User talk:DaveOinSF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user may have left Wikipedia. DaveOinSF has not edited Wikipedia using this account 26 March 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking the assistance of this user on this page, you may need to approach someone else.

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. Sango123 (e) 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I did do so on the talk page. I moved 95% of this page's content to 2006 World Baseball Classic.

Thanks, DaveOinSF. I've reverted it back and apologize for the misunderstanding. May I ask that you make more use of edit summaries in the future? Regards, Sango123 (e) 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] List of Major League Baseball franchise post-season droughts

Please elaborate on what you mean by "I still think the note for a defending champion not actually being in a drought is silly." I'm thinking I'm the one who posted that comment, because somehow they were listing the current champion as being in a "drought", which is NOT TRUE. The Sox are the reigning champions, and haven't lost their championship yet, so their "drought" is ZERO. However, I do think the concept on this page could be confusing to the reader. It is more typical to say a team "last won in (whatever year)", or "it has been (whatever number of years) that a team last won", than to talk about a specific number of years (minus 1) as being a drought. They give the Cubs drought as 60 years, but normally one would say, "it has been 61 years since the Cubs won a World Series." Wahkeenah 12:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right - a defending champion of any sort is technically not in a "drought". But I think it's silly to feel the need to clarify that, and it's harping on a real technical interpretation of the word "drought" when the sense of what this information is trying to convey is pretty clear without the notes. But to change all that while leaving the term "drought" intact would have required an argument I'm not interested in pursuing any further. And removing the term "drought" entirely would have taken too much time and probably ruffled more feathers. So, I just made the page there more internally consistent; if you're going to indicate via a note that a defending pennant winner and/or defending WS champ is not technically in a pennant or WS championship "drought", then a team that made the postseason last year is also not in a playoff-appearance "drought". In any case, you can rest assured that you are technically correct, but it is still my assertion that the whole thing is silly.--DaveOinSF 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If you mean that the concept is silly, I wouldn't disagree. Wahkeenah 23:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note I labeled the pennant and WS tables 'through 2005.' We'll have to update them at the end of this season. I could have done it now (Cubs, Indians, etc. have been eliminated) but it's probably best just to update the table at once. EnjoysButter 02:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your edit. EnjoysButter 02:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...have to give me a chance to finish what I was up to... :) --DaveOinSF 03:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peoria

You did a good job in expanding the Peoria's stance on the Chief Illiniwek controversy. Now get some sleep! ha ha Badagnani 07:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Group D tiebreak scenario

I had the idea of using the text from the Group B tiebreak scenario to update the Group D scenario, but you beat me to it! Do you think this is as far as the "scenarios" stuff should go, or should it be summarised in the overview of the group games for each group, pinpointing the crucial moments and results? Carcharoth 15:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what's written is sufficient.--DaveOinSF 23:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for finishing off the scenarios for group E. I think I'll give the other groups a miss - hopefully they will be less complicated. Hopefully nothing incorrect slipped through for these scenarios. Carcharoth 03:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zidane about racist comments

Corriere della Sera claims Zidane told TF1 (not Canal Plus, after the interview) that Materazzis statements did not have racist content. See http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Sport/2006/07_Luglio/12/Zidane.shtml I do not have a first-hand quotation Orbifold 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a single English-language article which mentions Zidane's SECOND interview (with TF1) mentions what the Italian-language article claims.--DaveOinSF 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a problem and cannot be used to cancel a true statement. Orbifold 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's one person's statement on what was said, when no other source can be found to corroborate it.--DaveOinSF 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You told me that I lied to (on the talk page). Am I innocent or is he innocent? --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 20:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
He said to you that he only rearranged the sentences. That was a lie. He also added a statement which is now in dispute.--DaveOinSF 20:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I admit I was quick when I wrote that I had just rearranged sentences, because I did many changes in these days. I did not remember I inserted that comment in that occasion (I do not even remember it was the first time). But I do not think I deserve the accusation of lying for that. I think that it is unfair. Second, this user now admits that the statement is in dispute. But he just deleted it outright. He did not admit earlier that the statement was in dispute. he just deleted it several times. If one is interested in the truth, one leaves the statement, with the source and adds that it is dispute. One does not cancel a claim that is based on a newpaper article and a video interview. Deleting the statement outright is unfair too. My claim is that Zidane told TF1 that Materazzi did not make racist statements. He answers "no" to the interviewer's question and "yes" to the question if they were family insults. That point of the interview is quick but clear enough. And anyway, discussing the point is better than deleting it outright. Orbifold 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported information does not belong on the main page, but I agree that discussing it is important. That is why I've included a section on the TF1 interview on the Talk page, so the community can determine whether a single Italian source merits equal time as the hundreds of French and English sources which discuss the same interview but do not contain that piece of information--DaveOinSF 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the TF1 video tape is not a source for you? You admit you could not play it, so it is not a source for you? Now you claim that there is only an Italian newspaper? You did not read my mails about the TF1 source? Funny. Orbifold 21:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet been able to listen to the interview myself. Irregardless of that, my interpretation (and attempted translation, given my French is not perfect) of what was said in it would be original research. And what you say is said in that interview does not qualify as a reliable source either. So no, the video is not a source. If there is supporting information from reliable sources (not just a single Italian paper) who have seen and understand the interview, then you are probably correct. Every reliable source (once again, you don't count as a reliable source) I've seen who has seen the Zidane interviews says Zidane wasn't asked the question in the Canal+ interview, and is silent on the subject with regards to the TF1 interview.--DaveOinSF 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The TF1 video is a good source. Can be played, linked, watched, etc. The best source and corroboration. Orbifold 22:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But please check if:

  • Your computer can play the video (the video requires Microsoft Windows Media Player),
  • Your parental controls are effective, or
  • Your browser can meet their website requirements.

Thanks! --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zidane headings

What do you mean "too many headings"? Too many for what? I don't want to get into a revert war so I'm not touching it, but I personally think you should change it back to the way it was.

Reasons why you shouldn't do what you did: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Markup. Reply here if you have comments. Canadiana 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ramon fonst

can you make a page for ramon fonst please ? --62.215.3.53 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move: San Francisco, California -> San Francisco

Please vote at Talk:San Francisco, California. Thanks. --Serge 18:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving San Francisco, California

Dave, thank you very much for chipping in to help on the SF article. You'll note that I just trimmed one of your edits a bit. The reason is that I am working on improving the article for another FA submission, and looking at the FA and Peer Review pages of articles that have made it, it looks like somewhere in the neighborhood of 50K is the maximum size. Thus, the SF article does not need more content, it needs chopping. Actually, it needs A LOT of chopping because some of the suggestions on the Peer Review page are quite good and point out omissions that we will need to fill in... things like the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges, Harvey Milk, the Presideo, etc. There are still a lot of lists in the article (whether in actual list form or paragraphs that are just lists [see esp. the Media section]), and I'll start cutting out some of it pretty soon. Our other glaring deficiency is in references and citations. Thanks again for the help! --Paul 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of chopping is necessary. With regards to that section you are referring to, I think that San Francisco is used for pre-Broadway runs of future shows is actually fairly noteworthy and of more importance than keeping the list of theatre names which I added.--DaveOinSF 01:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you want to do about this?

Culture and contemporary life is in need of references, throughout. Way too much emphasis on counterculture and alternate lifestyles, not enough about the thriving business community. Paints SF as unidimensional.

I somewhat agree with the criticism and think we have to be careful not to overdo the beatnick/hippie/gaymecca angle. I can take a crack at it, but not until this evening.--Paul 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it could use improvement, but I don't think it's that bad. It might be more an issue of sequence. The first, third, fourth paras focus on wealth. The second and sixth on gays/counterculture. The fifth on politics. Resort some of those, add in some boilerplate about thriving business culture and we'd see a big difference. Adding issues of income disparity and crime in this section might also be appropriate.--DaveOinSF 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I got some feedback from one of the folks who opposed the previous FA nomination. Look here: User Talk:Paul.h San Francisco 2 --Paul 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding fitness. You win. (of course, you also found a place it fits!)--Paul 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that using SF for Broadway show tryouts is notable? First: it places SF in a subsidary role to NYC, second: it's not that special, they do the same thing in Darien, CT, and third: someone could ask for a cite. Just some things to think about. --Paul 15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a pretty good example of the type of photo we need for the citybox San Francisco from the Marin Headlands--Paul 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This afternoon I found myself almost in the right place at almost the right time, with almost the right camera. Results are Image:SF From Marin Highlands2.jpg and Image:San Francisco from Marin Hi.jpg (both from the same frame). I have other frames to play with that might (or might not) turn out better. Let me know what you think.--Paul 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not so good as the lead picture, here's another one that is a bit better: Image:SF From Marin Highlands3.jpg, and cropped even a bit tighter Image:SF From Marin Highlands5.jpg--Paul 02:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago

Hi Dave,

I noticed your vehement editing of San Francisco's article lately. I was wondering, after you are finished with San Francisco, if you'd be willing to check over Chicago, including the two items that are left on the to-do list. The article could use some fresh eyes. Thank you in advance! --Un sogno modesto 07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'll check over there when I have a chance...probably spent more time on SF than I should have.--DaveOinSF 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SF for FA

Since its first failed FA nomination (Discussion here), this article has undergone a massive rewrite and reorganization (Article as it appeared on June 30, 2006). With close to 1,000 edits since the peer review process was started, we have incorporated new ideas and responded to suggestions made by other Wikipedians (Discussion here).

We are aware that there may be concerns about the article's size of 81K. Certainly, we wish to abide by the spirit of Wikipedia:Article length, which expresses concern about articles with greater than 32K-50K or 6000-10000 words of "readable prose". By our estimation, our article has 39K of "readable prose" and 6250 words. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica entry on San Francisco contains 6800 words. Also, compare our article to the three Featured Articles on major American cities:

Wikipedia Article Total size "readable prose" # Words
Seattle, Washington 83K 49K 7800
Detroit, Michigan 69K 40K 6300
San Francisco, California 81K 39K 6250
Boston, Massachusetts 59K 37K 5900

The relatively high Total size stems from our effort for thorough in-line referencing, which has added very substantially to the overall stored length. We feel than an article on San Francisco, California that fairly and comprehensively takes into account the many aspects of the history, culture, and life of the internationally known city of San Francisco would be difficult to execute in less space. We hope we have prepared an article on San Francisco, California that will gain your support for featured article status.--DaveOinSF 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've finished upgrading all of the references with authors and publication dates. I also updated the peer review project page with all of our changes. I think it's ready for another nomination. Why don't we get someone to proofread it? --Paul 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Do you have anyone in mind? As you can see, I began preparing a draft for our argument when we submit it for FA that I think we should use, at least in part. Thanks for all the hard work!--DaveOinSF 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've asked a few folks to take a look at the article. I hope we will get some feedback tomorrow.--Paul 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
One editor has left a comment on my talk page.--Paul 15:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
There is only one editor I am still expecting feedback from... User:Taxman.[1] Let's see if he finds someone willing to copyedit & see what he has to say. Then, I say let's resubmit the FA.--Paul 15:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Submit it at your convenience. Today would be good (start of the week and all...).--DaveOinSF 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York City. I actually think the NYC article is pretty good... not as good as SF is now, but very solid. --Paul 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should include some comment about having 6200 words and 39K of "readable prose", as per Wikipedia:Article size? Maybe just update with that information if we get challenged on it.--DaveOinSF 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, under the guidlines suggested by Wikipedia:Article size (6,000 to 10,000 words, and 32Kb to 50Kb of prose) we are fine. Perhaps we should rewrite the FA submission to use these more accurate guidelines and measures to forestall any well-meaning but misguided size commentary. --Paul 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead if you want to. I don't know if I'll have the time to sort it out until late tonight.--DaveOinSF 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

More feedback received; take a look at the bottom of the peer review page. I'll take the income distribution and climate, but won't have time until this evening. Think we might take this one last chance at looking for things to cut, also. --Paul 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will work on crime, and move it and the whole poverty/homelessness thing into demographics, where it will work well with income and income distribution. I don't think we should completely remove the high cost-of-living stuff from culture though, but maybe emphasize the cultural aspect of it (whatever that means...).--DaveOinSF 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added the income data. Have time to look at it & edit? I think we are done. I certainly have spent way more time on this that I should have!!! --Paul 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. I will do some editing on it, although I'm a little concerned that some of the data you found is for the metropolitan area, not the city. I might do some digging for SF-specific data. After I'm done, I'll do my "readable prose" calculation again. It might be less, considering how much I chopped from neighborhoods. Feel free to submit for FA tomorrow.--DaveOinSF 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I found income data for SF County & it was higher than the MSA, so the results are the same. If you look at the BEA reference, it says they have the data for 3,118 (or thereabouts) counties. That might work if you want SF-only data. Time for some dinner.--Paul 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the most recent data from the BEA, SF per capita personal income is $57,997 which is #12 (better than 99.7) out of 3,163 U.S. Counties for which the data is calculated. (Single Line -> CA1-3 -> Per Capita Personal Income) --Paul 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Readable prose and word count for SF are accurate as of September 5, 10:20PM PDT.--DaveOinSF 05:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A toast to San Francisco, the best city in the world, and the subject of Wikipedia's newest FEATURED ARTICLE!!!
A toast to San Francisco, the best city in the world, and the subject of Wikipedia's newest FEATURED ARTICLE!!!

Congratulations!

Since I made the [co]-FA nomination, why don't you do the honors on the front page nomination? --Paul 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just added it to the requests page. I also brought it to the attention of the WP:0.5 folks that it had passed FA, so it will likely be included....--DaveOinSF 03:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! A "be-in"! It has been a LONG TIME since I've heard about that. That's even more "Hippie" than the Greatful Dead, if such a thing is possible!!! --Paul 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh...if you can think of something else from that era, that would be great. Unfortunately it's recent enough that most photos are probably copyright, so we'd need a decent fair use rationale. Turns out the Dead image is of unknown provenance, so it had to go, period.--DaveOinSF 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Take a look at photo #32. They also have a copy of the Genthe print, but it looks in worse shape than the U Cal one.--Paul 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very cool photo. Unfortunately, I don't think we can use it. It doesn't say who the copyright holder and it says we need permission from the library to use it. The current WWII photo is OK to use since it was taken by the military and therefore public domain. The Genthe print is so old that copyright's expired no matter where it comes from. In any case, I don't think the SFLibrary photo is OK to just copy and upload... --DaveOinSF 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a way to look at copyright holder info & if someone holds the copyright, it is shown in the holding detail. For all images where there is no copyright holder (about 22,000) the library says you need their permission to use the photo. Very weird, but that is what they are claiming. If we find a photo we really want to use, it's worth a phone call, I suppose.--Paul 00:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you think of this (Image:Sfbaybridge at night.jpg) for the infobox picture?? --Paul 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the one we're using in the Transportation section, I think. I actually think I like the painted ladies better (maybe I've just gotten so used to it...) In any case, the painted ladies photo is of very high resolution and if we replace it, it should be at least the same size. I played around with some alternative photo layout here: User:DaveOinSF/Drafts --DaveOinSF 04:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genthe Earthquake Pic

--Paul 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I don't know if they'd technically forbid you from copying it or not. In any case, maybe Genthe 2 might be slightly better, although worse resolution. I think the perfect revenge for us is to create a new article As I Remember and get it to FA status... Come to think of it, I think I'll start it right now... --DaveOinSF 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Mistake. For some reason I got into my head that the photo had a name. Didn't realize that was the name of the book. Help me out here...what is a better title?--DaveOinSF 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You want to do an article on the photograph? Hmmm, need to think about that. How about this for a title? Looking Down Sacramento Street, San Francisco: April 18, 1906? It might be easier to get the Genthe article to FA status. On the reproduction rights, given this Arnold Genthe Collection Rights and Restrictions Information I think we would be okay in reproducing a print made from the lantern slide, but who knows what the quality would be like? I'm tempted to find out, though. --Paul 01:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's very intriguing. Didn't think it would be so possible... We should do it...I'll chip in $25 to get a reproduction. Still think doing an article on the picture and getting it to FA would be cool.--DaveOinSF 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
One print is: $14 (research fee) $25 (print) $12 (shipping) = $51 / 2 = $25.50
Two prints  : $14 (research fee) $50 (prints) $17 (shipping) = $81 / 2 = $40.50
I've got the order form, and can fax it tonight.--Paul 02:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose if we only got one we'd be fighting over who got to keep it....I guess I can spring for $40.--DaveOinSF 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I faxed off the order form last night. Hope I cut & pasted the catalog # correctly! Speaking of fun articles, maybe an article on "April 18, 1906" would fit the bill. You couldn't research it on line though. Copies of the NYTimes and the Times of London for April 19th would be available. I wonder if it would be regarded as original research? --Paul 19:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be a difficult article to pull off...you'd have to include everything that happened that day. Did anything notable other than the earthquake happen that day?--DaveOinSF 01:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably nothing "notable" but something must have happened, something always happens. There is probably enough material to do a good job of describing what happened in Northern California on that day. The fun part would be filling in with other national and world events. You could start at the Greenwich meridian and follow around the globe until you got back. The game would be to see how many wikilinks you could cram into the article.--Paul 01:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Got a FedEx package from the Library of Congress today. I think we are in pretty good shape, I'll be trying something this evening. Where would you like your package sent?--Paul 21:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool!...I don't know if I want to post my address or anything on here. Any chance we can just meet up at some point over the weekend?--DaveOinSF 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this upcoming weekend would be very difficult. You can e-mail me from my user page (link in box to left), or we can just wait until the 30th. Up to you.--Paul 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
OK that's fine. I'll send you an email with my address.--DaveOinSF 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, how's it look? If you think it'll be an improvement, I'm going to withdraw and close the FP nominatin.--DaveOinSF 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You might as well withdraw and close it. It's seems clear that it isn't going to pass. The LoC version is better, with excellent tonal range and more detail, but it isn't defect-free; there are some faint scratches and blotches (some of them are visible on the digital version we have now, so they must have been on the negative). Of course, the defects aren't digital artifacts! I have a $100 Epson scanner. I'll try it tonight and upload the results.--Paul 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is my first second try. What do you think? Image:San Francisco Fire Sacramento Street 1906-04-18.jpg Levels have been adjusted (by eye to increase the brightness over what the scanner did on its own, and a tiny bit of sharpening was applied after the image was downsized. Note the ashes and debris in the air that you couldn't see before (maybe this is just crud on the original slide).--Paul 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
just sent you an email with my address. I'll hold off on judging this until I can see the original print. I like the brightness, but there does seem to be a lot of crud. --DaveOinSF 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Got it. will send return email w/address. It is possible to get rid a lot of the crud with the Photoshop clone tool. I worked on a version some this morning. I'll probably upload a new version later this week.--Paul 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

--Paul 19:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

Hi. The article on HIV is currently on FAC review. One of the issues that has arisen is the need for a copyedit. User:Paul.h suggested that you might be willing to have look over it as it does need a pair of fresh eyes. It's a really important article that we want to ride on WP's reach into the developed and developing worlds, and a linguistic edit is required, so don't be put off by the medical content. Your fresh eyes would be of great value at this mature stage of the FAC process. Thanks. --Bob 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

What do you mean, not comfortable? It would have passed last time, even without your edits, if Raul hadn't closed it for no apparent reason. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding teh City Slickers problem, teh reason it looks strange is because the artuicle has been edited so much it has lost it's original meaning. Jake's first film was City Slickers at the age of eleven in 1991. His parents then didn't let him appear in any other films that his father wasn't directing with the exception of Josh and S.A.M. in 1994 until 1999 when he appeared in october Sky while at college. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The article is a work in progress. It's good, but still needs work to go from borderline FA to slam dunk case. Please withdraw the nomination until all editors agree it's time to resubmit it again.--DaveOinSF 23:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holland Series

Hello Dave, Can you please tell me why the Holland Series results are not necessary in the article 2006 in baseball compared to tons of MLB results every day? I think every final series deciding which team clinches the national title in any country is notable enough to be placed there among MLB results and information. It's baseball in 2006, not MLB in 2006. You want to know what happened on that single day in baseball? Well that's what happened, then please do not delete it, cheers.... SportsAddicted 10:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If the series is over, by all means add the result to the page. I didn't say the Holland Series results are "not necessary". Just the results of EVERY SINGLE GAME of the series are not necessary. I would oppose someone listing the results of every single game of the MLB playoffs as well. I think you are reading something in my comments that I did not put there.--DaveOinSF 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And this is quite ironic, considering that I created the Honkbal Hoofdklasse, Neptunus pages in the first place, and am a significant editer for the Netherlands national baseball team page.--DaveOinSF 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL, no offense really, glad you once started the Honkbal Hoodklasse etc. I see your point not to include every single play-off match, but as these are the main series I thought they were interesting enough to include. I'm quite sure there will be notes on every single World Series match to be played in late October. Anyways, this is just my 2 cents. SportsAddicted 18:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Argument can be made that every WS game should be mentioned ... I'd oppose it but I'd probably be shouted down. In any case, no offense, but the Holland Series is NOT as notable as the WS is. While I'm happy that they're there playing the game, there is no comparison in level of talent. When the series is over, summarize the series on the date it's clinched and remove the individual games. That's my 2c.--DaveOinSF 19:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] +license

Image:Conoco Steam Reformation Plant.jpg NREL is a contract company with its own license rights, so images are not automatic in the public domain, i removed the license. reg. Mion 10:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BBBCoverSmall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BBBCoverSmall.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jake FA

I notice you haven't edited Jake since the 29th. You "proud" of Jake yet? :)

I apologise for getting so irritated, but it's very annoying to be constantly told that the article is nowhere near FA standard when 4 supports somewhat implies others disagree. You saw the previous FAC, no-one could agree on what should and shouldn't be there, and in your edits you've not only put back what others wanted taken out, other people have reverted you! It's wildly frustrating, and I really, really believe in Wikipedia, but it's so gorram difficult dealing with people who actively want to fail articles to "maintain standards". Dev920 (Tory?) 12:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Given your lack of reply, I will renom on the 1st of November. That gives you a month to edit an article you're "proud" of. Dev920 (Tory?) 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on participation on another Featured Article! Hungarian Revolution made it this morning. Nothing from the Library of Congress yet.--Paul 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, forgot to tell you: Jake was promoted on the 9th October, with 4-0 support. I guess I won't to renom anymore now, huh. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Mark Twain as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Mark Twain was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

→AzaToth 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] they're Boston baked beans, not Boston, Massachusetts baked beans.

ROTFLOL!

Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco, California treat! --Serge 03:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. settlements convention survey

You posted non-neutral requests for participation in the survey on dozens of city talk pages. I don't want to get into 40 different discussions, but it was inappropriate of you to spam pages with a particular viepoint. I've posted a sentence of rebuttal to explain the other side of the issue in order to make the request for participation more neutral. In the future let's keep the advocacy to the actual discussion. -Will Beback 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas, Texas article pictures

Do you mind revisiting the Dallas, Texas page and letting me know exactly which images are low quality? The only ones I see that are blatantly poorly composed/low quality are this one and this one. drumguy8800 C T 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Those two are pretty bad, especially in the small size used on the page. I would add the following:
These two both have blown skies:
three
four
In the other two photos in Cityscape, either the main subject or a large fraction of the photo in each case is in a shadow.
five
six
It's unclear what the subject of this photo is. If it's the people, they're too small. If it's the park, the people are a distraction. In any case, its use to illustrate the climate is tenuous at best.
seven
This picture is slanted. And not in a way that one could argue artistic license. Also too dark.
eight
Additionally, there are two essentially redundant downtown-skyline-with-a-blue-sky-a-row-of-trees-and-a-green-grass-foreground photos, one is in the infobox, the second is in "Architecture". Pick the better of the two and remove the second.
These are my observations.--DaveOinSF 15:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin

Hi, DaveOinSF! I´ve seen you are a city expert. You are very welcome to comment on this city-article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Berlin/archive1. Is it already mature enough to promote it towards FA-candidate-procedure? Thanks for the assessment! Lear 21 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Fran

You may have noticed I went to protect and saw another admin had unprotected it complaining about KOS who had protected it just a wee while before that.

Your comment was all I needed, now protected and I have had a bit of a bitch here - please feel free to add your thoughts below it. Thanks mate,  Glen  19:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The main Page FA is never semiprotected for very long. No, I could not stay oon my computer for hours reverting vandalism, but the rules are very explicit that Main Page FAs Are not protected indefinitely. We also don't want to discourage new contributors. Please be civil and don't take out your anger on others. —Cuiviénen 16:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dave, you might want to watch this discussion: talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles#Suggestion--Paul 18:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

In light of the above and the general comments about FA protection, and your apparent dedication to the project, I'd be very interested in nominating you for adminship. I'm being serious here; although you initally acted angrily (but I wouldn't say uncivilly), you have turned this into a positive and workable contribution to policy; the reporting at ANI idea is an excellent one.

So how about it? It's up to you and I warn you that at 8 months and 2037 edits, a few people may see you as being a bit inexperienced - it might be better for you to ignore this, gain more experience, and run in 6 months time or so (paritcularly, some editors would pick up on 78 user talk, 185 talk and 132 Wikipedia space edits). Equally, though, some decent answers to a few questions etc and you might stand a chance.

So it's up to you. I'd happily nom and I'd do by best to make it a good nomination. But I couldn't gauruntee that you'd pass either... --Robdurbar 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration, but I'll decline at this point. I honestly don't think I am able to devote the effort to adminship at this stage, though that may change. I apologize for not keeping my temper in check at some points in this process, but I do want to see some change happen as a result of this. --DaveOinSF 02:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Gold Rush FAC

Thank you for your useful and constructive comments about the California Gold Rush FAC. I believe (hope) that your concerns have been addressed. If you would be kind enough to return to that article's FAC page, and post any further thoughts you have, that would be much appreciated. NorCalHistory 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for chiming in on the pounds/kilograms conversion question. The secondary source I was using does not differentiate whether is it avoirdupois pounds or troy pounds - there is one more source I can check to see if there is further clarification. Either way, I'm going to suggest that we list the result of one conversion method (troy pounds to kilograms) and footnote the other conversion method (avoirdupois pounds to kilograms). Given that this information is from the mid-1800s, it may be impossible to know for sure which system of measurement was used, so I'd suggest listing them both!
PS: I think that we have addressed each of your original comments on the article. Would you be kind enough to re-read the article, and if you have further concerns, you can let me know here, or, of course, on the FAC comment page. If your concerns have been addressed, an update to your comment would be appreciated! NorCalHistory 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent assistance on this article - your comments were very important in its achieving FA status. Thank you! NorCalHistory 15:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio Wesleyan University

Dear DaveOinSF,

I recently nominated the Ohio Wesleyan University page and I noticed that you were active in various FAC candidacies. Could you please provide me with some feedback on how you think the article might be improved? I really appreciate your time! WikiprojectOWU 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bath -> Bath (city)

I have no reason to believe it was not done in good faith, but they ended up going with a minority preference over a choice supported by a majority. Check it out. --Serge 17:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 50 States Flag

Your 50 States flag.PNG is terrific—is there a way to use it with a white background (cf. USA.flagmap.jpg) instead of black? Thanks. Athænara ✉ 00:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscone-Milk assassinations

Hey, Dave, Happy New Year. There's an incorrectly titled article at WP:PR (they may change the title, so I won't link directly) - can you look in on it there? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject San Francisco

I just created a WikiProject for San Francisco and I would be very happy if you would be able to join the project. Please tell anybody you know who might like this to join and it needs a lot of work right now so I would be very happy if you helped. If you join, put your name down as an administrator and maybe we can talk about this project a little more. Thanks --Gndawydiak 05:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty

I know this is kind of stupid but I created a treaty between each other to stop this editing war and I would like you to be a third-party to see that everything works out ok. It's pretty well explained on the page and its on a subpage of my user page and here the link. User:Gndawydiak/Treaty for Gndawydiak and Nightstallion. I hope you can help out. --Gndawydiak 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 12:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, they are helpful. If you have the time please edit the article. I would love to see it featured and will continue to crunch numbers and generate accurate data from the various reports & books. I need some help with the prose. In my engineering studies I worked hard to learn how to count and my ability to write suffered commensurably. Frank van Mierlo 04:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fauna in US

thanks for coming in on the CFD on fauna in the US by state. i completely agree that we shouldn't just willy-nilly eliminate the state classifications without a better classification system to replace. per request i tried to draft one; hope you'll comment on whether it's good or bad, or make other suggestions. thanks, --lquilter 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: San Francisco Bay Area filmmaking community

Hi. I was just wondering why you scrubbed the mention of the very noteworthy SF filmmaking community from the SF page (particularly when you have lesser known old paper media mentioned). Also -- you say you moved it but I don't see where you moved it. Surely it is an important part of SF history and culture and deserves a mention on the SF page and other pages. - Donteatyellowsnow

The content you added was disproportionate to the article and did not focus on San Francisco, but rather to the bay area. A added a sentence about the filmmaking industry to the "Economy" section of the article.--DaveOinSF 06:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed your edits to various San Francisco articles and the recent (minor) correction to Hollywood North. It would be helpful to have some fresh input on the Hollywood North article from someone who clearly cannot be accused of having an anti-American agenda. From what I've seen of your editing and your user/talk pages, your comments may be very helpful and provide a new perspective. The article had been the subject of a Request for Comment which, unfortunately, did not garner much attention. Agent 86 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This person above didn't just "notice" the edits, this Agent86 has been stalking me, following my every move and deleting material that I have edited. "Agent86" found you by looking at my contribs page. Don't be fooled into thinking these people are objective. They have been harassing me and gaming the system. This is yet another attempt to do that. Sorry that they are trying to drag you into it. Best, - Donteatyellowsnow
  • Dave, feel free to decline my invitation. It was sincerely put forth to try to find someone acceptable to DEYS to help resolve the content disputes. You're more than welcome to view my edit history in this regard if you have any doubts about my desire to resolve the issue. Agent 86 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jumpaclass

This is an invitation to use WP:BAY's Jumpaclass option for improving articles. If you're working on any Bay Area-related stub, start, or B-class articles, simply add their names to the list, and if any of the articles improve a class within a week, you'll be recognized for your contributions. Thanks for reading! — Emiellaiendiay 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typos

Could you please reedit the 2006_Major_League_Baseball_season#Entry_into_the_top_500 section which does not currently make much sense. It was a good contibution, but I think you may have rushed through it a bit. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Oakland.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oakland.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Humanbein-p.jpg

Hello, DaveOinSF. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Humanbein-p.jpg) was found at the following location: User:DaveOinSF/Drafts. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS!Cholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs 01:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Caen.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Caen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP meetup

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup 3
  Date: September 16th, 2007
  Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
  San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sonoma County Airport Logo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sonoma County Airport Logo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of museums in San Francisco

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of museums in San Francisco, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of museums in San Francisco. Ben Boldt (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Baseball canada.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Baseball canada.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Knbsb1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Knbsb1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SanMarinoBaseball.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SanMarinoBaseball.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Australiabaseballfederation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Australiabaseballfederation.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FCBA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FCBA.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Femebe.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Femebe.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fibs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fibs.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article review of San Francisco, California

San Francisco, California has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)