:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do and thanks again for the copy edits. Cireshoe 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wollstonecraft

I am sending this to everyone who participated about six months ago in the discussion about the appropriate English variant to use for the Mary Wollstonecraft article.

You may wish to read a similar discussion, taking place over a Mary Wollstonecraft pamphlet, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, currently a featured article candidate.

The FAC discussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Vindication of the Rights of Men

The applicable part of the article's talk page is here: Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Men#FAC: AmEng, BrEng, etc

--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 18:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Howitt

Thanks for the copy edit on Mary Howitt. Thorough job Victuallers 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; though there's still one sentence that's a jumble: "William would be reunited with his brother Godfrey Howitt, while Mary and her two daughters, the elder, Margaret, who had just returned from a year in Munich with Kaulbach which was later published as a book, moved into the Hermitage, Mr Bateman's cottage in Highgate." What was later published as a book? MisfitToys 21:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urania sloanus

I invite you to check the new phrasing I put in the Urania sloanus article. You were right toxicity doesn't cause bright coloration, but bright colors advertise toxicity (as a warning). (Just so you remember you lifted the issue "Why would toxicity cause bright coloration? Better phrasing, please."). By the way thanks for the copy-editing. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better. I knew the reason, but felt it was better rewritten by someone else. MisfitToys 23:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernice Armour

Thanks for the copyedits to Vernice Armour. Just having a second contributor in its history makes the article more "real", more a part of Wikipedia instead of just one person's idea. What I've learned from your edits is that it is not enough for a link to be blue. Now I'll check that it is not a redirect, and adjust as needed. I notice that you reordered the categories. Is there a guideline as to their order? Putting her name in each category was something I copied and pasted from another article. Is that an obsolete practice or was the other article just wrong? Thanks again. Sbowers3 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DEFAULTSORT template will correctly alphabetize the article into all the categories without having to enter the name for each. As for the category order, those for years of birth and death (or for living people in lieu of the latter) should go either first or last (I prefer first, as they're the only completely standard categories for bio articles, and new categories tend to get added at the end). After that, categories should be listed in order of relevance, grouped together by subject (e.g. "People from..."). The first category after those for birth/living people should almost always be the one which describes the principal thing the person did or is known for (e.g. Marine officer). Redirects aren't that big a deal, though you want to avoid links to disambiguation pages. But aside from all that, I was glad to be of help. MisfitToys 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Battleship. Thank you. MBK004 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the Copyedit help with Galapagos Land Iguana! I think you've helped me out on a few other articles in the past, too! Would you mind taking a look at Blue iguana if you get a moment...I'm wanting to get that ready for Peer Review/GAN. Thanks!--Mike Searson 21:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit; I might take another look at it later. Glad to be of help. MisfitToys 21:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your contributions to the article Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall. Regards, Masterpiece2000 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and Charles Paget (vice-admiral) - another brilliant edit. I thought it was quite good, but everytime I look at it it looks better. Thanks Victuallers 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! One question - regarding the sentence "but being unable to reach them was obliged to go back to St Thomas's", is that intended to mean Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands? MisfitToys 20:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birdie's birthday

Hi, thanks for your edits on Birdie Reeve Kay. I left a question about her birthday on the talk page. Cheers, AxelBoldt 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. MisfitToys 03:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sherry/History of sherry

You may (or, more likely, may not) be interested in the "debate" about the capitalisation of "sherry" at User_talk:Andplus#Capitalization_of_Sherry. -- !! ?? 23:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was only basing the move on the way it's written in the main article (where it's not capitalized). MisfitToys 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Music of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Help!

I am trying to add to the Infobox World Series Expanded a section to list future Hall of Famers. I think my syntax in the Infobox looks ok, but when I try to add names to the Infobox on 1975 World Series, it isn't turning out correctly. Can you help? Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be working OK now; I just did the 1987 World Series. (I didn't know if you wanted to include Steve Carlton for the Twins that year; he was with the team, but not on the Series roster. BTW, do you also want to include coaches who were later elected?) MisfitToys (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done 1903 to 1954 so far. The only non-players I've included are managers. I was thinking of adding umpires. I am putting (mgr.) after the manager's name and (dnp) for future HOFers who did not play. I am listing the players for each time separately and alphabetically. I am putting the manager first, before the alphabetized players.

I am also including players who weren't elected as players, but elected as managers. If you look at 1923 World Series, I put a ‡ after Stengel's name. If you look at the edit of that infobox, it says "‡ elected as a manager." at the bottom - but that text doesn't show up in the article. I don't know how to fix that yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingturtle (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Yearby

I disagree with parts of this edit. I prefer templates and think they are generally preferred. I also think we can anticipate yearly NCAA season articles and should leave the redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, it wasn't called Div I-A at the time, which is why I deleted the links; note that the navigation template begins with 1978 (see also 1978 NCAA Division I-A football season. That DoB template should only be used in infoboxes; it's a bit awkward for the intro. MisfitToys 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years in baseball articles

I noticed that you changed the year in baseball (wikilinks) to just year (not wikilinked) in the Gabe Paul article. It was my understanding that year in baseball is typically used in a baseball article when the subject clearly refers to a baseball topic and just plain year otherwise. Could you please help me understand those edits? Is there a Wikipolicy that describes this? Thanks, Truthanado 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deep links of that sort tend not to be used as widely in the succession boxes; I think it's better to just use them in the text of the article. MisfitToys (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Ann Sawyers

When I first created the article, I considered using Category:Murdered American children. But it hasn't been officially called a "murder" (yet) since murder requires malice aforethought. So I thought it best just to label her an "abuse victim" for the time being, pending the results of the investigation. Your thoughts? Kafziel ^Talk 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that, but the abuse victim category includes living people, and there should be a category for the cause of death; looking over the murder article, it seems that item (iii) under the legal analysis would seem to apply to a two-year-old beating victim. MisfitToys (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely about murder being applicable in theory; I just don't know if it amounts to libel if we call a spade a spade before the coroner and the district attorney do. Kafziel ^Talk 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, her inclusion in the category would not be accusatory in regards to any specific individual; however, the circumstances of her death clearly suggest she was murdered. MisfitToys (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, of course, but the stepfather already confessed to killing her. So anything we say here does point to a specific individual. But homicide isn't a criminal charge. It's still undetermined whether the homicide was murder (intentional) or manslaughter (willful but unintentional or negligent) or just an accident (injury to a child, the current charge). But I'm okay with leaving it in if you think it's defensible. Kafziel ^Talk 21:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in baseball

Please use Template:Baseball Year.

[[1980 in baseball|1980]]→{{Baseball Year|1980}} or {{by|1980}}

1980→1980 or 1980

--Kanesue (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)My English may be inappropriate, because I am a Japanese.[reply]

DYK

On 18 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Major League Baseball umpiring records, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chico García

De nada (you're welcome). MusiCitizen (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found a couple of Spanish-language news reports: [4] [5] The Hall of Fame page doesn't indicate his death, and the BR Bullpen page is not ideal as a reliable source, especially given the scant entry. MisfitToys (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you restored Garcia's entry at Deaths in August 2007. It has been a long-standing practice that only notable persons (those with a Wikipedia article) are recorded in the Deaths notices. There is no other way to limit the entries to notable deaths, and stop the page from becoming a memorial. "Redlinks" are maintained for one month following the death, to allow for a Wikipedia article to be written, then deleted if no article develops. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is a member of the Mexican Baseball Hall of Fame not notable? As I've understood it, the practice of only listing people which already have an article has been applied only to the articles for years, not the deaths page; deleting the entries just because no article has yet been written actually discourages the expansion of Wikipedia - hardly the goal. MisfitToys (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford

Of the top ten editors at Gerald Ford you have the most recent activity. Can you respond to the talk page query about a large but informative template that I would like to add to his page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Cunard

Joe Gordon

deleting cats

Request for Assistance

Sexism

T-34 Tank

Executive Order 9835 - Peer review

Edit to Leo T. McCarthy

Lutheran churches

USC Coaches

DNA grammar

Gold Rush ounces

Welcome to WikiProject Baseball

Recent edits

Robert Coleman

Randy Stone

Wow

Thanks

Belated thanks

Washington Park, Chicago (park) to Washington Park (Chicago park)

Copyeditor's barnstar

Peter Knowles

Thank you...

Request

2006 Minnesota Twins

congressional districts

Problems with WP:Baseball

Comments on Proposed Deletion of List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana Requested

Thanks

CHICOTW

Desert Research and Technology Studies

Chekhov

Commas

Thanks :)

CHICOTW

Free Belgian Forces

Chicago 2016 Olympic bid CHICOTW

CHICOTW

Chicago Landmark Stubification

Chicago Landmark Stubification

FAR FYI Pioneer Zephyr

Saul Rogovin article

AT&T Corporate Center GA

Regarding SI

Thank you...

Dummy Hoy Baseball library link

Chicago Landmark WP:FLC

College Baseball Project

Colors

WPChi falling on its face?

More help needed

Thank you for your edits on the William Stacy article

Chicago Beach Hotel

Nappy's apostrophes

World Series pages: dates

Steve Dalkowski FAR

Re:Maps

Social conservatism

BS

Ken Holtzman

Reggie Jackson

Chicago tagging

Top Importance Chicago articles

References to Judge Article

Redirect of The Old Barn Restaurant

Rosenthal

User:Ron liebman a.k.a. User:Mike caragliano and many others

Working Man's Barnstar

Fun Home copyedit

See also season pages

Image Help

Mary Wollstonecraft

Mary Howitt

Urania sloanus

Vernice Armour

October 2007

Thanks for the help!

Thanks!

Birdie's birthday

History of Sherry/History of sherry