User talk:Wahkeenah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Removing tags

Please do not remove {{fact}} tags and request for citations. If they are added in good faith, especially to highly contentious claims, then removing them is inappropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loch Ness Monster Talk page

I was being 100% serious about banning the show as well as the sites for offending christians. It wasn't a joke.Frankyboy5 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is true [1] [2] [3]. Frankyboy5 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

COPIED
As you seem to be knowledgeable about all things Jewish, I wonder what your take is on the former Seinfeld co-star, specifically over the contentious debate over whether he's Jewish or not. Although, once you see the silly rhetoric on that talk page (some of it mine), you might not want to wade into that minor maelstrom. Wahkeenah 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
END COPIED

I saw all of about 15 minutes of Seinfeld once, so I'm probably not the one to weigh in on this. To the best of my knowledge, I've never heard of Michael Richards in my life. - Jmabel | Talk 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
He played the eccentric next-door neighbor called "Kramer". Never watched Seinfeld? Talk about cultural deprivation! :) Wahkeenah 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Heard of the character, couldn't tell you bupkis about him. I never watch television on purpose; occasionally I happen to be somewhere where one is on; it's been that way for about 30 years. And I have to say: do my edits suggest that, compared to the average contributor here I am culturally deprived? - Jmabel | Talk 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About FAIR

here is what the wiki article about FAIR say:

FAIR describes itself on its website as "the national media watch group" and defines its mission as working to "invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints." FAIR refers to itself as a "progressive group"1. It is described by Columbia Journalism Review2 and Media Matters for America3as a "liberal media watchdog".

So please do not revert it if you care about accuracy. Suppose someone quoted "Frontpage Mag" and described it as "an online political magazine", what would you say? inaccurate right.

  • It is an online political magazine. Wahkeenah 12:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vincent Shooter 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1-I signed my post. If you missed it that's not my problem.

This is the better way: vincent_shooter 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) so that I don't have to go hunting for your talk page. You did it right in your second posting. Wahkeenah 12:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2-Your agressive reponse is astonishing to say the least. You put labels on me and engage in ad-hominem attacks, just because I added an adjective to "media watch dog" for accuracy reasons. Now first, I don't really know what you're trying to insinuate by "your kind" but if you're really curious about my political leaning, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. If you have problems with conservatives and hate O'Reilly, that's your right, but for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, one should put aside his personal views and report facts from an objective perspective. Now imagine X (who knows nothing about FAIR) reads through the wiki O'Reilly article and comes to "media watch dog". He will instinctively think that it's a mainstream and officially recognized organization. You know what I call this? misleading the reader. FAIR is not a mainstream group, it's a liberal self-described media watch dog, and their only targets, are Fox News and conservative radio talk shows. They are not neutral and their reports are made from a liberal perspective. The reader has the right to know what kind of group we deal with. The same thing applies to conservative groups and publications. If someone had described "Frontpage Magazine" as just an online political magazine, I would correct it by adding "conservative" for the sake of accuracy. What I did is not because of some sort of political sectarianism but because an encyclopedia needs to be objective and above all, ACCURATE. As for the alleged negative connotation associated with the label "liberal", I believe most people will not agree with you. It's just a political leaning and it doesn't necessarly implies "socialist" or "communist".

regards.

vincent_shooter 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some liberals too, use "conservative" as an etiquette full of negative connotations. Is this a reason to not use "conservative" to describe the ideological leaning of an organization or publication? I believe it's ridiculous and I am sure you would agree with me. Anyway, I am not going to engage in an edit/revert war for lack of time and interest, so I leave it to you to decide what is more important, accuracy or political frippery. And by the way, your effort to protect the article from vandalism is very valuable and appreciable.
regards.

vincent_shooter 13:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Selectively Mute?

I have responded to your points regarding the category of "selectively mute" on my discussion page. IanThal 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] summaries

Hello, Wahkeenah. I appreciate your efforts tending the Oregon articles, especially vandal reverts. You probably already know this, but your last 8 contributions had no edit summary at all. From the "summary" template:

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. — EncMstr 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of edits to User talk:Weatherman90

You reverted this edit I made to another user's talk page, claiming in your edit summary "Reverting what I take to be vandalism. Photo is in public domain, so no usage issue." I made this edit because I believed the talk page to be in violation of the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, and explained my reasoning clearly. Please assume good faith and consider others' reasoning before reverting changes. Thanks --Dgies 02:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison between cricket and baseball

Hello. Just to mention that I've semi-reverted your change of "skier" to "skyer" in this article. The I-spelling is very common in cricket, and is actually slightly more common than the Y-spelling. (For example, "catch a skier" cricket gets 59 Google hits, whereas "catch a skyer" cricket gets only 30.) However, both words are used on the first page of results by numerous strong sources, so the sensible thing seems to be to include both in the article, which is what I've done. I hope that's clear! Loganberry (Talk) 13:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I must admit I simply hadn't thought of this point before; explaining that "innings" can be singular as well as plural in cricket tends to be the Transatlantic point of difficulty! I think writing "skyer (or skier)" as I have does at least imply that the pronunciation is the same in each case, but as you say it's hard to see how to explain in any more detail without turning it into a mini-essay. Loganberry (Talk) 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed! And then of course there's the fact that in cricket, a number of (individual) innings make up a (team's) innings...! Loganberry (Talk) 17:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Young people..."

Sorry, but this edit has been reverted per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, #s 2 and 4. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your note in your last edit summary; other than in e-mail or IRC, though, Wikipedia is not a forum for things "worth pointing out". Thanks for understanding. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards

Greetings Wahkeenah, I'm writing to you because out of the group of about 5-6 editors who are editing on this article right now I see you as one of the more evenly balanced. I'm a bit concerned right now because Bus Stop (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is trying to undo nearly all of the work of our fellow editors leading up to the version we've arrived at to install a significantly whitewashed view of the events. I kindly request that you help to ensure a balance neutral point of view on this article in response to these efforts. Thanks. (→ Netscott) 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly/Gitmo

Can you tell me exactly what this really has to do with O'Reilly? The inclusion of this entry makes it seem like you are somehow linking the suicides to him. Did they kill themselves to spite O'Reilly? I don't think you believe that. This needs to be reverted back to my edit but I thought I would discuss it with you further.Ajz123 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand you didn't write it, and I don't mean to sound like I am attacking you for it. However, I don't think your edit changes the value of the entry. The wiki entry is not suppose to include personal opions or judgements from the contributors. By mentioning these suicides, you are implying or maybe even saying straight out that O'Reilly is wrong about Gitmo. That is your judgement, but not a fact. You would have to do a thorough analysis of why the suicides happened, who were the people who did it, why they did it, etc. Just because these guys committed suicide, does not mean the conditions were the cause. For us to make that conclusion on our own is going way beyond what wikipedia allows. Ajz123 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ajz123 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crocker

Hello. I was going to nominate the crocker article for AFD, but then I found this, which does describe a cricket-like game. However, I wouldn't really mourn the article's demise, and it does need references! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 09:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God's country?

I was doing a little bit of work on the Pabst Brewing Company page, and out of curiosity did a search on "God's country" to see if anything had been written about their slogan. I found it and its variations were permanently blocked. But I can't see the history. What, pray tell, happened on those pages to compel you or someone else to take such action? Wahkeenah 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's never been an article on "God's country". It's always been the battleground of a silly edit war with anonymous users continuing to redirect it to articles such as Australia, Eastern Suburbs, Sutherland Shire, and even Fascism and has been deleted about 5 times already. If you think you can write a neutral and sourced article about the phrase, please send me a draft and I'll unlock it for you. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Richards' Body language

I wouldn't discount User:Bus stop and User:Bulbous as editors on this article. I've seen the word "troll" bandied about and I don't think that word applies. It is true that the diatribes can be a bit long and irrelevant but I don't see such behavior as corresponding to Wikipedia:What is a troll. Even the POV pushing accusation isn't entirely correct. If POV pushing was happening we'd see edit warring from them across different users but neither Bus stop or Bulbous have edit warred. (→Netscott) 13:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to tell you. TechJon is almost certainly a sockpuppet of some sort (I have my suspicions as to who...but who I'm thinking isn't anyone we've been working with regularly). (→Netscott) 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Typing language????? LOLOLOLOL!!! Hilarious!! (→Netscott) 04:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, typing/prose style is indeed a good indicator of who an editor might be. The editor I'm thinking is a banned editor on Wikipedia and TechJon is writing at equivalent ability to that editor but I'm not familiar enough with either's style to say, "ah ha!". :-) (→Netscott) 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Doubtful though I admit I don't know any User:Carfiend. (→Netscott) 04:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thugchildz

Thanks for the tip about Thugchildz, and your vigilance. If he's a tinkerer, though, he needs to learn. I'll keep my eyes open, though. And thanks for being a stabilizing influence on that page. Not my style, I'm afraid. Work in a field where you supposed to disagree with everyone else. John FitzGerald 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Manilow

12/8/06 Hi. I wanted to let you know that concerning Barry Manilow's actual birth year, 1946 is actually bogus. * Entertainment Tonight confirmed this in 1990 when they showed Manilow's actual yearbook picture with "Eastern District High School Class of 1961" to the right of the picture. * Also, when Manilow was 22-years old he had a question he wrote to an advice column published in Playboy's December 1965 issue 10 years before he became famous. * Also just last night on TVGuide Channel's Close Up special on Manilow they said "June 17, 1943" as his birthday. * Not to mention that when Manilow was on Larry King Live in 2002 CNN LARRY KING LIVE Interview With Barry Manilow May 17, 2002 he confirmed 1943 is indeed correct when King asked him his age and he answered that he is in his LATE FIFTIES (that would be 58 years old- before his birthday- if born in 1943) instead of answering mid fifties (for 55 years old - again before his birthday- if born in 1946). I take Manilow's candid word about his age over any fake public relations press release made up to shave off a few years in the 1970s. I hope this helps. 67.98.154.56 (talk • contribs)


[edit] Retro McDonalds pic

12/11/2006 Hi, I have lived in Tampa, FL all of my life and I was wondering where exactly this McDonalds is/was. Retro McDonald's in Tampa,FL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.91.66 (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Can't reply to an IP address directly. I took that photo a long time ago and don't recall what street it was on. Wahkeenah 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American League Nicknames

Hi. Let's talk this issue out so that we can reach some consensus. You are correct when you say, "Nicknames originated in newspapers, were not official, thus they weren't 'renamed' in the modern sense." Most baseball nicknames originated in the press. This is certainly true for all but a handful of 19th century National League teams, and even some American League teams did not have official nicknames until the 1920s. Other American League teams (such as the Athletics, the Orioles, and the Tigers) had official nicknames as early as 1901. So, how should we organize this section of the American League article? Do you think we should only limit it to official nicknames? If so, perhaps it should be arranged in ths manner:

Charter AL teams:

  • Baltimore Orioles (nickname official in 1901)
  • Boston (adopted official nickname, "Boston Red Sox" in 1908)
  • Cleveland (adopted official nickname, "Cleveland Indians" in 1928)
  • Chicago White Stockings (nickname officially modernized to "White Sox" in 1911)
  • Detroit Tigers (nickname official in 1901)
  • Milwaukee (no official nickname in 1901)
  • Philadelphia Athletics (nickname official in 1901)
  • Washington (adopted official nickname, "Washington Nationals" in 1905)

What do you think? By leaving out nicknames used by the press, but not officially adopted by the teams, would that satisfy your concerns?

If your only concern is about the use of nicknames given by the press that were not officially adopted by the team, then I am confused by some of the other material you have changed. For instance, the Washington Nationals officially changed their name to the Washington Senators in 1956, the Oakland Athletics were officially known as the Oakland A's from 1973 through 1980, and the Los Angeles Angels officially changed their name to the California Angels in mid-season, on September 2, 1965. Why are you opposed to including that information in this article?

Back in the early 1980s, I did a lot of research on this subject, which involved pouring over several reels of microfilm in major East Coast libraries and taking several trips to the National Baseball Library in Cooperstown. In my most recent revision, I cited SABR publications and newspaper articles, which verify the accuracy of my changes. I feel that I have something worthwhile to share on this article. Can we come to some meeting of the minds so that I can contribute to this Wikipedia entry? Thanks. MCB 12/12/06

[edit] Comment above

The comment above regarding the American League by User:198.11.27.137 and signed "MCB" is not by me. I'm used to being the only "MCB" online in most places, but apparently not in this case! Best, --MCB 08:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/h/User_talk%7EWahkeenah_76ec.html"