User talk:Grsz11/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Fair use rationale for Image:Psac map.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Psac map.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

BCS Championship Speculation?

What planet are you from? When Missouri and West Virginia both lost 12/1/07, it assured The Ohio State University a spot in the title game. I reverted back to my edit, so Ohio State was NOT speculation, they were number three in the poll before those games, and the two losses asured that no matter what happened, the Buckeyes would be in New Orleans. NoseNuggets 6:40 PM US EST Dec 2 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pittsburgh / New Jersey ties

Greetings. I've noticed that you keep inverting Pittsburgh and New Jersey recently when both teams have had identical records. The NHL's official standings that is published at [1] reflect New Jersey as owning the tiebreaker, and as such we have posted those records accordingly to what the NHL says. Ultimately, it does not matter what any other site says the standings are, whether it be espn or yahoo, the NHL has the final word. New Jersey owns a 3 games to 1 advantage over Pittsburgh and it looks like the NHL is ignoring the "equal number of home games" tiebreaker for now as they have played an even number of games overall. For discussion on this, please see WT:HOCKEY.

Also, it looks like you are not aware of this based on your edits. When a team wins or loses in a shootout, the game winning goal counts as a goal scored. Pittsburgh lost today's game in a shootout with a final score of 6-5. When you updated the Pens goals against, you only added 5 goals, but you should have added 6 goals to that total. --Pparazorback (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Dislexia

No problem. Actually I never noticed. How I update is I have an excel workbook that pulls the standings from ESPN. I have a bunch of sheets with tabs Atlantic, Southeast, Eastern Conference, etc... That has the Wiki code that all I do is Copy and Paste the data. I never even look at what is there, if there are no changes, it won't make a change, if there are, it will. That is why I can do this a lot faster then most, almost like a Bot. Check out my other examples for the conference template at User:Pparazorback/Sandbox. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated the Northeast conference template too, but it was the same as User:24.203.86.73 did it so it did not change. But had we had a difference, it would have updated. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw - if you have Microsoft Excel and are interested in the template spreadsheet after we get the conference templates resolved let me know and I can send it to you. I'm heading offline in a sec, got to leave for work (Coughing like a dog right now too...) -Pparazorback (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland and Hockey

It's amazing (the resistance), Belfast, Northern Ireland has been a part of the UK since 1801. In fact the whole island of Ireland was a part of the UK from 1801 to the 1920's. Truly, I'm flabergasted by the resistance to using United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the problem will be resolved soon. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what can a fella do. Ps- sorry about the delay in responding, I was signed out for three hrs. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Signing out for the night. I've got one more idea to try - have two sections: Flag of the United Kingdom United Kingdom; Flag of Ireland Republic of Ireland. See ya tommorrow. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've returned & have thrown in my old idea again. Your correct, if things don't end soon? we may have to do as you've suggested. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's this Irish buisness, it's making me looneyer then I really am. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
ONIH doesen't seem to understand - the article wants listed the now country, not the then country. Example: Riley wasn't born in the RoI, but may have been born in what is now the RoI. He doesen't seem to crasp the article's criteria. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
PS- I'd tell him this personally, but he's barred me from his personal page. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Though I haven't posted there for awhile (ONIH's refusal to budge, discouraged me), I've been watching how things have been going & keeping hope for a resolution. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I know how ya feel Grsz11. ONIH (who to my knowledge, never edited a hockey article before) is ignoring how the other countries are shown (ignoring the article criteria). I wunder how he'd react if the HHOF was against him? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
PS- It appears the NHLPA has no worries about Northern Ireland & Republic of Ireland, concerning Owen Nolan. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You have been 1 granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, because the rollback feature does not require fetching the data from the page history and then sending article data back to the Wikipedia server as the javascript requires, therefore you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful.Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism.

My fault. Sorry. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured, no problem. Grsz11 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up

Hey there... just a heads up. Simply adding a protection template does not protect the page. Only an admin can actually protect the page. To request protection, just make a request at RFPP. :) Jmlk17 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Zach Smith

Hi, thanks for writing. Unfortunately, Rowling never confirmed before/after the release of Deathly Hallows that Zacharias and Hepzibah were of any relation, especially since the former wound up playing a next-to-nothing role in the series. Upon finishing DH, I was a little peeved that that one little plot hole was overlooked. Beemer69 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

z/s

I was under the impression that an article and its title were separate, along the lines of data versus metadata :/

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, the other articles I've edited weren't british at all.

Thanks for pointing out about seeking consensus on the talk page though.

Shentino (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Brook or Brooke?

Hi. I hope you don't mind I removed these warnings [2]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

High-five.

Let's tag-team against Mr. "Systematically-delete-from-God-of-War" entry. Casull (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He should be blocked soon; I reported Grsz11 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Victory! Grsz11 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page! —BoL 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

W. Roy MacKenzie

Hi, I'm curious why you think W. Roy MacKenzie should be deleted? Isn't saying he is known for collecting folk songs in Nova Scotia enough of an indication of his importance? --fnord (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spells in Harry Potter

The etymologies are labeled "suggested" because although the etymologies have been given by various sources it is likely that this is just speculation or synthesis on their part. None of the etymologies are sourced either from the books or confirmed by J.K. Rowling they are logical conclusions made by other people. It was decided by consensus that when a relibale source is provided for a suggested etymology then it should be included in the article but any unsourced etymology (one effectively suggested by users) constitute original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and so all unreferenced etymologies were removed. Placing a [citation needed] tag might have been an option, but having checked for sources I couldn't find any and given the history of the page I think that entries should only be added when there are sources to support them. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gopal bhatt goswami

Please tell me why articles like this get to stay. It's nothing personal, just really curious after seeing how terrible that article is. Grsz11 (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually going to put it through prod before it was tagged for db-copyvio. The reason why I did so was because the CSD did not apply, and because the author should probably be given a chance to fix the article if no CSD applies. The the point is moot now however. hateless 07:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


consistency

Ok, I have one last question about the iz/is and I think it will be the last one I need to ask.

If an article has mixed or inconsistent usage of iz vs is, is it proper to put the article into self agreement?

For example:

Modernizing the organisation of wisemen in the standardization of proper grammar and word capitalisation.

My toes start curling even thinking about it. Of course, this is an extreme example, but generally, seeing stuff anywhere close to this gives me a giant headache.

I'm assuming that WP:ENGVAR allows an exception for the sake of consistency of style. If that is not the case, or there are exceptions to this, please let me know. It is this assumption I have been operating under when I made my edits. I did a search and foudn that the majority of spellings in said articles were "iz" and not "is".

To be more specific, how do I follow "use the same form of English the original author used" when the original author mixed?