User talk:SwissCelt/archive2

Image deletion warning

Image:Toledo Ohio seal.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Thuresson 10:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sry, afraid I don't have access to such information. I was trying to expand info about the rural area's liberal community, but I don't have sources, so it's not happening. yodamace1

Interesting

Found you while adding some edits to various Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Massachusetts talk pages, in an effort to help out with the Wikipedia:User categorisation project. I was pointing User:Paul August and slowly, all the other Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Massachusetts to the Category:Wikipedians in Massachusetts page. I'm on nfp on LJ.--Vidkun 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That Artisson fellow

I wish you didn't feel it necessary to withhold your AfD vote, but I understand your reasons. Thanks for trying not to contribute to the drama. I only wish that all these newly-registered users felt the same. Madame Sosostris 17:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that as well. However (and for the record, as I know you already understand this), even before I was aware the article was put to AfD, certain editors had already accused me of using the AfD process as part of a vendetta against the subject of the article. In refraining from the process, I hope to prove that allegation false. The record clearly shows that I tried working with those editors and was rebuffed, even when we were discussing this subject at witchcraft. I've therefore decided to apply the principles of Wikiquette toward resolving this. -- SwissCelt 17:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft

So you revert my edits twice because the reasons in summary aren't good enough for you... No, I reverted the first time because your stated reason was so breathtakingly and obviously bogus that it defied reason (see chutzpah). Your next revert was merely bog-standard bogus, and your previous revert's high bogosity level merely made me comfortable reverting it immediately.

...and then you tell me to go to the talk page Considering that you were numbering your reverts in the edit summaries, it seemed clear to me that you were counting on using the Three-Revert Rule as tactical cover for your actions. Uh uh: the 3RR is an electric fence -- a limit -- and not an entitlement, and gaming the system for tactical advantage is frowned on and occasionally blocked for, because admins are not fooled. You want the link gone? Make a coherent, non-bogus argument on the Talk page, one that at least passes the giggle test. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reverted the first time because your stated reason was so breathtakingly and obviously bogus that it defied reason (see chutzpah)

Hmmm, maybe you'd also like to note that my stated reasons were stated on the talk page all along (look here, please!), and that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. There was no reason for that link to be in the article, as the website author prohibits its contents from being republished on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson), and several people have been aiming to rid the article of miscellaneous linkspam.

Considering that you were numbering your reverts in the edit summaries, it seemed clear to me that you were counting on using the Three-Revert Rule as tactical cover for your actions.

In that case, I would also refer you to WP:AGF. I was numbering my reverts so that the person who called me a "dumbass" would have no reason to mistakenly accuse me of violating 3RR. My actions were not a "tactical cover"; on the contrary, I was operating as openly as I possibly could.

Make a coherent, non-bogus argument on the Talk page, one that at least passes the giggle test.

Perhaps now you'll see I've done so. It frankly flabbergasts me that you've apparently not seen it yet, but perhaps now you will, as I'm reprinting this comment on that page. Salve! -- SwissCelt 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason for that link to be in the article, as the website author prohibits its contents from being republished on Wikipedia The contents of the link? That's copyrighted? The contents of the link itself? That's copyrighted? See "Giggle test, failure of". --Calton | Talk 06:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how a -->LINK<-- is covered in any way, shape, or form by copyright law or even by the wishes of the owners of the site linked to. How does one copyright a LINK, anyways? What does the existence of a LINK have to do with "republishing" anything? Do you know what a LINK is? Is this a difficult concept?

Your link to the talk page says nothing -- zip, zero, nada, nil, goose egg -- about this. Do you plan to actually address what I've actually said or will you continue pretending you've answered it? --Calton | Talk 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered it. Move on, please. Further comments from you on this issue will be ignored. -- SwissCelt 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, no, I'm not going to ignore this. Neither, though, am I going to escalate this by continuing to participate in what I see as a resolved issue. The link has been removed by another editor. If you wish to dispute this, take it up with that other editor, or on the article's talk page.

I, on the other hand, won't be saying anything more to you about this edit; I bid you well. I'd like us both to assume good faith from this point forward and go our seperate ways; if, however, this proves impossible, it would be foolish of me to ignore the issue. Clearly, we have a conflict on our hands (though frankly, I'm at a loss to explain why this is so). I offer you the choice: Either we can let this drop here, or you may pursue other avenues toward resolving this. -- SwissCelt 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwissCelt/History of Toledo, Ohio

Hi, this is just the article I was hoping might be around. I was trying to expand Vistula, Michigan (which may not be correctly named, BTW), and it seemed that much of the info would be better suited to a general history of Toledo rather than buried in an article about an obscure archaic town name. If you'd like, move it into article namespace. 'Til then, I'll just add what I can to the Vistula and (as yet still red-linked) Port Lawrence articles. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to "nationalise" place names

See comment on my page. Ben W Bell 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Cleveland Cavaliers and Art Modell

I feel that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is still relevant to the Art Modell page because it was one of the reasons that Cleveland did not have the funds to pay for a football stadium. If you'd like, I can reword it. The Cavs are definitely worth mentioning, as they are a sports team. Check out the Ravens AOL board. The debate is certainly still going on. 144.126.161.43 17:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the New York Giants be outraged every time a new theater opens on Broadway? Come on, let's get real here. The city of Cleveland did not build the Rock Hall. It's a non-profit institution; which makes it all the more outrageous to think that Cleveland had to build a stadium for Modell's for profit business separate from the Gateway Sports and Entertainment Complex which was already offered to him at the same time it was offered to the Indians and Cavs. (More on that in a moment.) Cleveland did spend money on infrastructure for the Rock Hall, and it's the same infrastructure (e.g. the RTA Waterfront line) which is now benefitting the Browns in their current stadium. Moreover, the experience of the nearby Columbus Blue Jackets makes the whole argument out to be the sham it is: Sports teams can indeed survive, and even thrive, without raiding the public coffers.

But like it or not those are reasons that Modell and his supporters cite for him leaving. Now you can mention that was incorrect, but there in Maryland most people view it that way. 144.126.161.43 18:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Cavs, as I mentioned, they were part of the Gateway project; mentioning them separately in the article is redundant, and suggests more credence to Modell's posturing than actually exists in fact. (To wit, even if you buy the argument that Cleveland snubbed Modell, it did so with only one project, not two or three.) What really happened is this: Modell gambled that the citizens of Cleveland would reject a public project to build new sports venues in Cleveland. This gamble made good business sense for Modell, as he already controlled leases on the existing Cleveland Municipal Stadium. The leases were more valuable even with the lackluster Indians as a tenant than they would have been in a new Browns-only stadium. To hedge his bet, Modell made clear he would not be a part of Gateway, as without the Browns it seemed a sure thing the citizens of Cleveland would reject the project.

The Cavs were a big deal as well. I'm not denying that Big Art is in the wrong. As a Ravens fan I'm glad he's out of there, and looking at the state the team is in now the new owner inherited a mess, and he certainly mismanaged his money, and he has nobody to blame for that but himself. Getting back to the Cavs, most cite that as a reason they left, and quite frankly I'm surprised that more people do not mention that.144.126.161.43 18:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Cleveland passed the project, via a "sin tax" in Cuyahoga County. The Indians would be moving to a new stadium, the Cavs would be moving into Cleveland from neighbouring Summit County, and Modell was left holding the bag. He pressured Cleveland to build him a new stadium as well. But what people don't realize is that not only did Cleveland not have the money for a new Browns stadium, they never did have the money: That money was earmarked through the Gateway project (and passed through a distinct levy by the voters of Cuyahoga County), which Modell had already rejected. And that, my friend, is why you can't blame the city of Cleveland for the Browns' move. If the folks at ESPN would get their heads out of... well, let's just say start thinking clearly, this story could be told instead of the Disney fantasy that is proffered in The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... -- SwissCelt 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't blame the city of Cleveland for Modell moving the team.

The reality of the situation is that Wikipedia articles should try to prevent all prevailing views and shoot them down. People have blamed the creation of all the stadiums and the R&R Hall of Fame for the moves. I have a book that cites it (not on me right now, but I can get ahold of it and cite it). Instead of deleting information that you feel helps Modell's cause you should allow for it to remain. Reading MOdell's info one sees how he truly is anyway. 144.126.161.43 18:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do cite it. And to be brutally honest, the paragraph could stand some cleanup as well. I'm not trying to be mean, but what you added was problematic just on grammatical grounds. -- SwissCelt 06:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And guys like you can edit it and have it meet all the standards you want it to. Personally I'm more concerned with getting information down, and people can edit it, making it more grammatically correct.

College Sports popularity in Toledo, OH

Hey don't you know the existence of Buckeyes&Wolverines shop in Toledo? Also, an OSU student said to Lantern, OSU newspaper, "I grew up in Toledo, where 5 Wolverine fans per Buckeye. In what state are you living?". I'm afraid I forgot the date of issue, so it's up to you if you revert it, as it is kinda "original research". I don't have any intention to re-add or re-revert it. Yassie 15:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Talk:Toledo, Ohio. -- SwissCelt 15:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Map of Logan County townships.PNG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Map of Logan County townships.PNG. 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}} 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. Matt 11:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that... I forgot to update the copyright tagging when I reloaded the image. (I'd converted it from a transparent PNG file which I'd created earlier and mistakenly made transparent, to a regular PNG file. This is a derivative work, created from a document found here: [1] This original is a public document issued by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. As such, it is probably okay to use on Wikipedia en toto in the first place (IANAL), but because the image is derived from this source and not merely copied, I am operating under the belief that it's my own creation and thus eligible for the GFDL. -- SwissCelt 14:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]