User talk:Twigboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Twigboy, 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!  Karmafist 03:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OJ Simpson

Thanks for sorting out the OJ Simpson article. I only noticed the first nonsense add and missed the other, very obvious ones. Whoops. Gretnagod 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome. I have been reading for awhile and it was really bothering me how the articles about The Price Is Right seem to not have any sources. I hope my tagging them as unsourced is not out of line for a newbie! Rekarb Bob 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not out of line, by all means. But, I would hope that you become involved in discussing the solution. Personally, I think most of the information is true and is gleaned from watching the program. This would be consistent with most of the articles about The Simpsons or South Park episodes. One particular fansite seems to have reliable, even behind-the-scenes, information about The Price Is Right including episode summaries. However, the episode summaries are written by TPIRFanSteve, and, while I don't doubt his accuracy, I am not sure whether it violates the no original research policy. I would ask for you to see the discussion at the main Price Is Right article because we are running into the same issues there as well. Thanks and I hope to see your contributions! —Twigboy 16:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the flood picture

Great shot! --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have you ever read WP:NPOV?

Have you ever read WP:NPOV? You act like you haven't. Please do. Kramden4700 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup Sponsorship AfD

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I’ve made some rather large additions to 2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship and would appreciate if you could take a look at them and possibly reconsider your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship. I thought it was a worthy topic, even though it had a wretched article, so I added information about revenue and the sponsorship process, the sponsor related controversies of this World Cup (tickets distribution, Budweiser in Germany, Mcdonalds at a sporting event), and took out the copyvios. Please take a look. Thanks! Vickser 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Links to ArenaFan

The links to ArenaFan were just as relevant to the pages as the official team sites due to the information on those pages. Obviously you didn't bother to look at those pages on ArenaFan before you removed the links. I will be putting them back on the team page listings for all AFL and af2 teams since they are extremely relevant. In addition, many of those URLs were not put in by me, but by other people who edited the pages, most of whom I do not even know. It should also be noted that I do add and edit the pages for content, mostly fixing errors submitted by people who know little about the subject matter, and my source for many of those modifications is ArenaFan. Finally, I can site hundreds of instances where similar links are provided all across wikipedia in a similar manner. Nolesrule 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the desire to promote one's website, it's Wikipedia style to avoid adding links to your own site (see #3 here). I'm not disputing that there may have been others that added your links, but a reasonable sample showed that they were added by you. There are several other links to mainstream media sites [1][2][3], all of which do not belong here either. By linking to your site here, it increases your visibility on Google (ranks which are determined by the number of links to it). That is frowned upon here. All of that said, I have left some of your links in where there was a sufficient reason to leave them in, especially in historical contexts. (I have, indeed, bothered to look at the pages on Arenafan.) But don't be surprised to see someone else remove them. I also have noted that you do edit Wikipedia in a responsible way otherwise, which I do appreciate. Thanks for your contributions. —Twigboy 14:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I honestly hadn't even considered how it would affect google rankings because ArenaFan generally comes up in the top 1-3 for most team names so I don't pay attention to them since I have no reason to. I was only adding them because a) I thought they were relevent, and b) other people had added the links to various wikipedia pages so I figured uniformity was appropriate. I agree that the examples you site are innapropriate, but they don't provide any additional information beyond what can be found on wikipedia or official team pages, whereas there is dynamic data (not just news) that cannot be found anywhere else and would be inappropriate and tedious to include on wikipedia pages. Nolesrule 02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArenaFan

I will remove the links again as spam, and discuss with other admins about perhaps getting the site listed on the blacklist. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an explanation as to why the ArenaFan links consitute spam and not relevent external links. From the external links definition page under "What should be linked to
5. # Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
So please explain why the ArenaFan links don't fit that category Nolesrule 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: User:Twigboy/Sandbox/NFL team-season articles

Some preliminary thoughts before I study it more closely:

  • I would rather not have team logos in the infobox. There is still a debate involving those users who strictly interpret Fair use criteria rule #8 in which logos and other fair use images can only be used if either they identify the subject of the article, or illustrate specific points in the text. Therefore, I do not want to see an edit war, especially because the basic removal of possibly copyright violating material does not count under Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Now, if it was an anniversary logo for a specific season like Image:SeattleSeahawks20thAnniversarylogo.gif, then that is a different story.
  • Which reminds me, you should also look at the existing articles 2005 Seattle Seahawks and 2005 Denver Broncos for ideas.

More possibly later. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest I do not really care about the specific details about the pages, just as long as there are no edit wars, other admins removing logos and fair use images after strictly intrepreting WP:FUC, or "Deletionist" wanting to delete them because "they aren't notable enough". Therefore, you can create them at anytime. But if you are going to make one for the Steelers and/or the Dolphins, we should create them before the end of Sep 7 Kickoff game... and the other ones by opening Sunday Sep 10. I don't want users padding the NFL team articles with long detailed summaries of the opening games. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune set evolution

"Pat, I'd like to guess: Is it dilute?" :) —tregoweth (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to Fair Catch Kick

I realize Wikipedia's policy is to use secondary sources whenever possible, but there's a dearth of those on fair catch kicks, and the ones available online are woefully incomplete. Even NFL officials have admitted that they have no idea of the exact number ([4]. With no official source available, newspapers reporting on the Cardinals' would-be fair catch kick attempt were compelled to cite Wikipedia's entry, which only contained 4 kicks at the time. ([5]) This prompted me to add to Wikipedia the primary-source research I had already put on my own site.

Almost all the additions I made to the Fair Catch Kick entry are from contemporary game reports published in newspapers the day after the day in question. Almost all of them are not available online except in paid archives, but all are available in microfilm form in public libraries. I can and will provide the exact sources (this will involve some digging through my notes), but by and large they were from the major local newspaper of the team attempting the fair catch kick.

The one exception that I know of: the reference to Fred Steinfort's 73-yarder was found in a January 21, 1981, interview with the Boston Globe. The game itself was a Monday nighter marked by drunken fan antics; post-game articles written on deadline ignored a missed FG in the first half. Here's the relevant quote:

So how come, he was asked jokingly, he missed that 73-yard free kick field goal after a fair catch against New England here Sept. 29? "Well, you know, I've made them over 70 yards in practice and that night we expected to get the ball around midfield," he laughed. "But Mike Hubach got off a good punt and those goal posts looked so far away, I didn't know what to do. I used poor technique going to the ball and didn't get a good shot at it at all."

I hope this helps. Quirkyresearch 20:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added references (major newspapers over local, when available) for each fair catch kick and given permission to use the material, but I left the known attempts section commented out for now. Feel free to un-comment it if it meets approval. --Quirkyresearch 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl years

The whole thing is confusing, see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Naming conventions basically because non-fans get confused the playoffs and Super Bowl should be referred to by the calendar year the occur in. Also indiivdual years should not be wikilinked in Wikipedia. Pleased don't get mad at me neither decision is my choice. You could probably ask for further clarification on the talk page over at WP:NFL. Maybe I'm not 100% correct but I'm pretty sure that's the correct format. It's confusing—the Chicago Bears and New England Patriots articles are considered featured articles and could be used as examples. Maybe we could just say they won Super Bowl XXI and XXV without mentioning the year. They are mentioned again in the section with the year mentioned. Quadzilla99 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, individual years aren't supposed to be wikilinked, you could wikilink "the 1990 season". Not necessary right now. Quadzilla99 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/w/i/User_talk%7ETwigboy_fa95.html"