User talk:Djrobgordon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Djrobgordon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==hi thank you for the Sarah college picture

== Argonsa1 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)eric thanks for the Sarah college picture

Contents

[edit] Baseball on Wikicities

Hello Djrobgoron, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow editor of baseball related articles on Wikipedia. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man(Talk), 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] TIME Covers

I noticed that you named several TIME Covers with a series of numbers. Was there any particular system you were using? I was just curious :) --Esprit15d 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm just now reading your user page, and we have a similar wp philosophy. I, probably even more, actually do more editing that writing. And you are the go-to guy for TIME covers. Excellent. Thanks again.--Esprit15d 13:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

Thanks for fixing the disambig on my user page. Cheers! –Comics (Talk) 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Its that I really think the article is in need of some pictures. The article looks really bare. I put a post on the article's discussion board. Courier new 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babe Ruth

Yes it looks good. I wrote about 80-90% of the article, but have not had the time or committement to do a rewrite to shorten it, so I appreciate you taking the time. Here are some of my suggestions:

1. In the 1921 season, it is mentioned Ruth went to Columbia for a series of tests part. This entire paragraph can be deleted. I did not add it, and it was not referenced, so it can be deleted. I added all the book references in the article, since no part of the article had any references other than random external links before I started working on it.

2. In 1932, after "the called shot" line, there are two paragraphs that you probably do not need, as in the separate called shot article also goes into detail on this.

3. Near the end, the two paragraphs that mention the Maris asterisk in 1961, the records books, etc., both of these paragraphs can be deleted since they were not referenced. The Maris asterisk information belongs more on the Roger Maris article.

4. Just a grammatical suggestion, the first paragraph in the 1922 season is long, so you will want to split this up. The line beginning with "While Ruth..." should start a new paragraph.

5. My personal preference is the death should be the last main section of any article, as I just think it looks better. Of course many references, Encyclopedia Britannica, and some Wikipedia biographical articles sometimes deviate from this, so it certainly is no rule. You added personality and impact sections after the death section, so let me address those sections and why I put them where I did.

I put the personality section after the 1928 season because it breaks up the monotony of the article, that is, the year by year analysis of Ruth's baseball seasons is probably too much for many readers. Putting the personality section in the middle gives the reader a break from all the baseball talk and baseball numbers, and some readers probably are more interested in Ruth the man than anything he did on the field. It also fits chronologically; Ruth's first wife died in 1929, and he married his second wife later in 1929. If I ever add more information to this article, it will be about his personality, as this part I wrote seems now sketchy and incomplete to me.

Ruth's impact on the game was immediate, so this section, in my opinion, would neccessitate it being mentioned when Ruth was dramatically changing the game, which was the early 1920's. This part you cut down, but I would tend to keep the great majority of the section because the effect he had on the game was as important as his individual accomplishments. With all the other parts I suggested we can delete, this will not add any length to the article.

Try my suggestions and then see how the article looks, as I think it would give it just the right fine tuning. Other than that the article looks fine to me, nice work djroggordon. --LibraryLion 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two articles option

Djrodgordon, here is another option to think about, an option that would give you more creativity. Your rewrite (when finished) will be the shorter Ruth article, while the longer detailed article is kept almost in full, so there would be two articles. A few Wikipedia biographical entries have two separate articles for the same person, one a short biography, the other a longer more detailed one (Isaac Newton e.g.)

You would have more freedom as far as writing the text in your style, content (as long as the information does not conflict) section headings, photos, etc. Of course you can use the exact sentences and paragraphs from mine if you want, and not have to reword anything. You could also just keep what you have done so far, but now you could cut out a great deal more information. This shorter article you construct would be the main Ruth article (since it would be more reader friendly for the casual reader). At the top of this article would be a link saying “For a more detailed biography of Babe Ruth,” or something like that, in which case this link would lead to the longer article.

The reason I am suggesting this is to give you freedom about not having to worry about what I or others want in the article. Already I have told you about “this should be in” and "this should be there,” and I might do more of the same, but I am sure you have your own ideas. One problem someone will have in cutting down a text he or she did not write, is you want to reword something, or organize it a little differently, but since one did not do the original research you feel limited and cautious what you can change. Even though I wrote the article, at the same time I do not want you to cater to me because it limits what you may want to do. Whether one or two articles, either way it does not matter to me. --LibraryLion 09:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI Marco Benz

Marco Benz was recognized as a Poster acoss the nation of the United States to recruit soldiers is worthy of its own by Marco Benz to be chosen. The U.S. Navy has done so with Marta_Tuyet_Dodd and she is there is a notable her own here on wikipedia.Saigon76nyc 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Rights Heroes

Thanks for the discussion of this short article. I'll try to create a category because otherwise these minor figures will slip thru the cracks. Best wishes. Ross PlaetzerRossp 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Hedvicek

Thank you for you kind words and promise to step in if necessary. Those Czech people reverted the article again. I will grateful if you could step in and stop it. Thanks. Greetings from Fort Myers, FL Ross.Hedvicek 01:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think references are "questionable", please dispute them in Talk. From what you have written

  • First off, there shouldn't be any links here that aren't in English. As this is an English-language encyclopedia, I'd think that should go without saying.

However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. (WP:CITE)

  • They are personal pages, not reputable, verifiable sources.

This is simply not true.

  • The tone of the accompanying notes shows that their inclusion is not without an agenda.

This is your speculation about my motives, which I consider a bit unjust. They were inluded in good faith as English summary why include non-English refs

  • If Wired calls Hedvicek a troll, we can include it here.

Lupa is in Czech internet completely comparable to Wired. It cals him a spammer.

  • Otherwise, it doesn't belong. Wikipedia is not a venue for flame wars.

Wikipedia is NPOV encyclopedia. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Failing to include most common view as unsubstantiated accusation is a mistake. NPOV is even stronger principle than citing references, so it should be included - if "factually undisputed" - even if unsourced. Please note nobody factually disputed Ross is a spammer. --Wikimol 02:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw as you had approved Ross Hedvicek contributions (To any user who may be Mr. Hedvicek, I don't see your edits as mailicious or unfactual.) and at the same time state This user maintains a strict policy condemning all personal attacks. on your userpage... Either your judgement of what is personal attack is quite different from mine, or you may want to investigate more before giving such approvals. *[1] Miraceti is called ...well known glib and selfrighteous liar. He is probably a communist, too (as communists executed and tortured thousands of people, created forced labour camps etc. in Miraceti's country of origin, a touchy editor may take "probably a communist" attack like "probably a Nazi")

  • [2] It was also brought to my attention that this user Wikimol and his fellow vigilantes attacked in the past in very similar fashion also Czech-born Harvard prof Lubos Motl - while "vigilante" is not comparable to "probable communist", the claim is pure defamation
  • not to mention over and over repeated claims about my hate, harrassment., stalking, etc. (8 of them on the talk page now)

This is not relevant to the article, as the article should reflect Hedviceks activity in outside world, and how he behaves on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant. However, approval of Hedvicek's mean of disscussing - consisting mainly of attacks on editors who does not take his side and thanksgiving to anybody who looks like taking his side - would be quite unwelcome side result of the RFC (IMO). --Wikimol 12:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judgment by numbers – Czech this out.

I resent being unjustifiably, erroneously not to mention libelously called a spammer by my Czech communist enemies. Oh, they claim to not be full-fledged raging Stalinist communists? Well isn’t that special! I guess they take umbrage to their own actions and tactics when they’re used against them. Tough luck – they continue to do it to me so I will make a concerted effort to do it to them.

Let’s look at it from a statistics point of view. According to the Lenin-saluting communist Czech vendetta squad on this board, I am a spammer because several (3-6) people from the Czech Republic think so and called me that. Never mind the fact that they are no longer on my list! Based on the size of my mailing list (which numbers in the thousands) they are just a tiny fraction of a fraction of one percent. However, to some brainwashed Marx-idolizing Czechs it does justify this accusation and they insist on including this derogatory label in my articles.

I claim, here and now, that I and a number of other people hold with utmost conviction that Wikimol, Miraceti and Radouch (together with several of their friends on the Czech Wikipedia) are full-fledged communist Marxists and I respectfully request the right to call them as a such. If such permission is not given, I will call them that anyway – just like they have done to me. I reserve the right (and will exercise it) to include a note about their communist and Marxist allegiances in any articles written about them – even though I doubt any will be written about such impotent and completely irrelevant figures.

Justice for all. After all – we are not living behind the Iron Curtain. They may wish the Iron Curtain still remained and that the glorious Union of Soviet Social Republics was still a formidable power, however, they live a life of delusion. I, as an American citizen, have certain unalienable rights, one of them being the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. However, they live in the People’s Republic of China, err, sorry, the Czech Republic, and not in the United States and as such know nothing of personal freedoms, but that does not give them the right to publicly defame me with their libelous tripe. Ross.Hedvicek 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...

try PROFESSIONAL wrestling manager

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon (2nd nomination)

Good morning. You participated in a prior deletion discussion of this page. The page was reviewed at Deletion Review and subsequently relisted on AFD. I noticed that you don't appear to have commented in the second AFD discussion yet. So far, there has been scant participation in that discussion. If you feel it's appropriate, please join the conversation. Rossami (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi! See Your user page needs adjusted (Good luck with the thesis!FrankB 08:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Zebub

Hey -- you mentioned that you might nominate Zebub and his magazine for deletion. I would encourage you to let me know if you do, but please nominate them separately. I think Zebub is barely notable, and if so, only for the magazine, but the magazine isn't just an online thing; I looked into it a little bit. It's a real magazine, been in production for several years, they interview up and coming bands, and have had large numbers of subscribers. Just sharing my research; let me know if you nominate them. Mangojuicetalk 12:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/j/r/User_talk%7EDjrobgordon_b90e.html"