User talk:Djrobgordon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Djrobgordon
Home Talk About Me My Wikipedia Philosophy My Contributions To-Do List Sports Article Laws Useful Links


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)

[edit] Re Kirby Puckett

There was a reason he was aquitted, I was mereley stating it. Also, was he ever arrested or charged for urinating in public? No so where is the source for that one? My allegation that it was an imposter is no less valid than the allegation that Kirby Puckett was out and about pissing in parking lots. So perhaps that entire statement should be removed since according to you there is no such thing as "common knowledge" on wikipedia. That would also mean that EVERY single sentence that is unsourced should require a citation or be removed. --E tac 11:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, both of those things have been stated by local media. Also I didn't know that respcted journalists interview women who CLAIM to have had affairs with athletes and publish everything they say as fact. --E tac 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major League Baseball Draft

I was considering moving Major League Baseball Draft, and I noticed you'd just moved it to its current place, so I thought I'd ask your opinion. My problem is that this isn't the title of the event, and never has been. I'd like to move the article to First-Year Player Draft, since that's the official title. I also think the current title is a problem because MLB has multiple drafts, and it could just as easily refer to the Rule 5 Draft. I'm posting this on the article talk page as well, but I thought you might have a specific interest. Thanks. --djrobgordon 05:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I only moved it per naming. It was titled MLB Draft, and I simply renamed Major League Baseball draft. I'm not sure on all the drafts on MLB, so if you think it's fine, go ahead. --Borgarde 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar. I've enjoyed working on this article. BRMo 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Barnstar

You def deserve this

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your !vote at the Insertion fantasy AFD you deserve this --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Mickey Mantle

I noticed you removed some information from the article on Mickey Mantle.[3] It might have been a better idea to discuss the removal of tihs material on the subject's talk page before doing so. While I did not write the original material, I did follow up on the claim that was removed and a quick serach (> 5 mins) on Google revealed the source (which is actually alread listed in references at the bottom of the article) making the information verifiable. While it may be your opinion that Tony Castro is simply writing an unquoted assumption, please remember that the threshold for inclusion of material on Wikipedia is verifiablity - not truth, and that discussion of this on the article's talk page is preferable to simply blanking the material completely. Thanks. Yankees76 05:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thriller dab work

Hi there. I notice that you did some work on disambiguating links to Thriller using AWB. I wanted to point out that a number of those edits resulted in the display of Thriller (disambiguation) on a number of pages. See, for example, Blue Velvet. I'm hoping you'll be able to go back and fix these, but I'm honestly confused as to how it would happen in the first place. Isn't the whole point to avoid linking to disambiguation pages? Cheers. Planetneutral 03:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I'll fix those now. --Djrobgordon 03:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. There still seems to be substantial opportunity to do dab work on Thriller. Once the main Thriller entry was redirected from the genre entry back to the dab page, it left a ton of links pointing to the dab page that should be pointed to the genre. I think some editors don't consider the broader consequences of changing a redirect like that. Planetneutral 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
All fixed. Thanks for being helpful, rather than biting the AWB newbie. I'll continue to work on this project, now that I know what I'm doing. --Djrobgordon 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. I keep trying to use AWB to do dab work, but find that it's quicker and more effective for me to use popups to do dab work, using the popupfixdabs attribute. I just need to put some more effort into it. Then again, I generally found Corhomo easier to use than AWB for dab work, although I love AWB for other things, like adding WikiProject templates to all the articles in a category. Anyway, good luck in your pursuit of proficiency. Planetneutral 04:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball portal

Having myself undertaken the last major reworking of the instant portal and having, with User:Nishkid64, been a principal maintainer thereof, I was quite happy to see your undertaking to get involved in its upkeep and improvement, and I think most of your edits to have been altogether good. I do, though, have some rather substantial objections relative to three or four items, and I will outline those at the portal talk page in the next day or two (I apologize for not having addressed your solicitation of views there sooner; my watchlist even as restricted to the portal talk namespace is a bit too long, and I somehow managed to miss the discussion there). In any case, I look forward to collaborating with you and to our divining for what construction of the portal a consensus might lie.  :) Cheers, Joe 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Colleges that were once all female colleges that are still open but let men in

I received your message suggesting the name change for Category:Women's Colleges that are Coeducational. I have no question in my mind that it is a valid category, but what to call it escapes me; I must confess, I went back and forth multiple times on what to call it when I was creating the category. I have no problem changing the name--I wasn't particurly attached to what I ended up with, however I'm still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Can you give me some guidance on how to do that efficiently?

Also, on a personal growth and development note, I read several articles on naming categories prior to creating the category, and I was still sort of confused as to the best possible name for the category. I've been a Wikipedia user for a while, and I've wanted to get involved with editing for a while, I want to make sure that I remain as neutral as possible. Though to many the topic of women's schools that have gone co-ed is fairly un-interesting, to those of us who have a tie to schools that have made this change it can be quite inflamitory on both sides for and against. Do you have any suggestions related to the best ways to word things? Is there a page that you personally recomend for issues related to neutrality? Thank you very much for your time and effort. MUW Fan 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Also related to this issue

Oh, and I sent the previous message before I read User:Wl219's changes and comments to the category. Though it seems that the needed changes have been made, (I could be wrong, I've gone back and forth in my mind so many times I can't rememember what's what!) :-) I still welcome any input or guidance you might have. Thanks again! MUW Fan 14:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, and for not taking my proposal the wrong way. I was having trouble thinking of how to rename it myself, and I think W1219's suggestion is better than mine. I agree that it's a valid category. Actually, the first thing I did when I saw that you'd added it to Sarah Lawrence College was make sure it wasn't a duplicated category, because I was shocked something similar didn't already exist.
I'd be glad to help you with any questions you might have about POV, but if you're just talking about this category, it wasn't an issue. The name wasn't biased. My only concern was that, taken literally, it implied that the schools were simultaneously women only and coeducational. It was a simple language issue.
I'm assuming you've already checked out WP:NPOV, but if you haven't, you should. Also, take a look at WP:CITE. Often, when another editor deletes text and argues that it doesn't adhere to NPOV, the real problem is that it's not attributed to a source. A couple of editors went back and forth recently about whether Sarah Lawrence should be called a "selective" college. It is, of course, but the statement was removed because there wasn't a citation to back it up. Editors sometimes adhere to this policy to the point of absurdity. If you want an example, check out any of the six archived discussions on Talk:Wayne Gretzky (one of which I naively inserted myself into) about whether he can be referred to as the "greatest hockey player of all-time." One more article you should take a look at is WP:WEASEL, as well as some of the "See also" links at the bottom of the page. There are plenty of legitimate uses for the words and phrases listed, but so many editors remove them on sight that I find it easier to avoid them altogether.
If you've been having your edits deleted for POV reasons and still can't figure out why, point me to the articles, and maybe I can figure out the specific issue. Probably, it's something small and easily fixable. I hope my long-winded answer was somewhat helpful. --Djrobgordon 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bopsta

The markup's fixed now. Admittedly I'm not the most knowledgeable about wiki markup, but just removing the tabs in the list of related articles seemed to fix it. Using the : character creates tabs, so that's probably what you're supposed to use. BryanG(talk) 06:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Djrobgordon 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Typos fixed: roman → Roman, using AWB)"

Hi, that's what it says in the edit summary on my user page. However, you changed "Roman poet Juvenal" to "poet Juvenal", which does not seem to have been your intention. On the other hand, changing thriller to thriller (genre), which you also did, is of course okay. Best wishes, <KF> 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The thriller thing was my goal; I must have backspaced by mistake. I think yours was the page I was trying to keep AWB from capitalizing the "r" in "roman a clef" in. Cheers. --Djrobgordon 08:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Musical Theatre Guild

I am the author of the original article "Musical Theatre Guild." The article was originally written to outline how the theater company started and the fall of its original founders. I was privvy to all of the happenings as a member of the board of directors. So all the information included within the article was first hand knowledge and I also have papers and correspondences to corroborate all the facts.

Recently I noticed that a current member of that theater company came along and changed the whole intent of the article and removed all mentions of how the founders were removed. He also added advertisements for their current season. If there was a problem with where the article went in relation to the title, the title should have been changed, not the content of the article itself.

So, instead of battling it out with them, I decided to let them have their one-sided, pro-only version of the story, and reinstated my original article with a new title The Musical Theatre Guild—The Founders Story. The history of what happened to this theater company is intersting to theater professionals and I have been contacted by many thanking me for letting the true story be known. Isn't that what a "pedia" of any kind is for? To give a truthful account of events?

I wrote the article as unbiased as I possibly could giving both positive accounts of the theater company as well as the sad, but truthful facts of the demise of its founders.

If you'd prefer, I can take items out of the new article that are duplicated from the original, but since I wrote both, I'd rather the original article were deleted. The Musical Theatre Guild can write their own article if they want one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtguild (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Follow-up re baseball player articles

Thanks for the prompt response to the message I posted. It's very helpful. I'll take a look at some of the players you've worked on to get an idea of your approach. A couple more questions: Do you put the year the player came to his current team anywhere in the infobox? Do you have a general rule of thumb as to when a player warrants his own article? For players on the 40-man roster who have limited or no ML experience, do you include minor league stats in their infoboxes? Sanfranman59 19:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bartman Ball

I have completed merging out and redirecting the Bartman Ball article.TheGreenFaerae 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo.TheGreenFaerae 08:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C. H. Collins Athletic Complex

Instead of threatening to delete this article I need help bringing it to Wikipedia standards and expanding the article. The stadium is an important part of all three of Denton ISD's high school and student life. With little information on the internet about the stadium except from the architect's website. Thanks. NThomas76207 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very quick responce and helpful hints. NThomas76207 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome.--Djrobgordon 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove AFD tags.

Please do not remove AFD tags unless their corresponding AFD's are closed. Otherwise, the troll nominating the page could use sockpuppets or meatpuppets to win the AFD and get rid of the target article. Jesse Viviano 05:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Got it. I had that thought soon after I did it. Sorry about that.--Djrobgordon 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Closing

Thanks for pointign that out, completely missed that. It's taken care of now.--Wizardman 05:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill James edit

Hey, I noticed that you removed a mention to Covering the Bases: Making Sense of Bill James' Statistical Nonsense in the Bill James article because of non-notability. I agree that the main article for the book should be removed for non-notability, but I think that it contributes to the Bill James article - I think it's a good counterpoint to a couple of fawning books about the author. Could we include the book while noting that it's self-published and received little attention? Rmj12345 15:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On The Edge

I can delete my own comments from anywhere I feel like. You decided to reinsert one. Perhaps you didn't realize it was me myself who removed it or perhaps you didn't read what it said. It's preserved in the history if anyone really wants to go back and see it. I'll Assume good faith here but don't do it again please. It would just be starting shit for no reason, plain and simple. Take care. - Arch NME 07:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed it cus I realized I was the one taking it to personally. That very comment glaringly showed as much which is probably why you choose to keep it. Perhaps I'm making to many assumptions here. It was a premptive strike on the conversation getting out of control and I probably should have left it on your user page in the first place as it didn't have any direct baring on the argument at hand. If you want to move it here to your user page go ahead but... Anyway, I came up with a better response to your comment and replaced it. No bad blood here mate. - Arch NME 07:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] re: The Musical Theatre Guild—The Founders Story

I see you all have deleted this article. It also says that no one was able to verify information online regarding the ousting of the founders. If you go to the Los Angeles Times website and do a search of the archives under "Eric Andrist" one of the founders in question, you will find a piece on this. As I mentioned, I am privvy to lots of documentation that does not appear on the internet, which is why an article here is so important...so that people can read up on this company.

Some people mentioned that it's not an important theater company outside of Los Angeles, but is that a criteria for an article here? There are tons of articles that don't affect people worldwide, nationwide or even citywide. However, the theatrical community as a whole, across the US can and would be interested in this article. It tells of the formation of a not-for-profit theater company and how it can be taken over hostily. Like theater companies could learn from this article as well as people thinking of starting a theater company of their own.

[edit] re: Youngstown Ohio Works

Thanks for requesting a peer review for this article. I didn't mean to trample on your earlier style edits, many of which I referred to when cleaning up the prose. I happened to come across information that needed to be included, e.g., Castleton's presence on the team. Also, some readers said they were confused about the reasons behind the club's dissolution. I streamlined this section to highlight the motives of the owner, but may have removed information that helps to explain the manager's anger over the situation, e.g., his earlier verbal agreement with the YOW owner. Any changes you could make to upgrade this article would certainly be welcome. --haeksang 07:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: All conjecture has been removed from this article, in line with Wikipedia policy. Thanks.haeksang 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Again, feel free to make any changes to upgrade this article. -- haeksang 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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