User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The "threat"

Baseball Bugs, I think the person that placed a "threat" on your user page deserves a second chance. Why, because if the user in question said an apology then they should be forgiven. The user in question if they were this "crazed-Rambo" user they would have done it again on that "user name". Maybe, the user had seen what he did and typed a apology on your talk page. However, you claimed he was "abusive sockpuppet"; the only thing this person was doing was apologizing to you , and you didn't see this you were to see this. Baseball Bugs, do you have any mercy and forgive people. I believe a person deserves a second chance if they say they were sorry on their actions.Iron Valley (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superman (1978 film)

While I support your enthusiasm, you have to know that the article is already way too long to have what you called "a summary of the tedious detail that follows in the same section." Also, you have to actually prove your claims, meaning you can't leave anything unsourced like you did with this statement:

"Even at that, some of the blue-screen mattes had problems on the initial release, as the suit sometimes took on a greenish tinge (most noticeable in a shot of Superman flying toward Hoover Dam). That kind of problem, also visible in the early VHS tapes of the film, was eventually fixed digitally for the DVD releases."

I hope you'll understand. Peace. Wildroot (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please be more careful

Your edits to WikiProject College Football have become disruptive. You have been informed that you are being disruptive and that no one supports your interpretation of how these articles should be re-written. Your response has been to lash out at other editors.

Please remember that WP:NPA states that you should "Comment on content, not on the contributor...comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.", yet you continue call your fellow editors names such as "fan boy".[1] You are also violating WP:AGF by claiming without providing any evidence that other editors are attempting to WP:OWN these articles.

Future behavior such as this could result in your being blocked from editing. At this point, it is not productive for you to continue these methods at the WikiProject. If you wish to see continued discussion of the matter, I suggest you consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Thank you, Johntex\talk 17:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Crimea River. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to your question about mascots

Well, there's Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the Univeristy of Louisiana Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, University of Northern Colorado Fighting Whites intramural team and the Vancouver Canucks to name a few. There's a link to a parallel page that provides a more complete list: List of ethnic sports team and mascot names. Sf46 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Natural sources

Baseball Bugs, I am not "issuing threats" and am sorry if that's the perception I created. I am just pointing out tasks that should be done to improve The Natural article. You asked that since "Many of the items refer to other articles or to specific episodes," why don't I consider those sufficiently referenced. Here's the reasons. One example is the Simpsons episode that is said to contain "satirical and comedic" uses of the score or "other plot elements." There are two significant problems with this: (1) Wikipedia cannot cite itself (that is a WP rule; it states "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources."); (2) Even if citing WP was allowable, then there has to be something in those articles that supports the statement "Satirical or comedic uses of the score or other plot elements have included: The third-season episode of The Simpsons, titled Homer at the Bat." I looked and there's nothing in the article that remotely supports the assertion. Think of some high school student who is doing a term paper or essay on satire and takes that statement in The Natural at face value and places it in her paper. She ends up with egg on her face and a low grade (even though Jimmy Wales says not to cite WP).

So to make that statement in The Natural article we have to find a reliable source that supports it. WP:Verifiability states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." There may indeed be someone credible who has said that "Homer at the Bat" makes "satirical or comedic uses of the score", but we need to find that published source and cite it properly in the article. Otherwise it comes out or is challenged and flagged with a cites-needed tag: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence specifically states, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The guideline continues, "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references."

As for the DVD source, the article says, "a re-edit of the film [on the DVD] that adds some previously cut footage, and expands and re-arranges the first part of the film substantially." I wasn't questioning the fact that a DVD was released (although a cite is normal for this in a film article to verify the release date and any special features with it), I was noting that someone had made the analysis that a re-edit of the film "re-arranges the film substantially." If a WP editor decided the change was "substantial", that may be original research which is not allowed. By adding the {{Fact}} tag, I was pointing out that we need to find a source that makes that assessment, which I've been trying to find. I did find this which has some descriptive commentary that could support such an assessment, but the website, "DVD Verdict: Judge Ryan Keefer's Blog" is a blog and therefore not a reliable source. There still may be hope of finding something.

I hope this answers your questions. Just so you know, most of the entries in the Cultural references section of the article are not significant or truly encyclopedic, and should be removed. I'm not saying that the references to the film in pop culture aren't significant, but the fancruft list should be summarized and supported with appropriate citations to a third-party, reputable source.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baltimore

Howdy i don't know if i'm doing this properly as i'm new to editing wikipedia. Did i include the source right? I probably won't figure out how to view your response can you message me at bill|at|williamwheatley|dot|com so i can figure out how to do this right thanks!. User:Bwheatley —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


It's the story my dad told me growing up and then was verified to me that he wasn't making it up when we were at camden yards on the club level and pop introduced me to Frank after telling frank i'm the brother of the kid (My uncle billy) who caught the ball you hit out of memorial stadium. So how would i put that into the article? could you help this is all new to me.

[edit] Ortiz Edit War

I've just gotten the reverter blocked, but I can't revert his last changes without violating 3rvv myself. If you feel like it... PhGustaf (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment is against the rules. However, I was going to do it anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Natural edits

You are now in violation of the 3RR policy. Please be advised that should you revert the material again, you will be blocked in accordance with that policy. I strongly urge you to discuss your edits or, if you feel mightily picked upon, that you seek out the advice/counsel/etc from an admin. A big ol' list of them can be found here. Please consider this your only warning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have assumed ownership of the page. Fine. It's yours. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So, if I am to understand correctly, we came over to your house, pointed a howitzer at your head and made you revert yet again? I bloody well think not, my friend. Unless you are possessed of a fairly unique problem hitherto unknown in the annals of science and medicine, you chose to violate 3RR all by your lonesome and without the guided assistance of any other editor.
You will note that I said you violated 3RR. I did not say I was going to report you for it - even though, as you have been registered here for since May of last year, you are well aware of the rules. My notifying you of your violation was to get you to calm down and step back a little bit. Jim told you to read WP:CITE. I told you to read the same thing. Perhaps now is that time to actually do what two, different, experienced editors are telling you to do - not to screw with you, but to help you avoid the craptastic jackpot you seem determined to get yourself into.
Lastly, you need to grow up just a bit more than a little. Jim and I were trying to help you; accusing us of violating wiki policy is a sure way to ensure that you get zero rhythm when you need assistance. You had best start thinking about how your behavior is going to alienate your fellow contributors as you edit past your one year mark and beyond. Because I don't believe in disposable people, it doesn't matter if you take The Natural off your watchlist; I am going to put you on mine, and check out your edits for a little while. I am here to help you, if you ask nicely. I am also here to make sure you don't get rude with other editors. When you demonstrate that you can handle both criticism and the editing environment better than you have today, you will have improved yourself.
You can say 'thank you' for not reporting the 3RR. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Spangled Banner

You're right. To be honest I skimmed right past "Performances" because I thought that paragraph would be about notable or memorable performances: Rosanne Barr, Borat. Maybe it'd be best to merge my lines into that section and retitle it "Criticism"? (I don't think the title of the section needs to be more specific than that.) Tempshill (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Natural

BB, I'm sorry to see you abandon your interest in The Natural, and that you took my interest in improving the article as a personal attack. I asked Arcayne to review our difference of opinion on that "cultural references" section not to gang up on you, but to let me know if 'I' was off-base. If he opined that either my approach or understanding of WP guidelines was wrong, then I would have adjusted one or both and continued to work on raising the article's usefulness and quality. I certainly wouldn't have picked up my ball and glove and left the field in a huff.

Which brings me to a suggestion: please review and take to heart WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. I have already recommended closer study of policies regarding sources, citing and verifiability, but a review of your edit history shows you are well aware of them (or at least cite them) when deleting other editors' contributions. It is also ironic that you accuse two editors of owning the article when we just began editing it within the past couple weeks. You, on the other hand, have been editing it since August. Who's sense of ownership is getting in the way here? And shame on anyone who has been aware of the dismal state of an article about a film by Barry Levinson, screenwritten by Robert Towne, based on a story by Bernard Malamud, and starring some of the world's best known leading and character actors! Although the film received mixed reviews and certainly has its critics, the article should have no trouble finding material for interesting and significant Production & Development, Themes, and Adaptation sections, completely absent up to this point. That, by the way, is the genesis of my interest in improving this article.

If you disagree with my methods, that's not only fine with me, but I welcome it. The best articles in WP are developed through the contributions of multiple editors through the vehicle of consensus. And, you're right: I did not like the list format or contents of the disputed section. It, other than the overly-long Plot section, was the largest section of the article. It's fancruft content, suitable more to IMDb trivia, is what I would expect from a tenth grader when the teacher asks about the significant aspects of the film. That list is painful to look at when a treatment of the themes of myth and hero and baseball in American culture would serve so much better. In fact, a quick academic search shows there are numerous scholarly papers that discuss how the changes made in the adaptation process significantly affect the themes Malamud — one of the most important writers of the 20th centruy — focused on. The fact that Hobbs hits a home run at the end of the movie and reunites with Iris and his son are key changes from the original and are worthy of much more attention than a masturbatory trivia list. So, guilty as charged.

And being nice to people has benefits. Here's why: as I looked at your edits so I could better understand your practices (with the goal of ameliorating the dispute), I started looking at articles on which you've worked; due the viral nature of WP, it's impossible for me to not become interested in them and improvement of their quality. It's very possible we will meet again. Maybe we can collaborate rather than argue. A benefit of others taking WP:CIVIL to heart is that not only did Arcayne not hit you with a 3R violation, I did not as well; in fact, I refrained from making a justifiable edit that I knew would cause you to violate the rule. Instead, I continued to try to engage you in a productive discussion, which you rejected. You're welcome for not likely causing you to be benched for a couple days (which, given the volume of your edits, probably would have been distasteful to you). Good luck, and I look forward to working productively with you in the future.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] respond to Bugs in a paramount pitcure

okay I read that in a picture called Jasper Goes Hunting where a character named Jasper is hunting. he finds a scarecrow they spot a rabbit hole and its indeed Bugs Bunny saying Eh, What's Up Doc and the scarecrows says Why It's Bugs Bunny and he says Hey I must be in the wrong pcture and dives in the hole. Mel Blanc supplied Bugs' voice and Robert McKimson anmiated the Bugs sequence

[[User:MrJanitor1|MrJanitor1] 16:42 January 13 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

You've been reported for your 3RR violation. Magnanimity is best reserved for those capable or willing to appreciate it. Your continued attacks indicate that our good will is not enough to assist you. Have a splendid day. - - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] where I read about Bugs' cameo in a paramount picture

I read it on Big Cartoon Database and Internet Movie Database

MrJanitor1 16:53 13 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Roller derby

(I responded on my own talk page, but here it is again just in case:)

Well yeah, I would rather include it all, as we did previously, since that appeases the monthly stream of contributors who want to add one tidbit or another. But someone got a bee up their butt about excessive "trivia" and tried to kill the whole section, so the compromise was to remove all the music info, under the theory it was likely to keep growing, whereas the other info was pretty stable. Apparently that person hasn't visited any of the articles about popular TV shows or any number of other pop culture topics, and decided to pick on the roller derby article that day. Also I feel it should all be included because who are we to assume a researcher will not find the info of value?

If you wouldn't mind, could you add a note of support to Talk:Roller derby#Roller derby songs again? Maybe point out that the length of the article is not so much of an issue anymore, since we've spun off the history section into its own article. —mjb (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amcaja

Sadly, our constant Wiki-associate Amcaja retired from Wikipedia last week. Let's bid him a fond farewell. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BubbaGumpMOA5.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BubbaGumpMOA5.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BubbaGumpMOA4.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BubbaGumpMOA4.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animation Wiki-Project?

I was just wondering if you ever considered becoming a member of the animation wikiproject. Considering the retirement of two of our most active participants and the recent joining of another editor, you'd certainly be a big help. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What would I need to do? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It's actually extremely easy. All you have to do is go to WP:US-TOON#Participants and sign your name under whatever section ("Active", "Inactive", "Supporter") you wish.

We definitely need more members, and the project page is in dire need of an update. Hope we can all do something about it. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the Animation Wikiproject as a supporter! It looks like the project is starting to grow! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just not sure what a "supporter" does, but I reckon I'll find out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too sure, either, but apparently you're supposed to assess articles and contribute to the coverage of animation throughout Wikipedia. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Duck Soup

Sorry. I just did some Web-surfing, and it wasn't Roger Ebert who said that. It was online film critic Danel Griffin, who works for the University of Alaska Southeast. Ebert does admit, however, in his own review of Duck Soup, that, while he enjoys many of the routines in A Night at the Opera, he must "fast-forward through the sappy interludes with Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle. In Duck Soup, though, there are no scenes I can skip; the film is funny from beginning to end."

Danel Griffin also has an excellent, critical website, called "Film as Art", which you should consider giving a look. I think you'll agree with his analyses of Marx Brothers films. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natural image thanks

BB, thanks for jumping on the fair-use issue with Image:TheNatural.jpg. Those things are such a pain. At least they've made the initial upload process much more intuitive than it was. I also reduced the size of the file and re-uploaded it; the powers-that-be seem to like that as well.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rooftopbleachers image

I've replaced the disputed fair use template on Image:Rooftopbleachers.jpg. The picture can't be PD-1923 if the crowd had gathered, according to the article, to watch a 1929 World Series game. --Onorem♠Dil 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That PD-1923 could be a code, I'm not sure. It may also be some sort of thing that might have been placed by someone else. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:37 PM US EST Jan 21 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Guess I shouldn't have assumed the article caption was correct. Glad to see it's all straightened out now. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Onorem♠Dil 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Lineup for Yesterday"

I've reformatted the quote and sourced at Lou Gehrig. Let me know what you think of it, before I go ahead and do the same for all of the other players' articles, eg, Ruth, Cobb, Dean, Hornsby, etc. Is it a home run or a foul bunt? Cheers, JGHowes talk - 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At Ogden Nash, I've also added this New York Times article as a ref [2]. Altho it doesn't quote the poem in full, it does provide reliable verification. JGHowes talk - 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Done at all 25 baseball player articles, plus some article clean-up along the way here and there. JGHowes talk - 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The Nash animal quotes made my day! JGHowes talk - 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ballpark Photos

I got the first one from a library archive of which I can't remember off hand. The second one I got off of an old postcard from 1902. --Randall311 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I could remember what I changed the names from. I am 99% positive that this image Image:League_park_cincy.jpg is from the first construction of league park. The one you have up there now is the second carnation of league park but before the palace of the fans. I wish I could find the original source of this picture. --Randall311 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

For awhile, I wasn't sure just what to award you with, but I hope this cookie will suffice, since...well...everybody likes cookies! I'll always be grateful for you and Amcaja welcoming to the project with such enthusiasm, as well as helping me on contributing to articles and settling disputes. Enjoy! ;-) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Preston Black

A tag has been placed on Preston Black requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amen, now play ball.

That's how he begins his sermons. (read my response to your comment on my user page) Also, I like your user box about sock puppets be damned darned. I'm dealing with that right now. I created an account about 3 weeks ago, and this is my first run-in with a SP...and it's a beeotch.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, speaking of socks, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sports Nuggets. Our buddy apparently shifted to articles not on our watchlists and caused some havoc. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I filled out one of those sock puppet form things...how long does it take for someone to look over it and decide whether or not to take action?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. I don't venture there too often. I think it can get quite backed up though. Admins are limited in what they can do without checkuser permissions. I can spot a Liebman sock w/o trying - Roitr as well - but the rest are challenging and dangerous to deal with sans prior knowledge. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference?

Do you have a reference for this statement? Jeepday (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Their own website [3] says "The Wall Drug Store got its start during the Depression years by offering Free Ice Water to thirsty travelers." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I added it as a reference. Jeepday (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misc page for deletion

I hope my edit is not considered disruptive. I just thought the tool provided would be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.248.49 (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: Don't touch the above. It's about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hah, hah!

Cool user page. It pretty funny too. Basketballone10 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:3RR sign.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:3RR sign.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add "PD-self". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati

Please provide a verifiable source for your assertion that the Cincinnati Red are not descended from the Cincinnati Red Stockings. That descent is widley held "common knowledge." See the Reds timeline at http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/cin/history/timeline1.jsp Pzavon (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP

stop vandalising cincinnati ohio we have all found that your continued edits are wrong. What you are doing is vandalism.meckstroth.jm (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wrong

see reds.com's history page I think that shall shed some light on my point of veiw. Since the team is stating what I said is true,(talk) 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati

The wording I have makes more sense and I don't say the mlb started in 1869 I say they are the first mlb team and cincinnati was home to the first profesional baseball team..meckstroth.jm (talk) 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the current Reds not starting until 1882. However, I must point out (although I am not going to change the year) the current Reds take their name and some their traditions from the original Red Stockings. So there is a connection. --Cincydude55 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a connection of city heritage. It's just confusing because there was relatively little time that passed. No one claims the 1962-to-date New York Mets are the same team as the 1880s Mets, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what?

what do you mean "The current team dates from 1882, not 1869 or 1876" that was never sated in the text that we are arguing about, so when you reverted something have a good reason don't make up ones - User talk:72.49.88.101 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your version is almost correct, but it's too wordy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User RfC on CC

Thanks for the comment, but this in a section designated for me to write in. You are correct that they shouldn't have been in comments, but in the future, please leave me a note on my talk page or this one's talk page. I know there was no malice intended. Thanks for the honest feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 04:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem! :-) — BQZip01 — talk 04:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mediation

Yeah, I already accepted. CC hasn't. But more to the point, it is not just the content, but his behavior. I invite you to read all the edits in the hostility section. IMNSHO, he is trying to get his way (inconsistent with policy) through bullying and threats. He ran into me and, quite frankly, I wasn't some rank amateur Wikipedian who just caved into his demands. His intentionally malicious characterization of me (like claiming I use my position in the Air Force to justify my edits...that is a crime for me to do so BTW) is extremely damaging to my reputation. Since there is no retraction of such comments, I see little recourse other than to seek admin assistance in stopping this abuse. — BQZip01 — talk 04:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, if I use my position in the Air Force for personal or financial gain, it is illegal. — BQZip01 — talk 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Larson

Jack is convinced Reeves took his own life. He's told me that a number of times, and he swore to me that he's never doubted it, no matter how he's been portrayed or his remarks misunderstood. There's a 2003 interview with Jack at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9082219842800579949&hl=en. He says the same thing there, about 30 minutes in, that he believes it was suicide but that almost everybody else he knows disagrees. Hope this helps. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cubs article

Well, Shadow Jester apparently feels that it is too long and most of the content regarding franschise history belongs in the main article History of the Chicago Cubs. I have been discussing this with him for weeks and, although I am not really happy with our agreement I am going to re do the History page and make it more through and edit down that section of the cubs page, while adding a small snipit on wrigley itself. It will take me a while, and any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the question. for all i know someone undid my deletions, but it is alright as I got sidetracked by my personal life mid-revision. Wjmummert (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Cincinnati, Ohio, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Just as a note, even though you may have specified it in the edit summary, be sure to add a inline reference pointing to the specific page that it is located on, to avoid original research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor apparently knows nothing about the subject. In any case, the Reds' own website uses the expression "Cincy" frequently. [4] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP

Looks like they have quit. But I'll keep an eye out for them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gun nuts"

I just wanted to let you know, that it is INCREDIBLY offensive, to refer to people as "gun nuts". It also makes you appear pretty bias'ed. SQLQuery me! 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You fail to recognize satire when you see it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't find it funny, then. I suppose I wasn't looking for humor on the discussion page for a recent mass murder. SQLQuery me! 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marx Brothers on Religion

If you haven't read this page before, you should. A very interesting read—it's an excerpt from Glenn Mitchell's The Marx Brothers Encyclopedia that deals with the Brothers' varying thoughts on religion. If you've ever really wondered about the Brothers' religiosity, here's your chance to find out. If you take a look at that page you can find many other links to book excerpts. Glenn Mitchell's Encyclopedia has long been an out-of-print collector's item, unfortunately. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy"

You asked what user:Aminz is seeing that you're not seeing. He's also being remarkably coy about answering, isn't he?:-) He claims on his user page to be interested in mathematics, psychology and environmental science... but his contribution history tells the real story. rudra (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In plain and forthright language: Islam is somehow associated with that picture, and he doesn't like that. rudra (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm getting the picture, so to speak. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Actually..

This is not very correct. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy. Friday (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

i just want him to admit he violated the NPOV policy, then i will drop the argument. thanks in advance! 12.39.2.83 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have filed an ANI [5] for the IP address' trolling behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where Bugs violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#behavior that is unacceptable, and our anonymous IP friend clearly violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. It's insulting that he/she thinks they own a talk page. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
removing a personal attack against david koresh. i swear, you have to make an honest effort at being this dense. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:12.39.2.83 for 31 hours due to disruption. Sure, he could disagree - and he has a right to - but that does not call for shenanigans such as these. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Ha, thanks. I think it confuses most people. Always glad to bump into someone new who shares an appreciation for their unique flair for... uh... ameriachi. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

You need to check Wiki's definition of verifiability. Grossman is not a verifiable source. He's a secondary source -- not a tertiary source. He has an interest in selling his Superman book and that makes him biased. Third party sources are non-biased, uninterested parties -- newspapers, magazines, university publications, peer-review journals, encyclopedic publications. Overjoyed (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overjoyed

Hold on, maybe there's more: See User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff#Overjoyed and [6]. Btw: Could you move your posting from User_talk:JzG to User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff? If you look through the user's main talk page, you will see why. User:Dorftroffel 12:40, February 21, 2008

I meant this posting, I've moved it to the subpage. Reason is here (and directly above that). User:Dorftroffel 14:05, February 21, 2008

[edit] Overjoyed

What's he been blocked for? I don't see any big problems (a few tiny ones) with his submissions. My only gripe (aside from the fact that I agree with you on the Grossman thing) is the vast number of edits that suggest he is going back and forth over this thing, not sure exactly what he wants to write. I'm not necessarily in favor of reverting everything, as I don't see much that I actually disagree violently with. I may have missed something, as I'm not sure what his block was for. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hector Lopez picture

I would guess the guy in the picture is in his 50's too, but it is very hard to tell with the hat on and no hair being visible. If you are just guessing based on age that is not really what I am looking for. I am sort of looking for someone who would recognize Lopez if he/she saw him, but thanks for the guess.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He does not look like that guy from the 1966 baseball card, but few people look like they did when they were a professional athlete over 40 years ago. I still think there is about a 30% chance this is the guy, because it appears he is some sort of celebrity endorser in the picture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adlai Stevenson

Baseball Bugs. Your continual removal of a link to an educational website can only be described as malicious.

[edit] Western Union

Hi, I removed the trivia because it needs an actual citation, otherwise it's just OR. WP:V is non-negotiable and unsourced info can be removed at any time. Even if sourced, it seems irrelevant anyway, thanks. Spellcast (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Films are their own source, because they are verifiable. Not personally liking something is not grounds for deletion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Information must obviously be sourced. This is a last warning - I don't want to block over this, but unsourced info that is challenged can be removed at any time - see WP:V. Only citing the film or song itself without an actual citation is original research. Spellcast (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing controversial about removing unsourced info. That's why Template:Uw-unsourced1, Template:Uw-unsourced3 etc. exist. Making an original observation from a film or song is original research unless a reliable source has written about it. Spellcast (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, it'd be true, but it's still OR. Spellcast (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not plagiarism to cite published sources. If Wikipedia is the first place to publish an observation, it's OR. Take an example from the section: "In the Mobb Deep song 'Temperature's Rising', Havoc raps 'I know you need loot, so I send it through Western Union'". There are no reliable sources whatsoever that have made that observation, so it's OR. All those examples are miscellaneous facts. I wouldn't of removed the info if it could've been merged in the article, but none of those examples could've been merged or sourced. Spellcast (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The same way you describe everything on Wikipedia - through "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). Spellcast (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Through sources that write about the plot summary. It's not a copyright violation to use sources. It's only a copyvio if you copy large portions word for word. Besides, what has this got to do with unsourced and unmergeable trivia? Spellcast (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going with what's written in WP:RS. I rarely edit film articles, so I don't know if people regularly cite the film itself when describing its plot summary. I edit music articles and when describing a song, I know third party sources are used instead of the song itself. I assumed it was the same for films. For example, Transformers (film) uses this ref in its plot summary. Anyway, do you believe any of that trivia is mergeable? If so, it can be reinserted and tagged with {{trivia}}, so someone can hopefully merge it with sources. Spellcast (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Citing the liner notes is fine. Writing unpublished observations on the soundtrack isn't. And unlike the trivia above, a track list can be found in reliable sources. Spellcast (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess there'd be no choice but to use the cd. The main issue is whether the info can be integrated or not. If you think it can, please do so. Spellcast (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether you can use it or not, there's still the issue of whether the info is relevant. I'd like to see this resolved asap, so please merge the info if you think it deserves to be, cheers. Spellcast (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If you think there's a problem with using sources for pop culture, a good place to bring it up is WT:RS. I'm only concerned about whether those 3 dot points of trivia can be integrated, and I don't think it can. Spellcast (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On being an idiot

I don't apologize for being an idiot either. I see being an idiot as my unalienable right. :) Jonneroo (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Duh, yup! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning on Superman music

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Superman music. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealFennShysa (talk • contribs)

This user proceeded immediately to report you on the three revert rule noticeboard. While all reasonable steps should be taken to stop editors with a conflict of interest skewing articles, their contributions are not necessarily to be reverted immediately; a more long-term view needs to be taken. Reversions of potential conflict of interest edits are not an exception from the three revert rule. Thank you for alerting the community to the potential problem on Superman music, but I think it would be better to engage in further discussion about which aspects of the expanded page are worthy of keeping rather than starting again. With that in mind, and the fact that discussion is ongoing, I'm going to close the three revert rule report as 'warned'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Croctotheface silencing the truth

I'm sure it is not shocking to you that Croctotheface has deleted you comment on it's talk page because it doesn't like it. Please continue to fight this injustice and other injustices that that vandal has caused. MJD86 (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Probably old news at this point. I think it was something from December. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Soup for Good Article Nomination?

"Take up the tacks"? How about taking up the carpet? :-) On a serious note, d'you think we should push for the Duck Soup article as a good article nominee, or is it too early? I think the article is pretty comprehensive overall, don't you? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 04:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the one to judge. Maybe you could ask a friendly admin? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the advice. Man, if only my old admin pal Brian were still here. . . Best wishes to you, Brian! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 05:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cinemaniac left me the same message, and I came over here just to check out your conversation -- in the meantime, let me compliment you on your user page, not only for the formatting, but the content. I especially liked your section on editing philosophy, which comports well with my own.

BTW, what cartoon is it that Bugs is reading a book backwards, from back to front? I think it's one of the Tortoise/Hare cartoons, the one that starts off in a steam room. I've always wondered if the animators got confused left-to-right, or what. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know offhand. I bet cinemaniac knows. And thanks for noticing the page. I just ry to be funny, mostly. I had someone gripe about my editing philosophy. No more. He got blocked. (Not for that reason, though.) :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help overhearing... :) For future reference, the name of the short is Rabbit Transit, a late-1940s Friz Freleng cartoon that featured Cecil Toitle. Sharp eyes there, Ed; I wear glasses, and I'd never noticed that! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That same cartoon is currently available, uncut and restored, on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 2. You can get it at Amazon.com for $40-$60. . . if that's any help. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait a sec... back to front? Maybe it's Bugsy that's Jewish! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Bugs being Jewish? I dunno, there are all these rumors going on around Hollywood about that. . .

However, a quick Google search generated an interesting point, and I'll provide this quote from a website:

David Kaufmann makes the case for the Jewishness of that wascally wabbit: "The spirit of Jewish vaudeville inhabits Bugs’s slight frame, down to the lightning puns, double-meanings and gloriously underhanded tricks that he’s lifted from folks like Groucho and Chico Marx, as well as the manic physical mayhem that typified acts like the Ritz Brothers."

Hey, there's a Marx Brothers connection here after all! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Think of Hair-Raising Hare. He actually does Groucho at one point, walking with that stoop and flicking his eyebrows. He also did Groucho (in makeup) in the one with the Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall bit; I've forgotten the title just now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Reading that same article again, Kaufmann brings up some very valid points that support and contradict his argument:

But hold on, buddy. Comic books might have been created by Jews; Hollywood might have been invented by Jews; the Warner brothers who put out the "Looney Tunes" shorts might themselves have been Jews, but the creators of Bugs Bunny were not. Sure, Mel Blanc, "the man of 1,000 voices," was Jewish, as was the director Friz Freleng, but we have to concede that most of the writers and directors were decidedly not. Look at their names: Chuck Jones, Michael Maltese, Tedd Pierce. Look at Tex Avery, a director with an exquisite sense of both timing and the gloriously absurd. No self-respecting Jew, not even Kinky Friedman, ever called himself "Tex."

As if this weren't enough, Bugs's creators originally tried to call him Happy Rabbit, a totally goyish name. (Think Happy Rockefeller.) Thankfully, Mel Blanc suggested "Bugs Bunny." "Bugs" as in crazy. As in crazy like a fox. As in — just maybe — Bugsy Siegel.

Can we find the rabbi in the rabbit? As far as I can tell, Bugs never uses a word of Yiddish, but he does have a yidisher kop. He has the gift of gab as well as a fine command of Acme products. Poor Elmer — was there ever a Jew named Elmer? — never stands a chance. Of course, it is well known that Bugs comes from a long line of tricksters. He is an Eastern Anansi, an American Hershele Ostropoler. He’s even distantly related to Isaac Babel’s Odessa gangster, Benya Krik.

Sure, Elmer Bernstein. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't doubt it. Another thing to keep in mind is that people did all sorts of ethnic humor in those days. Look no farther than Chico Marx, who always did an Italian schtick, although he was about as Italian as gefilte fish. The point being, again that someone like Daffy doing a bit of Jewish schtick doesn't make him Jewish. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a very interesting concept of the hare that's a little fascinating—if not maddening—to ponder. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the name of that cartoon you referred to is Slick Hare, and it, too, is available on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 2. I remember Bugs's Groucho imitation: He's sitting there at a table with Harpo and Chico, when suddenly Harpo's revealed as Elmer Fudd! Fudd takes out a hatchet and dices Bugs's cigar to bits. Bugs then takes Fudd's hand and shakes it vigorously, stating a typical Groucho-ism: "I hope you won't mind waiting while I remove these wet things and slip into a dry martini!" Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 06:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds right. And you're right, it was Rabbit Transit. It was a "steam bath" at Yellowstone. One of the hot springs looked like a gigantic baby-bottle nipple or maybe a coffee percolatur. And the telegram delivery guy delivered the "GO!" to Cecil on a "Western Bunions" telegram. That reminded me of that ridiculous argument I had with somebody on the Western Union page, so I decided to quit there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I have all 5 volumes of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection. But I appreciate the tips in where to find things. There are like 50 or 60 cartoons in each volume. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, folks, very entertaining conversation - made me smile, which is worth gold these days. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. And hence the term "Golden Collection", yes? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This occurence proves that one can have a legitimate, intriguing discussion dealing with ethnicity and religion on Wikipedia without diving headlong into heated quarrels. You're very welcome, Ed, and thank you both, gentleman.

P.S. To reiterate what I've said before, I still haven't been able to buy the fifth Golden Collection volume, despite having been able to get my hands on the previous four DVD sets. Finding out where I can scrounge up $50 with my current budget is another thing. Perhaps I can find some comfort in the fact that I have some of these cartoons on DVD already (in cheap, unfurbished form, yes, but still there for my viewing pleasure). :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Thanks for the entertaining read, guys. Jonneroo (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As Chico Marx would probably, "Pray-goh, it's no-thing!" :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Baseball Bugs, while I'm at it, d'you think that you could take a look at this new article I created? Since you have the fifth LTGC DVD, you'd probably contribute more to that article than I could. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 04:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. It might not be tonight, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal request: Mike Lupica squabble

I hope you'll forgive the unsolicited nature of this post, but perhaps you'll be amenable to overseeing a dispute. There has been an editing disagreement on the Mike Lupica page since early January. It's all about published criticisms of Lupica by his fellow sportswriters, and the attendant news coverage.

The editing dispute has already been taken to WP:BLP twice, and to WP:EAR once, but has gotten limited response. You can see the particulars of the argument(s) on the Lupica discussion page, as well as these: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=183164546#Mike_Lupica and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Mike_Lupica and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&action=edit&section=55

I'm writing to you because you appear to have had an online rapport with WKnight94, and also with myself. You and I have "collaborated" on a few baseball pages, notably Cy Young's-- see the June 2007 discussion; my IP changes periodically and it was 208.120.224.97 then. The Cy Young tussle involved a problematic editor named Tecmobowl, who was subsequently banned. (Oddly, I had much better luck compromising with Tecmobowl a year ago than I'm having now.)

As for Mike Lupica: after a series of edits were made to his/her various specifications, WKnight94 unilaterally elected to delete or obscure all the material under discussion, then announced that he/she no longer cares to address the subject. The chronology and circumstances of this shutdown are making it difficult to maintain an assumption of good faith. I would certainly appreciate any observations or advice you would be good enough to offer to either of us. Particularly if there is anything I've done wrong or incorrectly, or if there's anything that I should be doing. And I will certainly understand if you don't wish to consider this dispute at all. As I said, I only thought to contact you because you've interacted pleasantly with both WKnight94 and myself. Thank you in advance/sorry to have bothered you (pick one). 208.120.227.142 (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it merits more than 1 line in the Lupica article, with a link to an external source for the "half-full" story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University of Florida Baseball players

  • You had mentioned you had a baseball card of Casey Wise. If you take a picture of the baseball card then I think it's okay. Also if you want to add any other UF athletes pictures then feel free as well. Thanks Jccort (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

I am a wiki scout looking for people to join the WikiProject. I've noticed that you have contributed most of the time on Red Sox pages. I am inviting you to join the WikiProject Boston Red Sox. You are my first invite. If you have a question about the project, feel free to ask on my talk page.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!
I am wondering if you are thinking of accepting the invite. People are wondering if a new member will arrive soon. Please respond to this on my talk page.--RyRy5 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I hope you can at least help a little to red sox articles on occasions. Happy Trails bugs!--RyRy5 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Point of contact

Hi there - thanks for your comment here - can you please let me know your point of contact for the foundation in the Superman music case?--VS talk 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This: [7] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VP Bug

Sorry it looks like it's a bug in VP which has manifested itself in the last few days, I'd had a few until yesterday but now I'm getting htem practically every rollback. I've stopped it for now but apparently there's a new release soon so that should clear it. BigHairRef | Talk 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superman music

Hi, I am not commenting about my case but with respect to the case that you brought up at ANI. I did look at the article and I found references to the CD set kind of Spammy. I think it would be better to make reference in one place of the page not in many number of places on that article page. Also you need to take into consideration is the editor one purpose account to work on that article or is the editor a productive member of the Wikipedia community and spends many hours of their time contributing to different areas of Wikipedia. Just food for thought! Igor Berger (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TimmyTruck/Overjoyed

Hi. I noticed the similarities in both TimmyTruck & Overjoyed too. Having dealt with the now-blocked Overjoyed, I find it quite the coincidence that another editor popped up on Gidget, reverted both of our edits (which were perfectly acceptable), uploaded the same screenshot, and has the same editing style (lots of unexplained edits in a row). I like to assume good faith, but yeah, it's a little too similar. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Why don't you have Rollback? Would you like me to grant it? Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your past is not perfect, but I believe you have learnt from it. I also see no warnings since January. Answer me honestly - would you benefit from rollback; and would you let me down by using it for anything but simple vandalism reversion? Note It's no shame on you to answer that you do not feel ready for it. Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Granted. Please use WP:NAS to test it out. All it does is give you a one click reversal of all edits by the last editor on a given page - handy for serial vandalism unless another editor has made changes in the meantime. Again, remember to only use it for vandalism or it will be revoked. I'm sure you'll do the right thing. Best. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section

I was thinking we should start one that would list reports of particularly vivid dreams of perfect games. Gooden pitched some beauties for me back in the '80s.—DCGeist (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI thread on Wikipedia's new "founder"

Sometimes you founder on the bolders.

I read that sitting at my desk and laughed loudly enough that the guy in the next cubicle peeked over the partition. For the record, I consider myself the founder of a fraction of 1% of Wikipedia. Thanks for the laugh! --SSBohio 13:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You laughed. Awesome. Mission accomplished. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adventures of Superman: Images

I'm wondering why the side-by-side images of the "Look Up in the Sky" moment from the show are critical to this article and exactly what do they demonstrate/illustrate/prove? Both images are small and of poor quality to begin with and look almost exactly alike. I don't understand why they are incuded here. Could you explain? Also, I'm having the same problem with the image of Lois Lane making an exit through a door. What is this image intended to illustrate/prove/demonstrate? A single television article cannot be filled with countless images of every frame of the show. In order to "balance" text and images per Wikipedia's guidelines, I'll be forced to delete images of the cast in order to accomodate images that are (IMHO) useless and vague. For my own part, I believe readers would be more interested in having access to images of the cast rather than doorways and vague crowd scenes. We could just as easily include images of the speeding train, the tall building leapt at a single bound, Perry White's office, Jimmy Olsen's blue sweater vest, and countless other elements, but to what purpose? Please discuss your rationales for including your images. I'd really like to know because they're quite inexplicable to me. TimmyTruck (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can be moved elsewhere as far as I'm concerned. But you don't explain why two images of the crowd are necessary. And the doorway? It's a doorway. So what? Every frame of the show is a "fact" but that doesn't mean that every frame of the show should be included as images in the text of the article. TimmyTruck (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warning

I am not vandalizing. You are removing a valid AfD template. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eve Carson

Oops, I goofed. I intended to have the first deletion page deleted since it wasn't listed on WP:AFD, and nominate it for deletion with my opinion about the deletion. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem has been fixed by admin; it's now linked to the proper deletion entry on the template. Please add your comments there. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the duplicate and figured it was a Twinkle error or something. Don't see any reason to close the anon's nomination, it's a legitimate point. BTW I'm not an admin; anyone can use {{AfD top}} and {{AfD bottom}}. cab (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename for Baseball parks of Toledo, Ohio?

Baseball parks of Toledo, Ohio → List of baseball parks in Toledo, Ohio? Seems like the going thing per WP:STAND. Looks good BTW.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Year in film" template

Because I got tired of writing out all those "year in film" wikilinks, I've written a little template which may be useful: filmyear or fy. It expands, for instance, {{filmyear|1999}} or {{fy|1999}} into 1999. I've tried it out, and it seems to work. Of course, I know nothing at all about template writing, so... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eve Carson AfD

You continue to ask the same questions and to apparently misinterpret my comments despite my various efforts at response and clarification. If you have some problem with what I am saying, please bring the discussion to my talk page - Fritzpoll (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Sparky the Wonder Bot"

Sure. Glad you like it ! -- No Guru (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. That's a classic picture. Does it have a proper fair-use rationale ? ;) -- No Guru (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Soup GA on hold

Ed Fitzgerald and I are having a rough time figuring out how to address the GA reviewer's recommendations for Duck Soup. If you can help us out, click here and here. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, probably tomorrow. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Afro-American image deletion

The image that is up for deletion was uploaded some time back as a citation to show that John Henry Lloyd did indeed die in 1964 instead of '65; this was during one of the many Liebman Floating Edit Wars (TM). As long as we don't also revert Lloyd's date of death to the incorrect one, I have no problem with the image being deleted. -- Couillaud (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the deletion, as this was not really a typical image upload. The image was uploaded because Liebman was changing the death date without citing any verifiable resource. I uploaded this one and cited a second, and the change was implemented. IIRC, Liebman continued even after that to incorrectly insert other unverifiable references without needing to do so.
The odd thing is that I've sent these same references to SABR to correct Lloyd's death date, and they still have not been acted upon. -- Couillaud (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victims of crime proposals

I've started trying to flesh out some ideas at User:Fritzpoll/Victims_of_crime_guideline - once we have something that a number of us can agree on, I'll pop it in the right namespace and we'll see if we can settle all this madness by obtaining consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eve Carson move question

I see that you are very much involved with this afd. A question I have for you, do you think the article should stay as "Eve Carso" and should be both about her life and the circumstances of her death, or do you believe it should be redirected to something such as Murder of Eve Carson and should be primarily about her death? The problem with the current AFD is I think many are getting caught up on having an article about a person who is notable for a single event. I think if the article was initially titled Murder of Eve Carson this whole thing would have gone much smoother.Gwynand (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could possibly come to the belief that the Eve Carson disappearance is more notable than the Natalee Holloway case; I'm truly confused by that statement. Eve Carson was murdered and found on the very same day. Natalee Holloway has been missing for three years, and in addition to the last three years of news coverage, the case has been the subject of news reports including full hours on Dateline and 20/20 within the last month. There's simply no comparison. As for the name itself, there is no hard and fast rule, and each article is best judged on its own merits. The Holloway article has been the subject of numerous naming discussions, and there has never been an agreement for it to be moved. You can see my reasoning here. Also see my comments here - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did I miss something?

Could you expand on your change summary "Reverting self-promotion." Are you referring to the name of the jpeg file, "Sears-tower-panoramic-night-bob-horsch.jpg". Does that in itself constitute 'self-promotion'? Reason I'm concerned is the recent dust-up re: David Shankbone. Shenme (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have investigated a little more, but I see now the situation is still developing (conversations after my posting above). I myself have a hard time differentiating between overdone enthusiasm (hey, I've got this great stuff that could go here!) and blatant exploitation (hey, here's another place I can put my stuff!).
I was just cueing on the possibility it was more of "this filename has someone's name in it, and that's bad...", which was entirely overdone with respect to David Shankbone. To the point where someone got overwrought saying "hey, this one has his face in it too!" when they could have just compared with the pictures on his user page to see it was someone else completely! (sigh) Shenme (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Event name semantics

Interesting point you raised, and something I'm trying to cover at the policy proposal I mentioned earlier. The draft is far from complete (or satisfactory), but the discussion on the talk page is...lengthy! :) My feeling is that maximum community consensus can be reached if:

- articles are based on the crime itself, the "event", rather than the victims' biographies. This, to me, means less focus on the victim than Joseph suggests on the draft guideline discussion page, since the media coverage (our reliable sources) is based on the crime, not the activity of the victim - to that end, naming them appropriately, with redirects as necessary to facilitate users finding the information, per your comments to my talk page some days ago

Naturally, such a guideline will not (and should not) prevent nomination for deletion, but will lend weight in the debate if the AfD is frivolous, or might allow a non-deletion result such as move and redirect. I would particularly appreciate *your* help on this, as I believe you and I may inadvertently be moving towards a consensus on this... :) -Fritzpoll (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:ParamountLogo1930s.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:ParamountLogo1930s.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In for the long haul - RfC on the guideline

I've read over a few of the old AfDs and the few comments that are emerging on the discussion page, and tried to merge them in places with existing policy. The guideline is now sufficiently mature to be more widely publicised to obtain a wider consensus via debate and editing, and I have started by opening an RfC on it (I hope I have done this correctly!) - where is best to publicise it further, do you think? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Burk and WP:RM

Hello, Baseball Bugs. I noticed you undid my removal of the Lauren Burk entry at Requested Moves. The article was AfD'd, and closed as "delete" Whether you agree with the deletion or not is irrelevant, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you think the article shouldn't have been deleted, there's always Deletion Review. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your comment on my talk page. First, I had nothing to do with the deletion, so don't don't accuse me of anything of the sort. It's assuming bad faith, and moreover, incivil. I merely removed a listing that no longer needed our attention at WP:RM. Parsecboy (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, Baseball, I just removed a listing from WP:RM, because it was irrelevant. There's no page to move. The page no longer exists. Therefore, the listing at WP:RM doesn't need to be there anymore. I didn't delete anything. I fail to see how my conducting house-cleaning activities at WP:RM can be described "part of the problem". Having a listing at WP:RM isn't going to make the article be recreated, I don't see why you're so up in arms about it. Again, please stop assuming bad faith on my part. Parsecboy (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've warned you about personal attacks; if you continue to make such comments, you will be blocked. Parsecboy (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your comment. Still, I don't see how they do. Perhaps you can explain what you mean. Again, I deleted nothing, I am far from a deletionist. I just removed an irrelevant listing for an article that is no longer in existence. If you do seek deletion review, and the decision is overturned, I'll be more than happy to move the page to a title that fits conventions. Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand the need to vent sometimes. Yeah, but I think that is part and parcel of the Wikipedia system as a whole; guidelines can be created, but if no one is willing to follow them, what good does it do? For example, I'm currently engaged in a discussion about the Serbian tennis player Novak Đoković. The article was created with standard English characters (Djokovic instead of Đoković), moved without discussion, a move request was done a month or so ago to move it back, it succeeded, and a week later, it was moved back to Đoković without discussion, warranting the current discussion that I've become involved in. Regardless of the fact that every source provided uses "Djokovic", and what WP:UE states, people are still arguing to use the special characters. Sometimes it gets very frustrating. Is there a discussion about the proposed guideline? I'd like to take a look at it, and perhaps add a comment, if I have anything valuable to say. Parsecboy (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there was never any intention of not having a redirect for the non-standard characters, or to not explain the difference in spellings. We're working on a compromise, so hopefully that will bear fruit.
Back to Lauren Burk, I re-deleted the talk page, and left a note for the anon user to use legitimate channels to voice his or her opinion. I also notified him/her of the proposed guideline on Fritzpoll's userspace, if s/he wanted to make a contribution to the discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize, that's just part of the joy of Wikipedia. I've already got two "friends", one who's been creating impostor accounts, posting personal information online, and conducting various off-Wiki harassment, and the other who's been following me around since about May of last year, vandalizing pages I edit. In any case, I did assume good faith with this anon, and despite his claims that he just wants to be "[dealt] with as a human" in disputes, it's evident that he's just here to cause trouble. And yes, I do have the trump card, if he wants to continue acting as he's been. Parsecboy (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notifying of move to Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)

Per comments on the talk page, I have moved the guideline into project space for wider discussion. Just letting you know as a contributor to this page Fritzpoll (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you hate Scott A. Brown?

Why do you hate Scott A. Brown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.0.181 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • NOTE: The above item was removed by User:Wknight94. The IP address posted the above on many different user pages, before Wknight94 issued a 3-month block. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati Reds

the cincinnati reds team I belive dose have connections with the1869 team because at all reds games hats, shirts and sings all say est.1869. The reds stat book has records from the 1869 team that they still use today. User:Davidkinderosu1 03:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Might need to keep an eye on J10254g [8]

I dont know whats up with this guy, but he hit up quite a few other pages of arenas and stadiums with made up nicknames, incorrect nicknames, or wrong names for arenas or stadiums. Figured I would say something to you since you had caught one of his edits, and I had to undo a few of his edits myself. Whammies Were Here 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fishwrapper news"

You do know what I'm saying, yeah? Nothing about the reliability of the source. Will (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I'm saying, it's nothing about the reliability of the sources. Basically, I'm saying it's quickly forgotten and of no longterm interest. Will (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
To you, anyway, and that's all that matters, ja??

[edit] New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (I know you comments contributed to the form it currently has, but I'm just dropping this on the pages of all potentially interested parties!)

[edit] League Park

Hi, Baseball Bugs. In my clean up work of succession boxes I happened across the article League Park and see an issue occurring regarding dates. While this is irrelevant for the main portion of the article and I do not wish to get involved in that portion of the discussion, the guidelines for succession boxes specify that dates should not be wikified within succession boxes unless there is a specific value add (i.e. in a succession box for the mbl all-star game, linking the year to the article about that year's game.) Hope this helps relative to that portion of your discussion. Gwguffey (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and you bring up a great point. Succession boxes have been neglected to the point that getting them roped back into the guide specifications is going to take some time. Gwguffey (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spring Forward!

Happy First Day of Spring!

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:ANI

Hey Bugs, I just marked this resolved, and realized that you had another question mixed in there (I was getting lost in all the colons and replies:-) Generally speaking, you're right. Talkpage comments should not be shifted from one article talkpage to another article's talkpage, unless it is because of a pagemove where the article is moving as well. I wouldn't have a problem with reverting thsoe changes. I would also warn though, it isn't worth getting in a content dispute over, and certainly not worth 3RR or a block. This place is too big to hone your focus in so tightly on one thing that you lose the overall mission of the place. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your sensible reply. I'm also a huge baseball nut by the way. Can't wait for the grapefruit league crap to get over. Let's get on with it!!. Once you visit my userpage, you'll learn quickly who I firmly believe will be the next World Series champs, with or without the overpaid "talent". Nope, I'm right. Don't even try to argue with me. It can happen to any team, no matter the regular season record. Cheers, thanks for staying cool about all this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The statistical chances of SI picking either the Twins or the Cubs as winner-take-all is probably less than 1%, looking at their rosters and in some cases, "history". Which means that would be a great midwest matchup! Similar to Twins v. Cardinals in '87. What fun that would be! As far as your "game 7" prediction, please do keep in mind that the Twins have yet to lose a home game in the World Series. Ever. In their history. Go dome! At least, go dome for at least a couple more seasons...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1965? Ancient history. I meant in the dome of course. I'm one of the few people in Minneapolis (as far as I can tell) that is banging his head against the wall about building an open air stadium. Good grief. The Old Met was replaced by HHH because of our climate. That's how it got sold to taxpayers: "Twins games live, in the comfort of a climate controlled environment!". Now, we're getting a stadium without a retractable roof? Assinine. Today is the 2nd day of spring. My house just got dumped with 5 inches of snow. We always get snow in April, usually in May, and once or twice in June. In fact, July is the only month in Minnesota history not to have snow. Open roof stadium? Assinine. I like the dome too. (Maybe its because I found a really really good parking space that isn't metered, isn't monitored, and is free, even though its only a block from the dome) Most parking (the dome is downtown) are 10-15 bucks a car....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you "remember" it, that officially makes you (slightly) older than me. The '87 series was vivid to me because of my age, which I've never given out on-wiki. I will say, though, 1965 I wasn't even a thought in my parents' minds. You're older, perhaps, but not necessarily better. Just older. :-) Cheers, BB. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cubs page

futility theories.... its not done yet.... i work 55 hours a week and have 3 kids.... it takes timeWjmummert (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Copyrights

Yep. What license have they released it under? Without that info, we cannot host the files.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. The warning is to tell them that there is a problem with the licensing and to tell them to fix it. That means they have time to add the license of their choice: PD, GFDL, CC, whatever. However, we cannot choose the license for them. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. From the second of those pages: "the license must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works." Without them choosing a free license those rights are not released, and the images are non-free.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The deletions, unfortunately, will be warranted if the user does not fix the license (under WP:CSD#I4). There is a big difference in legal terms between "Self-made" and "PD-Self". One says "I made this picture" the other says "I made this picture and release it into the Public domain." By saying that they are equivalent you are actually denying their rights, copyright law is designed to protect the creator of the works. Releasing to PD means they choose to waive all those rights, which they do not have to do (they can demand attribution for example).

Incidentally, the warnings state "Thank you for uploading X. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image." The 4th sentence states exactly what the problem is.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes. If they rant at me, it means they have got the message and I can explain to them. And they have all got warnings on their talk pages which is aimed at the user.--Nilfanion (talk)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Example.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Example.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. That is the warning they are getting... It says what to do!--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So... The first half explains the problem with links to detailed legal information. Then it says how to fix it: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators is straightforward. And then if you still have problems it tells you to go to the relevant help page. Where's the problem? Oh and I'll reiterate, they do not have to release as PD-self, that is one of the acceptable options. That is why the drop-down licensing box on the upload page has a few choices, and part of the reason why a message like "Hey, add {{PD-self}} to this page or the file will have to be deleted" isn't any good. For example, today's featured picture Image:Tamarin portrait 2 edit3.jpg is tagged {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} very different to PD-self.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is what the upload form is for: All these images did not have a license selected on upload. They have to choose a license (from a number of choices) before we can host it, these users forgot to on upload. Casual users are unlikely to know other editors so cannot "contact an admin" like you would. The messages, if they read them, tell them the issue and the give links to the relevant information so that they can fix it. If they do not understand that information, or how to act on it, they have a link to a help page where they can ask for help or they can contact me. If they contact me confused, great - I can answer specific queries then! I suspect most of the users will not return, and so their files will have to go.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you not see the drop-down box immediately above "Upload file" labelled "Licensing:" with "None selected" in the box? If you click on the box you get the options... That's a fairly standard user interface across a lot of software...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you went to the own work upload form. "PD-self" is wiki-nonsense which is short for: Public domain, self-made. So, "Public domain" is the relevant option in the drop down (the bottom one). If you select one of the options, a preview of the license tag is visible below the drop-down.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I'm sorry. What I meant was that I would ask for her to be my adoptee when I am an admin. From now on, I will be more careful of what I say. Also, are you an admin?--RyRy5 talk 20:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Idea

you might want to check this out--Yankees10 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No holidays...??

You don't need to believe in supernatural gods or goddesses to celebrate holidays with your family and friends. For example, I'm still hungover from my friends' easter party on Sunday.VatoFirme (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Self-puppeting

I'd ask you to use preview more often? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 14:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:ParamountLogo1930s.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:ParamountLogo1930s.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I dont think so

All infomation contained in my edit of the Wrigley field page was paraphrased from the JOINT press release which was actually issued by the CUBS!!!! Check the footnotes. I was more worried about plagarizing the Cubs than advertising for the CBOE. Don't worry though, I replaced what you removed and will continue to do so. If you would like to reword the paragraphs, you are obviously more then welcome to. I would ask that you please try to use correct grammar. LMusielak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmusielak (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


I have no issue yet. I just spent a good deal of time assuring mine was correct when I added that information. As such, I was just kindly requesting that you do the same when editing my contribution. No insult intended. My apologies if it came off as harsh. LMusielak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmusielak (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I will repost it and will file a report on you. Do you really want to play these childish games? Get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmusielak (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I did have citiations, you deleted them. Also, the CBOE doesn't have any seats. The CUBS have the seats. I would tell you to read the release from the Cubs that I posted but you deleted them. Google "cubs" and "CBOE" OR actually read what I actually wrote and not what you think it said. The best part of the whole thing is the single game auction that will allow regular people to buy front row seats for one game even if they can't afford season tickets. Seriously, why would I want to advertise for the CBOE?

If by "bare superscripts" you mean "link to actually release" (again lets repeat it was the Cubs that sent it out...), then yes I had "bare superscripts". Thank you for pointing out my error. I am new to this wikipedia thing. It is offensive and laughable that my first real contribution is being censored by the baseball article Nazi. Seriously are you over there just saying "No post for you!!" like the soup nazi on Seinfeld? --Lmusielak (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer. I would rather put more than is necessary to prevent possible legality issues later.--Lmusielak (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not advertising. They are facts. I'm going to repost it. Report me. I'm more then confident I will win that argument. Thanks for your input but you are not the be-all end-all of wikipedia. I'm not going to bow down to you just because you feel it is advertising or you feel the article is too long.--Lmusielak (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wally Phillips

When I first came across the article today, there were no references whatsoever, so I started finding them and adding additional information along the way. At some point, in between, I added the {{refimprove}} tag to reference some of the information that was already in the article. Since then, I've found sources for most everything, so it's probably not really necessary at this point. However, I'm going to be AFK for a bit, so I don't have time to check right now. It could probably be removed, however I'm sure there are still things that need sources. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Wally Phillips, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 27, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forecast for gametime:

4-6 inches of snow today. Strong northwest winds, blinding conditions. Car accidents everywhere. Opening day. I've heard at least three local TV news anchors say "good thing it's indoors!". The same ones that blindly coddle for an outdoor stadium, that will be open in three years. What, opening day 2011 will be mid-May? Or maybe global warming is really accelerating? These TV fools, no doubt, on a beautiful early June evening, will have forgotten today, and say "Tonight's Twins game is indoors - won't it be great to have it outdoors in 2011?" We are fools. We just got sold a monorail. Sorry to clutter your talk with my grumblings, I needed to vent. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uh, yeah, but!

Re: [this diff] : Too much on my watchlist! It's up to 4,594 right now, and it takes all half the day to troll though it. What with my other Wiki-projects, I can only do so much at one time, and I had a Category page move to get done too, and that has to be done manually. THanks for reminding me I'm not Superman, but I'm not likely to turn into him so yet either! And, sincerely, thanks for finding the link. I did intend to get to it eventually. :) - BillCJ (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wally Phillips

Updated DYK query On 3 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wally Phillips, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:leave it to beaver

Centralized deletion discussions are at articles for deletion. There are actually two deletion processes, the one I used is called proposed deletion which doesn't require a discussion, but any editor can contest deletion by removing the PROD tag. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is not unilateral, any user can remove the tag to contest the deletion. All PROD means is, "I (in my own personal opinion) don't think this article meets the criteria for inclusion because _________" Its sort of one of those "silence on the part of other users is a form of consensus" situations. The fact that the author is on vacation is irrelevant, content belongs to the community per the GFDL license. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the PROD tag and took the article to AfD instead. The discussion is here. In the future, you can simply remove the PROD tag yourself if you do not agree with the article's deletion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cubs

hey man. as you know, i have been editing this page for a long time. now i am attempting to source it. i dont know who this bozo tool2die4 is, but he is doing a great job of p!$$!n9 me off. I do not want to get involved in an edit war but.... Wjmummert (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cubs

Fred McGriff taking a month to come to Chicago is neither bold nor an assertation. As I mentioned, I'm in the process of sourcing. Site an example of what you are talking about.Wjmummert (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Cubs

Thanks for the kind words. I will take a look at the History page sometime in the near future. I am sure I will have some small battles to fight on the Cubs page that I will need to attend to first. As you pointed out, there's still work to do anyways. Best regards. Tool2Die4 (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Perils of Superman Steve Mitchell Michael Fox.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:Perils of Superman Steve Mitchell Michael Fox.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 14:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] champ drought

other than the work playful i like the way you wrote that.... good job. However, realize that what you may see as "fanboy writing" I see differently. We need to work together on this. If you recall, go back and look at the slop-job half a$$ crapppy shape this page was in during the summer of last year, before I started editing it.Wjmummert (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stooges entries

Hey there - I just want to thank you for all the additions you are making the Stooge film entries. I just have one request: when adding comments about where a film title originates from, please place it in the "Notes" section of the entry. I am trying maintain consistency throughout all the entries. Thanx so much...Oanabay04 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] admin

I'm attempting to go for admin status here. I'd appreciate it if you could give me your support, that is, if you feel I would be a fit candidate. Obviously I wouldnt ask if I didnt, but I dont want to assume. My page line is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wjmummert and thanks in advance.Wjmummert (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks either way.Wjmummert (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Soup is on its way...

Hey, Bugs! Duck Soup is nearing its good article candidacy and we only have a few more days before the ultimate decision is made, but a new reviewer has left some suggestions at the talk page. Click here to go to the new discussion. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of MLB individual streaks

Hey. You mentioned that you had a Baseball Almanac that broke down consecutive fielding chances without an error by each position. Is it possible to add this to the list? (Not that I want to marginalize the accomplishments of sure-handed Stuffy McInnis). Whoppersnapper (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it when I get back from my business trip. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From last year's Sporting News Baseball Record Book. Don't know if any of these were eclipsed in 2007:

  • 1B - 1,700 - Stuffy McInnis, during 1921-22
  • 2B - 479 - Manny Trillo, 1982
  • SS - 543 - Mike Bordick, 2002
  • 3B - 257 - Don Money, 1974
  • P - 273 - Claude Passeau, 1941-46
  • C - 1,565 - Mike Matheny, 2002-04
  • OF - 938 - Darren Lewis, 1990-94

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion log

I'm deleting unnecessary talkpages today. I have no idea why these deletions are showing up in your watchlist - perhaps some of them are associated with a page which was moved after you started watching it? east.718 at 11:53, April 13, 2008

The talkpages that I'm deleting are orphaned redirects without any histories. Being orphaned, they have no internal value (nobody will ever stumble across it from a link; we don't search in the Talk: namespace), and only amount to clutter that is prone to foolishness (another admin recently went through everything in Image talk: and found a horrific amount of unchecked vandalism). Another unwanted effect of keeping these redirects around is that they may prevent future pagemoves. Since all the pages have no history aside from the creation of a redirect, it's impossible any discussion ever took place on them. I'm just performing good housekeeping - the next step will be to identify talkpages that are in the wrong places and then do some move repairs. :-) east.718 at 12:02, April 13, 2008
I'm not deleting talkpages with any content - if anybody ever edited the talkpage, I skip over it. The only thing I'm cleaning up is unnecessary redirects that 1/ nobody will ever visit, 2/ are open to vandalism, 3/ prevent future pagemoves, and 4/ waste resources whenever the redirect needs to be fixed. An example of a page I'll be deleting can be found here. east.718 at 12:09, April 13, 2008
OK, I see. When a page is moved, the talk content moves with it, leaving a redirect from the article (which makes sense) and a redirect from the talk page (which is "not needed", for reasons you've stated). Roger. Carry on. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1954 World Series

Hi what was the thinking behind this edit? It looks to me the image fails criteria for inclusion #1 Fasach Nua (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

[edit] Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --216.229.227.142 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Just FYI - I filed on 216.229.227.142 at WP:AIV and they've been blocked for 48 hours. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midgets and dwarves

I was under the impression that "midget" was simply a colloquial term for those suffering from a certain form of dwarvism. The Wikipedia articles on both are relative messes. Anyway, either term is far better than "little person"! --Badger Drink (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laughing

I just wanted to let you know that when I read this edit last night I probably laughed for a solid 3 minutes straight. My wife had to tell me to stop. I'm getting giggly now just thinking about it. Very nicely done. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm that quote sounds familiar. My uncle Keyser always used to say it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! that it is funny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.227.144 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bugs Bunny

Hey this is a little heads up telling you that you need to:


LOOSEN UP AND STOP HELPING THE DEVIL!


I have enjoyed reading your contributions lately and I hope you can help me with some html editing for the articles listed below:

Micronesia Palau Dmitri Shostakovich

If you could give me some advice or something to help me be able to edit this properly, that would be tremendously beneficial.

--216.229.227.141 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

POOF! You gone. [9] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)