User talk:Baseball Bugs/ArchiveWahkeenah002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive of a lot of old junk.

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

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

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

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

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

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



[edit] Stamps

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

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

I fail to see why anyone would want to discuss "the stamp itself" without discussing the picture on it. Without the picture, the only thing worth talking about is the denomination and/or the stamp's value to collectors. That certainly sounds like a rule invented by a committee. If I were you, since I didn't invent the template, I would let those who did invent the template be the ones to take the illustrations out, and otherwise leave them alone. Wahkeenah 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that a stamp discussion in the article makes sense. The point is that the license says it can't be used to illustrate the subject, only its use on a stamp. Don't shoot the messenger. If you want to argue the point, take it up with the people who created the license tag, or with the US Postal Service, who probably crafted the copyright license on which the tag is based. Proper image licensing is taking very seriously on Wikipedia these days. And I shouldn't have to point out to an experienced Wikipedian that the entire wiki philosophy encourages people to take action when they see action that needs to be taken. I happened to come across Little Orphan Annie during other work and discovered this license violation, so I removed the image and commented on why I did so, so that interested editors could address the problem. (This is in contrast to so many other editors who seem to feel their actions are so self-evident and self-justifying that they neither bother to add an edit summary nor post an explanation or justify their actions on talk pages.) Someone did come up with a resolution (although they failed to explain it), and although I am dubious about the action, it seemed to be at least nominally within the license, so I commented and got out of the discussion. But if you still wish to discuss image licenses with me, I would suggest you first read the current policy articles, starting with Wikipedia:Image use policy.
By the way, I hope you don't mind my inserting this comment in the natural flow of the section, but before your earlier posting. That latter item seems to be meant for the next section in your talk page. Being an apparent non sequitur in this section, I didn't want it to interrupt logical discourse. You might want to move it. You might also consider archiving your old discussions, because your current table of contents is too large and unwieldy. It's your decision, of course, but long-time Wikipedians typically archive old stuff as a courtesy to their correspondents; i.e., to make it easier to follow current discussions with you. Just a thought. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing talk-page postings

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

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

[edit] World Series

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

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

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

[edit] Major Leagues

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

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

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

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

Maybe you could do the same for the NL?

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

[edit] Re: IPA

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

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

[edit] George Reeves

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

Yes, I understand, but you presumably don't want to be in a position where if this ever calls for a formal decision, they have to sanction you as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Usually I don't like having my comments removed. I realize you are having a hard time with this user, and I thank you for working on this, so no hard feelings, but in the future please let my comments stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Personal Best

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

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

[edit] Español

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

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

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

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

[edit] Nolan Ryan

Image:Nolan Ryan in Atlanta.jpg

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

[edit] Personal attack

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

No, calling me "some wiki-nazi" is a personal attack. I can't possibly imagine what you think I would have a guilty conscience about - I deleted the image in accordance with procedure. Please explain what you think I would have a guilty conscience about. CLW 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. There's no need to notify anyone before speedy deleting a speedy deletable image. CLW 13:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Users can't be speedy deleted, but you could try Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Kindly explain where I have been "hassling registered users". CLW 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV in Game

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

[edit] Animal House

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

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

[edit] Photo copyright

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

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

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


All these images also need copyright information:

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

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

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


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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kmkshot.jpg

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

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

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

[edit] George Reeves

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

[edit] Babe Ruth

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


[edit] Civility

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

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

[edit] New Sports-Wiki

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

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

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

[edit] Ride of the Valkyries

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

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

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

[edit] "Peanuts"

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

[edit] Watch your tone

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

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

[edit] George M. Cohan

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

Thanks for the note, I hope the current solution is satisfactory. I do not think anyone indended offense at the inital reversion of the material, or subsequent reversion. I think everyong wants a better encyclopedia, and I'm glad we could discuss how to bring that about. Thanks for your work, --Hansnesse 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, however since there seems to be some controversy about explanation in the George M. Cohan article, perhaps the best thing to do is work out the wording on the talk page. This is primarily to prevent revert wars which are time-consuming and counterproductive. I'll watch the talk page, and hope to hear from you there soon. Thanks, --Hansnesse 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have begun a discussion about the reversion on the article talk page. As long as we remain interested in writing an encyclopedia and not flaming each other, I think we can find something that works there. To respect the three revert rule, lets work out something there before making further changes. If nothing can be resolved, there are several recourse of dispute resolution, but for now lets try discussion. thanks, --Hansnesse 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your question on my talk page

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

[edit] Rancho Cucamonga

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

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

[edit] Irina Slutskaya

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

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

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

[edit] George M. Cohan

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

  • Jokes - good or bad - do not belong in mainspace articles. That's the entire issue. You can complain or cast aspersions all you like, but the fact is that your jokes are not relevant to the subject of the article. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You keep asking me why I "waste" my time on this page, yet you're spending more time on the matter, leaving bizarre comments on my talk page, and re-inserting text that two other editors have removed. You don't own the Cohan page; I disagree with your content, and I haven't seen a compelling counterargument from you, since you're too busy posting silly notes on my talk page. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the post on Keithlaw's talk page. I think the best thing to do to avoid such edit warring in the future is to post edits which are likely to be controversial (even if it is just one user) to the article talk page first and request comments. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if I can be of any help. Thanks, --Hansnesse 20:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • YDD is a great film, and the kind they just don't make any more, unfortunately. I never realized what a good dancer Cagney was; he's never mentioned in a class with Kelly or Astaire, but in terms of tap dancing, Cagney has to be right up there with the greats. Have you seen Singin' in the Rain (film)? That's more of a regular movie than a biopic, but it also has some great song-and-dance numbers. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turin vs. Torino

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

[edit] Constitution Trail

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edward R. Murrow -> Boston U.

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

Absolutely none of the feel of a 90 year old baseball park!! There's a plaque about 200 yards away from the entrance that says this was the site of braves field, but other than that, you wouldn't know. the field is astroturf, with a track around it, and the seats are ugly modern looking metal bleachers. it's sort of an eyesore. but hey, we have 94-year old Fenway Park to the east, so i guess I can't complain about Nickerson. --Alhutch 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
now that you mention it, the concrete does look about 90 years old on the concourse under the seats. I was just able to figure out who Nickerson was. Here's a quote from this article in the BU house organ : "It was named Nickerson Field as well, after William E. Nickerson, an MIT graduate who was the principal inventor of the machinery used to manufacture the first Gillette safety razor." And there you have it. I'm not sure about the police station being at the old ticket office. I know there's a daycare center for BU employees' children there. You can't miss that place, the roof sticks out like a sore thumb. hope i've been informative.--Alhutch 10:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you completely about the old ballparks. The Spanish architecture is a little out of place, but it's not really ugly per se. glad to help with the Nickerson thing. keep up the good work and I'll see you around the wiki --Alhutch 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to go take a picture or two. I'm not the best photographer, but I'll give it a shot. I've been meaning to take some other pictures for BU articles anyways. --Alhutch 11:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Darn, I left for Nickerson before your message about the triangle. I got some alright photos, but I was using a film camera, so it'll be a short while before it's developed. So the triangular notch would be somewhere in the middle of today's main bleacher section? would it be at field level? I'm not sure how one would be able to check it out from underneath, because it seemed like solid concrete from my recollection. I'll try to investigate next time I'm there. The gate to the field behind the bleachers is sometimes locked, but today it happened to be wide open. It was about 7 am when I got there, so I don't think anyone saw me. Kinda cool to think that I was standing on a field where three world series and the first ever AFL game were played. and by the way, you were right about the police station. it's in the spanish architecture building, housed together with the day care center. i'll make sure to let you know when I get the pictures. see you around --Alhutch 13:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, which arches exactly do you mean? the arches in this photo? the history on that page with the diagram that you linked to is very interesting. I think the fir trees that were planted to keep the railroad smoke out are still there today.--Alhutch 15:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The architecture really does seem kind of out of place. about the arches: there's a little alleyway to the left (our left when looking at the picture in my last post) of the spanish architecture building which leads to a little triangular courtyard. If you walk straight through the courtyard, you'll get to the three large dormitories beyond Nickerson. If you turn right you'll be at the wall behind the bleachers of Nickerson. At the end of that wall furthest away from the old ticket office, you'll come to a wide gate which opens onto a wide set of stairs that go right down to the field. turn right from the stairs and you'll be in the bleachers. turn right immediately after going through the gate and you'll be in a concourse under the bleachers where the concession stands are. The arches are filled in at the tops, but there's an open space underneath them so that you can see right through from the street (where the picture was taken from) into the courtyard. that open space is fenced off though, which forces people to go through the alleyway to get into the courtyard. If you go further down the street which the picture is looking at, you'll get to a sort of ambulance gate which leads onto a driveway that leads onto the field. It's not as complicated as I make it sound :-). I definitely know what you mean about spring. i think the windchill is about minus 10 here now, of course right after about a week of temperatures in the 40s and 50s, lulling us into a false sense of spring.--Alhutch 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Fenway's seats are very cramped. and i've been in those seats that face the outfield on several occasions. it's not pleasant to crane your neck to the left for the whole game. i'd love to go to a game at wrigley some time. Maybe a red sox - cubs interleague game. Next time I'm out by Nickerson I'll poke around some more and see what I can find.--Alhutch 17:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URL For Sports Wiki

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


[edit] Federal League

Wahkeenah--

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


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

[edit] Superman Actors

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Baby Ruth sign 1935.JPG

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

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

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

I would recommend that you look at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use and see which of those make the most sense. The book isn't old enough for the image to be public domain. If the book provides more info about the photo (such as the fact that it is in the public domain), you may be able to select a broader tag. Hope that helps. SteinbDJ 19:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason this can't be fair use. You just need to include a tag and a description of why it's fair use. SteinbDJ 13:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Baker Bowl aerial1.JPG

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

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

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


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Carmen Electra 048.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

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

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

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


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Camden-Comerica.JPG

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Phoebe Cates

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

It would be far more productive if you would discuss verbiage, find sources, and so on rather than tell me Arnie won't allow it. thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 10:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're tired of arguing with him, don't. He is not making any new points. There is no need to allow his attitude to drive you away from an article you are interested in contributing to. I will assist in any way I can should you choose to contribute to that article. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BIOB.JPG

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

[edit] Separated at birth

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DAP brochure.jpg

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

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

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

[edit] Camelback Bridge

Hi Wahkeenah- Finko here

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

Cheers!

[edit] Tawkerbot2

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

[edit] Dennis Miller quote

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

I accidentally reverted your latest edit. Don't worry, I'll fix it in a second.  :) dbtfztalk 05:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Shea_postcard_1964.JPG

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

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

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

[edit] Oh What a Beautiful Mornin'

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

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

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

[edit] Duke-UNC rivalry

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

[edit] Scrimmages

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

[edit] Hey there

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

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

Showing a learning curve is decidedly a good thing. T K E 08:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This pissed me off more than anything else, the part at the bottom. So it's an example of how I handled it. T K E 08:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Leinart Vandal

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

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

[edit] nickerson/braves field

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

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

[edit] Re: WGN-TV

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

[edit] The Green Mile

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

[edit] User page

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

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

[edit] Fort Snelling image

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

[edit] Maz and Forbes

Good idea.--M@rēino 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit jihad

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

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

[edit] "Despite the stubborn refusal of the accusations to die"

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

Because it tries to put the small minority on an equal footing with the vast majority, and skews the discussion statistically unfairly. Wahkeenah 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Really? I don't see that it has anything to do with statistics, it just says that the phenomenon is persistant, which it is. The second half of it says that no one to speak of agrees. Never mind - it's not a big deal. For great justice. 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamburger

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

[edit] hoax

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

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

[edit] American Airlines Flight 191 linkspam

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MonkeyBusiness041706.jpg

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

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

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

[edit] Thanks for the Chadwick references...

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

[edit] Wehadababyitzaboy

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

[edit] William Perry

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

[edit] Re: JFK

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

Most of my edits on the JFK assassination article are from back in the late 2003 to early 2004 timeframe. What I am certainly convinced of at this point is that there is likely no evidence that could ever arise this far after the assasination, that is going to put the matter of who did it authoritatively to rest. Even if we found a complete written confession by a random CIA agent, or the head of the Secret Service (to give two random examples of the theories out there), I suspect there would be people who would be skeptical of it anyway, so I guess I believe the Wikipedia article will always be an exercise in presenting multiple points of view, in balance. Personally, I suspect Oswald was involved (particularly given he killed a police officer 30 minutes after the shooting, a fact I don't think is really disputed), but I can't discount others being involved by way of evidence. I suspect Oswald and conspiracy will always be a part of the discussion.
A lot of the edits I did that still seem to be mostly intact were in the sections 'Background to the Texas Trip', and 'Reaction to the assassination'; I also annotated the black and white photo showing the motorcade route, which came from the Warren Commission.
If you ever want a reminder of what the assassination was like for the people that were there, check out http://www.reelradio.com/se/index.html#klif112263 sometime. It's an hour long audio stream of KLIF between 12:30 and the time at which the president was officially declared dead. Not everything in the broadcast turned out to be true, but it really gave me a sense of the chaos and confusion the event caused. It gave me a frame of reference in which to contribute to the article, which granted that someone killed the president, yes, but that John F. Kennedy was also killed. For all the disputes about who killed him, noone has ever disputed that JFK was shot to death on November 22, 1963...and that event was a tragedy by any standard. Skybunny 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Bleh. I guess the link I provided there now is a pay-for-play, or at least requires registration. That used to not be the case, so it may not be worth the trouble. Apologies, there. Skybunny 00:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply to random observations

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

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

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

I think the serial comma avoids ambiguity in places.

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

I still take holidays.

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

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

[edit] War Memorial Stadium Style Cleanup

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

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

[edit] List of Major League Baseball franchise post-season droughts

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

Yes, you're right on my confusion. To me, as long as the info is consistent, it's not too confusing. As far as how it should read, I like it the way it is. Like you said, if the Red Sox won in 2004, didn't win in 2005 and then win again in 2006, they endured a one year "drought". Seems reasonable. Again like you said, it would be silly to say the White Sox have gone through a one-year drought when they're defending champs! I say keep it the way it is... I'd be more likely to raise an issue about 1904 and 1994. If the Jays won in '93 and then won again in '95, it's hard to swallow that they went through a one-year drought when there was no Series during that "drought". But that's hair-splitting that I'm unlikely to pursue. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I hadn't even thought about the 1904 and 1994 situations, which frankly throws a spanner into the entire bloody concept. That's why it makes much more sense to simply say that a team "has not won since..." whatever year. Consider the cancelled 2004-2005 NHL season. Using this article's approach, the most recent Stanley Cup winner started the 2005-2006 season arguably with a 1-year drought, even though they hadn't played a game since having won the cup. That just doesn't seem right. If anyone else gets into the article and tinkers with it further, I might just take the initiative to change the approach to "number of years since last win" and "number of years between wins", which seems more intuitive. Wahkeenah 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to say which approach is better. What about the Phillies who didn't win any World Series until 1980. Can you have a "haven't won since" column when you've never won?! As far as cancelled seasons, it might be more intuitive to leave them in. As a Mets fan, I say it's been 20 years since they last won in '86, not 19 years because of the '94 strike. Then again, I suppose, with enough clarifying footnotes, you could make almost any approach work. BTW, I was planning on getting in there and table'izing the last few - just makes it more readable to me. If I get there before you, I'll probably institute your "won since" idea.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Having just heavily edited this page, I agree that the current system is good. Even for 1904 and 1994, the city's fans had to endure a year without a pennant or a championship, so I'd call it part of a drought. Anyway, I hope my revamping wasn't too radical. --BlueMoonlet 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:In the Big Inning.JPG

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

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

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

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

[edit] Moon

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

[edit] Greensboro Massacre

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

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

  • Hmmm. Tough call. On the one hand, the film does seem to have won a couple of festival awards, but they appear to me to be pretty minor. I am disturbed by the fact that 1) the link is to a blog, as I don't feel those are usually appropriate unless it's a very well-known one, and 2) it does have that Paypal link at the bottom, which makes it lean toward the commercial end of the spectrum. I personally believe you're justified in removing the link. Having said that, remember that an admin's word is not law. Have you considered asking for some possibly consensus-building discussion at WP:RfC, or at WP:SPAM? I'd rather see a little more discussion than have you and User:Spcoon get into an edit war. Joyous | Talk 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I've listed the page for an RfC, so we can get some other opinions. If Spcoon is a new user, he may be uncomfortable using that page himself. Joyous | Talk 15:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The line between advertising and not-advertising can be so tenuous sometimes, I find it interesting and informative to get opinions on stuff like this, just to use as a reference in the future. Joyous | Talk 15:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

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

[edit] This Week in Baseball

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

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

[edit] Chicago Daily News photos

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

I had only skimmed it before. However, copyright owners don't have the right to say whether (or how) you can use their content under fair use; fair use is for situations where you don't have permission. Also, the page's instructions come down to, "The Chicago Historical Society encourages use of these images to the extent permitted under the fair use clause of the 1976 Copyright Act." If you do use the image under fair use, you don't have to follow their requirements, but some form of credit should be given. Superm401 - Talk 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think you should use that photo. It's not particularly famous or important, and you're potentially harming the CHS's revenues. If you want a second opinion, put {{fairusereview}} on the image page. Superm401 - Talk 23:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My bad, totally

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

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Apollo 14 golf.jpg

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

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

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Marvin_meets_Rover.jpg

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

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

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

[edit] User page vandalism

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

[edit] Fair use

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

[edit] Carmen Electra

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

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

[edit] Marvin image

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

[edit] Mongo

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

[edit] American Airlines Flight 191

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

[edit] Tom Skilling

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

Because they were both WGN employees, both very popular (in Chicago, at least - sorry if you've never heard of him) and because it goes along with the high esteem in which Tom Skilling is presumed to be held (in marked contrast to his younger brother Jeff, obviously). Wahkeenah 00:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Chicagoan, too. I've not heard of Bob Collins, but admittedly have not listened to radio much. But I still simply don't see the notability of the comment. For example, would you find it worthwhile to include in an article on Heather Graham that Demi Moore said she was "cute"? A one-word comment from one celebrity about another just isn't worthwhile enough to include in an article, I think. Feel free to write follow-up replies here. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to revert again, since you've not replied. We can follow up on the article's talk page if you like. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Because you've never heard of Bob Collins and you seldom listen to radio, that makes it non-notable? The two were colleagues, and Collins was the top-rated morning radio guy in the city. I guess that's not notable enough. Wahkeenah 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, because the comment is a single-word comment from one celebrity about another, it's not notable, as I made clear. Please remain civil. Would you agree to respect the opinion of a random third party brought in via WP:3O? — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  01:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No, to Hades with it. Civilly, of course. Wahkeenah 02:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As you wish. I'll consider the matter closed, then. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility

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

YOU started it. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. Wahkeenah 02:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Tell me, how do you feel I started it? We don't own articles, we don't own edits or contributions. WP:BOLD: "And, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be." — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I heard back from the original user, who thanked me for fixing his spelling mistake. Wahkeenah 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Really doesn't change policy; you didn't have his permission at the time. But really, at this point, I couldn't care less. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I will either ask the next time or I will let the user look stupid. Thank you for your contributions. Wahkeenah 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
In such a situation, you and I would have no problems whatsoever. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

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

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

[edit] Moon hoax

See my reply on [[1]]. Oh, I see you already have! --Guinnog 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] The One on the Right is on the Left

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

[edit] The name, if not the thing

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

[edit] Religion

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

[edit] Yankee Stadium

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

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

[edit] Ride of the Valkyries

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

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

[edit] Warning

I would strongly urge you to try to be civil.

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


[edit] Carmen Electra

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


[edit] Serial comma

  • I'm sorry, but I believe it adds clarity and is better at distinguishing different parts of a list. I'm certain you would agree that when we speak, we do not say, "She went to the store and bought eggs, bread, cheese." There is no "and" implied by the second comma. Please go to the following link, and you will see what I mean. [2] Michael 01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and in the Fran Drescher article, the use of the serial comma is perfectly appropriate. Michael 04:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if the macaroni and cheese rule is making you hungry, perhaps you should go get something to eat. :-) Michael 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Carmen Electra

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

Hello, Wahkeenah. I think the mug shot belongs to the Carmen Electra article because it's the only one free image we have for this person so far. Also, it illustrates a small incident on her bio that is already cited on the article. We should not think that anyone seeing that image would run into the conclusion that Ms. Electra is a "carreer criminal". For instance, in this specific case, as you noticed, the charges were dismissed, meaning that completelly innocent and well-mannered citizens may appear on mug shots. Anyway, I'm still trying to find another free image of her, to be used as the main image on the article. I will let you guys know about any developments. Best regards, --Abu Badali 03:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, we'll see what you can come up with. Meanwhile, kindly explain why it being the only "free" image (lifted from a website notorious for scandal-mongering) compels you to post it. Wahkeenah 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Fellow Wahkeenah, I believe that biography articles are greatly improved by pictures, as it is of the reader's greatest interests to know how the subject looks like. As we do have an usable image of Ms. Electra, I think we should use it. Looking for a better usable picture is a great attitude. But I can't see how removing the only one usable picture can be of any help. Besides, as I mentioned before, that very picture illustrates an incident on her bio, an may be used to illustrate that incident on her article. Wish me good look in my quest for a better picture. Best regards, --Abu Badali 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

I can't, Mr. Wahkeenah. I don't believe there's such a wiki rule. I'm sorry if anything a I said made you believe in the existence of such a rule. --Abu Badali 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If there is no such rule, why do feel compelled to post that picture? Wahkeenah 04:51, 12 June 2006 (UC)
I have already mentioned a few reasons, "I believe that biography artices are greatly improved by pictures" and "...it (the mug shot) illustrates a small incident on her bio that is already cited on the article". Please, let's not start to walk in circles. --Abu Badali 04:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, a small incident. But you're as stubborn as I am, so I might as well wait and see if you can find another photo that doesn't paint her as a criminal. Wahkeenah 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Being stubborn make us improve Wikipedia. Being lazy make us abuse Fair Use. It's done. --Abu Badali 05:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is with making fair use of a magazine cover or the like - at least until a Wikipedian manages to snap a picture of her. BD2412 T 06:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be moot - there's a (crappy) non-mugshot image of her now. BD2412 T 06:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arturo Ritti

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

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

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

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Polo Grounds Manhattan Field.JPG

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

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

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 09:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please also specify the source for:
Just state specifically which book they came from. Thanks! -SCEhardT 10:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Groucho

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

[edit] Removal of lyrics from K-K-K-Katy

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

Song lyrics do not belong on Wikipedia. Whether or not the process at Wikisource completes (Wikisource, after all, may choose to delete the transwikied text outright), the lyrics cannot stay. TheProject 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, not exactly only "so I say". Don't include copies of primary sources. And by the way, yes, we plan to scan all articles looking for lyrics. Care to help us with that? (Obviously, there are some articles on Wikipedia which do have primary source texts, which are only included if they add to the article other than just "here are the lyrics".) TheProject 22:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lyrics

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

Incidentally, your talk page is rather long. If you'd like some assistance archiving your older messages, let me know. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to get snippy, I was just trying to help. I'll leave you be. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

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

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

[edit] List of Major League Baseball franchise post-season droughts

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

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

[edit] Na Na Song

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

[edit] DVD Cover on Adara michaels

Hi, Wahkeenah.

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

[edit] Carmen Electra

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

[edit] World Series

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

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

[edit] of interest

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

[edit] "Meow"?

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

[Meow]...is a shorthand way of saying "catty remark", which is more creative than "npov". Wahkeenah
Ah, that is funny. bd2412 T 23:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Metropolitan Stadium aerial.JPG

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

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

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

[edit] Babe Ruth

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

[edit] Superman Returns

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] I Saw Her Standing There

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

[edit] Your user page

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

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

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

I understand. Blame the lawyer-gods, not the wiki-gods. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC
To my knowledge, we've never been sued. A copyright infringement lawsuit could be devastating, especially if successful, so Wikipedia goes to great lengths comply with the law, to remove copyrighted material and to respond promptly to copyright holders' concerns. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Very true. Nevertheless, it's probably better to follow the law, rather than break it until we get caught. Especially for something as trivial as putting images on user pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia for Song

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

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

[edit] Cardinals logo

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

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

[edit] thanks

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

[edit] Exit to Eden

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

You said: "Would you rather I posted the screen captures themselves and claimed fair use? As they keep telling me here, "Wikipedia doesn't censor". And that site has no popups, so it's non-intrusive. As far as "adding nothing" to the movie... have you ever seen it? 0 + 0 is still 0."
I don't believe the screen captures on that commercial site add anything to the article, nor do I believe that site is following fair-use. Wikipedia policy is not to link to sites violating copyright. I have no objection to nudity, I just object to linking to that particular commercial site. --Yamla 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You said: "Define the practical difference between what they are doing, and what many articles do here when they post screenshots. And don't give me the "commerical site" argument again. It's a totally free site. You're not compelled to buy anything. Besides which, other commercial sites are on here. Consider the hassle I got into for posting your same argument in reference to the Greensboro Massacre#Video article where this guy was trying to push his own video... ("Greensboro's Child") and he won the argument, somehow. Oddly enough, I get a warning message when I connect to it. Not so with this site you're griping about. Also, I have no connection or personal interest in that site, it's just one I ran across someplace. It's a useful resource and it doesn't cost a dime."
The practical difference is that Wikipedia officially tries to determine which of the images are fair-use and has a strict policy about it which gets enforced when we find a violation.. Just because many articles here use images in violation of Wikipedia's policies does not mean that we should condone this. Additionally, external links are generally not appropriate and rather than justifying why one is not appropriate, we should really be considering whether that link is appropriate under WP:EL. --Yamla 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You said: "Enough already. There's a double-standard here. So what else is new? Do you intend to check every last link on this pretentious weblog and determine which ones are violating copyright? Not bloody likely. You just don't like this specific site. Fine. You win."
I have 3,153 pages currently on my watchlist. I check every one of them to make sure they are not violating copyright. Unfortunately, this is only a small fraction of the total article count on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rise Stevens

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

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

[edit] Thank you, thank you, thank you

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

For me it's her Carmen. She'll always be my favorite. I think I'm going to nominate the new page for speedy deletion (once I learn how to do that) and start again from scratch. ForDorothy 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea. Now I have something to look forward to. I've only ever heard her sing; I've never seen her. And I see that she was in something called "The Chocolate Soldier"--something else to look forward to. Thanks. ForDorothy 18:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've never seen it with the tilde, but I've always pronounced it with one. And now that i have searched Habanera, I feel (kinda) confident in saying that it does not have one. I intend to correct myself accordingly. And to tell everyone I know. But first I'm going to "meditate" in the garden. ForDorothy 19:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove that tag immediately

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

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