User talk:Timneu22/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: Collapsable Wikiproject boxes

Um, first off, not to be awkward... but I was just wondering why you were asking me about it. Either way, while that works, I've found a more attractive method to be used like this:

{{WikiProjectBanners |1={{cvgproj|class=FA|importance=High|selected=yes}} |2={{Science Fiction Project|class=FA|type=Article}} |3={{HaloWikiProject|class=FA}} |4={{WikiProject Computing}} }}

The one above is copied from the Halo: Combat Evolved talk page. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henderson

Hi. I am guessing the reviewers will ask for inline citations (a citation for every paragraph or even every sentence if there are multiple sources). The subject and what I have read so far of the prose are great. Good luck. -Susanlesch 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Timneu22, just a note that my reference formatting was not what some of the reviewers were looking for (I had to reformat all of them in Minneapolis, and due to missing fields in some cite templates, can't recommend my style). I would do the ones in Rickey over if I knew the best way but unfortunately I still don't, sorry! Good luck. -Susanlesch 12:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rickey Henderson

Please see Talk:Rickey Henderson. I'll probably add more comments tomorrow. Also, when archiving, you need to create a new page (something like Talk:Rickey Henderson/Archive 1). Please don't just remove all the text from the page. I was surprised at first to see that there were no talk page comments whatsoever. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I guess I missed that in the banner on the talk page. I'm usually accustomed to see the talk page archives on the side (not included in the banner box). Nishkid64 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Smithfield

Hi there; you {{speedy}} tagged this article, giving the reason as "orphan article". This is not a valid reason under the guidelines as laid down in WP:CSD. you may wish to {{prod}} the article, or refer it to WP:AfD. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about "prod". Timneu22 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 69.141.47.103

Thank you for making a report about 69.141.47.103 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. TigerShark 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please, contribute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Infobox_colors.

[edit] Henderson

It is notable that he is a coach. You may not care, but its notable. It's a site about Rickey and what does Rickey do now? Coach for the Mets. Mghabmw 13:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Ted Williams managed the Washington Senators after retiring as a player. You won't see that in the introductory paragraph for Ted Williams, because it's not notable. Just because something is more recent, doesn't mean that it belongs in the opening sentence of an article. Timneu22 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ted Williams is not managing the Washington Senators nowadays. Some people only know Henderson as the couch of the Mets, like the younger fans. Mghabmw 02:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Again you're wrong. Had Wikipedia existed when Ted Williams was the coach, do you think kids then would say "oh, he's the coach of the Senators." No, they'd know he was an excellent player. The same applies to Rickey. I'm not going to revert your edits because someone else will. Enjoy the battle. Timneu22 10:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush impeachment

Hey, I noticed your removal of the sentence in Criticism of George W. Bush relating to the movement to impeach him. I reverted it, and I'd direct you to the article Movement to impeach George W. Bush, which shows that a good number of cities, state legislatures, big political organizations, and congressmen have considered, approved, or proposed impeachment measures. Also, public opinion polls consistently show support for impeachment in the low to mid 40s. It'll probably never happen, but it's notable. -- The_socialist talk? 22:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As "the socialist", I can see how you'd be biased on this subject. The "movement" is not a mainstream topic, and I have updated Criticism of George W. Bush to state that. The Movement to impeach George W. Bush article is the most biased article I have ever read on Wikipedia. You people are trying to make a reality out of something that is not a mainstream movement. It's ridiculous. Timneu22 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of subjective attributes of the Movement to impeach George W. Bush (such as how mainstream it is) belongs on the Movement to impeach George W. Bush page. --Dr.enh 02:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. By including your unqualified sentence, it sounds as though there is a mainstream movement to impeach him. There is not. That sentence needs to be qualified. Timneu22 12:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
"Mainstream" is a rather loaded and subjective term. Like I said, this is almost certainly never going to happen but there's big sections of the public that wants it to – up to 45%. For the aspirations of that sizable and vocal group, whatever their chances of success or status in the "mainstream", it is notable. -- The_socialist talk? 06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chef

McBride is a note with the page number that refers to the works cited section as per the academic citation style known as Chicago format used in most liberal arts writing, which is a suggested style for Wikipedia.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of well written articles cited in the way this article was, as noted on the Wikipedia citing format to be used, there is a suggestion to use Chicago format which is how the article was written. Below is an excerpt from the Wikipedia:Citing Sources article which clearly delineates a "Footnote" or shortened to "notes" section as well as "References" which is also phrased as "Works cited". In addition this article is worked on by WikiProject Food and Drink and as such, our format for articles is using the Chicago format which uses the "notes" and "works cited" headings. The inline citation style you are using is based on Harvard referencing.
From Wikipedia:Citing sources
Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"
It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which lists citations in alphabetical order, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.
If such a section is included, the footnotes should be in a separate section entitled "Notes" or "Footnotes." Where an alphabetical list of references is provided, "short footnotes" may be used, where the footnotes contain only an author, perhaps title, and page number, without giving a full citation in the footnote itself.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 04:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)