User talk:Cumulus Clouds/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →
Contents |
September 24, 2005 anti-war protest
I saw your revert to this article, and i just wanted to add that I have many more high res pictures of that march so if any of them would qualify to be put in that article to replace the little thing that's there now I think they probably should. However, I will upload them and leave that up to your discretion and that of the community. Also, I have no idea how to put things on Commons and tag them appropriately so people would be able to find them if they were searching for that. If you wouldn't mind giving me some pointers on that, that would be awesome. Cumulus Clouds 09:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- The easiest thing to do in that case is to just upload it straight to Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/). Add it to Category:September 24, 2005 anti-war protest. You'll need to register before you can upload, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Halloween
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Halloween, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Chensiyuan 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- And stop blanking your talkpage. Chensiyuan 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- The picture hallocan.JPG was removed (and will continue to be removed) from Halloween because, as I've stated many times before, it does not satisfy the criteria for being posted in that article. It doesn't contribute in a significant way, it isn't abundantly relevant to the article, nor does anything within the picture demonstrate that it was taken on Halloween. It appears that you have added a number of pictures to this encyclopedia that serve only as your own personal vanity and I will work dilligently to have those pictures removed. If you care to comment on this again, do so in a polite and respectful tone because if you do otherwise I will notify an administrator. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 02:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
-
Waterloo, New York
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Waterloo (town), New York, you will be blocked from editing. Waterloo, New York
-
- You obviously didn't read the message I posted on the talk page of that article, nor did you even attempt to understand why those edits were made. I've explained myself both on that talk page and your own and since my edits were not vandalism, were over a month old and were made in good faith, I will delete this message since it appears only as a personal attack on me. If you disagree with this judgement, you may take it up with an administrator. Cumulus Clouds 02:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- In regards to your message, first of all, your threat to alert an administrator won't hold up as this is not a vandalism case or 3RR situation. This also goes for the claim that I "defaced" your talk page. Secondly, according to your logic, pretty much every source on Wikipedia articles is inaccurate because they don't use outside sources to verify their claims. And I assume every story on the internet that has user comments on its page is no longer eligible based on what you have said about teacher/parent comments? --D-Day 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nowhere in that quote does it say anything about government sources. I am not sure what you are trying to get at here. Pretty much any source that can be used to confirm such a statement would be a "government source." Anyway, I have reverted your edits per WP:OWN, and I wish to discuss this matter no further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Chief Wahoo
Your complaint is with the format of the citations. If you don't like the format, then you should format them correctly. To claim they need a citation, when I have told you exactly where the information is, is a falsehood. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Citations are not required to be from the Internet. I have been told time and again by many people that books are a perfectly valid citation. And the book is recent enough you should be able to find it in your library. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was the one who posted the original general reference to the book, and also the one who looked up the specific pages on which the subject is discussed. The book has illustrations of every uniform from 1901 through 1991. In addition to that, the text explains when each version of the patch first appeared. You may use the specific information already posted in the history to format the citations the way you want to. I could probably scan and upload the pages, but I think the copyright watchdogs would have a problem with that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- And thanks for keeping me honest on the references. Sometimes I think things should be obvious, when they aren't. It would be interesting to find out more about that cartoon, because to my mind, it is easily the most outrageous Indian image around, and it's amazing in this age when media are so politically correct, that this cartoon is plastered all over everything connected with the Cleveland Indians. Perhaps the most curious thing is that it appears to have arisen during Bill Veeck's time running Cleveland. At the same time he was breaking the American League color line with Lary Doby and Satchel Paige, he was allowing the caricature with no qualms about it. However, it's fair to say that Veeck was never politically correct. I think the redesign probably happened right around the time he sold the team. The original was a lot like the WB cartoon imagery of Indians and was a semi-realistic caricature. The re-drawn one is just so goofy-looking it's hard to know what to make of it. OK, 'nuff said for now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It occurs to me you might think I'm on the warpath, so to speak, against Indian imagery. Not necessarily. In fact, I don't think white people's opinions on this matter should hold any sway at all. The "target" of the imagery are the only ones who have any legitimate basis for saying "yea" or "nay". These images were invented by white people, and now white people are saying, "Oh, that's bad." Well, I think those two are actually flip sides of the same thing, namely white people patronizing minorities, presuming to think for them. Maybe some (or maybe many) Native Americans either (1) don't care, or even (2) don't mind, or maybe even (3) kind of like it. I'd like to hear more about it than just official spokesmen. When the Seminoles had their spat with the NCAA, you had some guy in Oklahoma presumed to speak for the entire Seminole tribe in supporting the NCAA's ban. The Seminoles in Florida said, "Hold the phone. This is our choice," and they supported an exception for FSU by the NCAA. I also recall during the 1991 World Series, with one of the Indian leaders griping about the "tomahawk chop". When it was pointed out that many of the toy tomahawks being waved at Atlanta Stadium were being manufactured by the Cherokee tribe in North Carolina, that Indian leader labeled them "materialistic". Well, that's just ducky, coming from a professional lobbyist who probably didn't have to worry about money. The Cherokee in NC are known for poverty, and anything Indians can do to increase their revenue, be it selling tomahawks or opening casinos, seems to me like a good thing for them in the long run. But it's up to them, not up to white folks. I recall the practical attitude adopted by their Cherokee manufacturer: "As long as people keep buying them, we'll keep making them." That's good ol' American capitalism, pure and simple. OK, 'nuff said again. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have plenty of biases, I'm sure, but mostly I'm curious about things, which is why I want to know more about this Chief Wahoo. There's got to be a story behind that, beyond the bare minimum of info in the article. Did you know that the Indians named themselves after the Boston Braves of 1914, and that it was expected to be a "temporary" new name? That's 92 years of "temporary" so far. The Washington Redskins also named themselves after the Boston Braves originally. An interesting and peculiar situation, for those various teams. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It occurs to me you might think I'm on the warpath, so to speak, against Indian imagery. Not necessarily. In fact, I don't think white people's opinions on this matter should hold any sway at all. The "target" of the imagery are the only ones who have any legitimate basis for saying "yea" or "nay". These images were invented by white people, and now white people are saying, "Oh, that's bad." Well, I think those two are actually flip sides of the same thing, namely white people patronizing minorities, presuming to think for them. Maybe some (or maybe many) Native Americans either (1) don't care, or even (2) don't mind, or maybe even (3) kind of like it. I'd like to hear more about it than just official spokesmen. When the Seminoles had their spat with the NCAA, you had some guy in Oklahoma presumed to speak for the entire Seminole tribe in supporting the NCAA's ban. The Seminoles in Florida said, "Hold the phone. This is our choice," and they supported an exception for FSU by the NCAA. I also recall during the 1991 World Series, with one of the Indian leaders griping about the "tomahawk chop". When it was pointed out that many of the toy tomahawks being waved at Atlanta Stadium were being manufactured by the Cherokee tribe in North Carolina, that Indian leader labeled them "materialistic". Well, that's just ducky, coming from a professional lobbyist who probably didn't have to worry about money. The Cherokee in NC are known for poverty, and anything Indians can do to increase their revenue, be it selling tomahawks or opening casinos, seems to me like a good thing for them in the long run. But it's up to them, not up to white folks. I recall the practical attitude adopted by their Cherokee manufacturer: "As long as people keep buying them, we'll keep making them." That's good ol' American capitalism, pure and simple. OK, 'nuff said again. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- And thanks for keeping me honest on the references. Sometimes I think things should be obvious, when they aren't. It would be interesting to find out more about that cartoon, because to my mind, it is easily the most outrageous Indian image around, and it's amazing in this age when media are so politically correct, that this cartoon is plastered all over everything connected with the Cleveland Indians. Perhaps the most curious thing is that it appears to have arisen during Bill Veeck's time running Cleveland. At the same time he was breaking the American League color line with Lary Doby and Satchel Paige, he was allowing the caricature with no qualms about it. However, it's fair to say that Veeck was never politically correct. I think the redesign probably happened right around the time he sold the team. The original was a lot like the WB cartoon imagery of Indians and was a semi-realistic caricature. The re-drawn one is just so goofy-looking it's hard to know what to make of it. OK, 'nuff said for now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was the one who posted the original general reference to the book, and also the one who looked up the specific pages on which the subject is discussed. The book has illustrations of every uniform from 1901 through 1991. In addition to that, the text explains when each version of the patch first appeared. You may use the specific information already posted in the history to format the citations the way you want to. I could probably scan and upload the pages, but I think the copyright watchdogs would have a problem with that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
