User talk:KirinX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here, I will reply here so the conversations don't get disjointed. If I have posted to your talk page, feel free to post your replies there, as I watch talk pages of people I am in conversation with.

Please add your message at the bottom, or click here to start a new section. Thanks.


Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, KirinX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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!  HighInBC 00:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians/Photographers

Perhaps this will interest you: Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. HighInBC 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Emily Carr Gravestone.jpg

Nice image. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Here is your gallery User:KirinX/gallery and here are all the images your tag is on [1]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Wikipedia:Userboxes, have fun. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BC Legislature Buildings.jpg

Nice one. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Johnson

Good job with keeping your eye on the Randy Johnson article. Too many people like to make changes based on speculation, and I like how you've been policing that article, as the trade is still not final. Milchama 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Account

I don't need an account, I've used them before and have no need to edit on an account again. I don't plan on editing much longer and will likely quit soon, I just wanted to clean up a few problem areas before I stop editing later today. 69.208.78.151 19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki naming conventions

Please note that bird species names like Sparrowhawk (Eurasian Sparrowhawk) are always capitalised on Wikipedia, thanks, jimfbleak 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why, it's not correct. "Eurasian Sparrowhawk" should be, but if you just say "I saw a sparrowhawk". I would like to see the actual statute on Wiki policy that determines this decision, as I feel it is incorrect, and mostly just a construct of ornithologists. -- KirinX 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It says The name of a group of species is not capitalised; birds, thrush family, kingfishers, turtle doves, marsh harriers., that seems to be in line with what KirinX is saying. However, in this particular instance[2], the bird may be better referred to as it's proper species name`. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well said, I do believe you've vindicated me there HighInBC. It should be changed to lowercase, or the full species name should be in its place, properly capitalized. In order to appease both sides of this argument, I'm going to just put the full name. -- KirinX 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse

[edit] 208.6.1.26

Hello Kirin - the abuse from 208.6.1.26 - which you have previously observed - has continued in recent edits to the Bastille article. Could you please do the necessary to block this user from doing further damage? Thanks! 83.154.84.14 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. -- KirinX 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 141.224.228.13

Hi. User 141.224.228.13 vandalized another page (Bill O'Reilly), after your final warning. Please block this user. Thanks.--Info999 09:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, KirinX, when did you become an admin, congrats! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm too darn diligent with the vandal patrol some nights, I tell ya... -- KirinX 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feb/March

Damn! Mind not in March yet..... Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 15:26 2 March 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Blue Jays picture

Hi. I uploaded my best undetermined Blue Jays picture to Image:Blue Jays 1.jpg. It's not a great view of any of them but it's the best of the remaining miscellaneous pictures I got that day. Troy Glaus has a distinctive look so I made the call on him. Let me know what you think on the other three. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rogers

I know that the Jays are officially owned by the media conglamorate, but is it not Rogers himself who has managing control? Obviously you know the Jays well and would be knowledgeable on this than me, but I thought that this team was run in the same manner as the Braves, where Time Warner officially owns the team, but Ted Turner runs it. That's the reason that I thought they should be listed together, since somebody within the corporation, even if it isn't Rogers, is the person in charge of the purse strings. Tell me what you know about this. Mr. Vitale 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In essence, Ted Rogers is referred to as the owner only in the sense that he's the head honcho of the whole Rogers universe. He's certainly acknowledged by the media as owning the team, but in reality, he is merely the chairman of the board of directors of Rogers Communications, as well as president of the company. The Blue Jays are run as a subsidiary of Rogers Communications Inc. (a publicly traded company) and the budget of the Blue Jays is subject to the approval of the Rogers board of directors, who are likely to try to make Mr. Rogers as happy as possible, but only within realistic financial limits.
I hope this clears things up for you. Ted Rogers is more a symbolic owner, since it sounds a bit cold and impersonal to have a sports franchise owned by a company set up by a corporation. But I'm sure you'll find that is how almost each and every sports team does it.
You'll find that the Atlanta Braves aren't owned by Ted Turner, but by AOL Time Warner. -- KirinX 06:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok well, your a fan, so you have the real scoop. I just know that media outlets always call Rogers the owner. But I wouldn't agree with you most are run in the corporate way of the Jays. A lot of teams are run as family organizations or partnerships between a few investors. In fact, in the NFL, I don't think there's a single team that's owned by a corporation. And in the MLB, I believe only the Jays, Braves, and Cubbies are run this way. Mr. Vitale 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a lot more clubs are run that way than you might think. While many clubs are bought by eccentric rich businessmen, it's almost always through a front company, with its own set of directors, managers, advisors. It's becoming less and less common for said eccentrics to ever have anything to do with running the front companies, let alone the ballclubs themselves. And given the impact of owners like Steinbrenner, Peter Angelos, Tom Hicks, et al, the less, the better.
But back to the topic at hand, there are reliable sources to find out the official ownership of each MLB club. Just so you are completely satisfied, here's a news release from the day after the sale. -- KirinX 08:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Manny Acta

Hi! I noticed you reverted my changes to the Manny Acta page. You used WP:TRIV as your reasoning but you seemed to not actually adhere to that guideline. Please note the sections that say:

Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors.
and
Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again.

You simply reverted the section by returning the individual bits of trivia into the article, but you did not integrate the individual bits of information. Now, I admit a trivia section is certainly not ideal (it should be avoided) but it is much better than having random bits of trivia dispersed as single sentences throughout the article. In other words, avoiding these lone bits of trivia is more important than avoiding the trivia section.

I made the trivia section because I wanted to improve the readability of the article and I did not want to ruffle feathers by simply removing the information. However, I guess I will not worry about ruffling feathers and just move the trivia to the talk page so that others may verify and expand on it before it is placed back into the article. Thanks! - Ektar 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't come off as too truculent in my response. Obviously, I too was unsure of how to go about dealing with the "trivia" and I hope moving them to the talk page doesn't seem too drastic. - Ektar 04:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/r/User_talk%7EKirinX_8618.html"