User talk:PAVA11/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
January 2009
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter
 Issue XIV - January 2009 | ||
|
Welcome to the latest issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter! I hope that you're enjoying regular updates about the goings on of college football on Wikipedia, but if not, feel free to add your name to the "no delivery" section on the newsletter signup page. I encourage everyone to make regular visits to the College Football Portal and perhaps make it your Wikipedia entry page instead of using the Main Page as your gateway. Nominations for selected articles and pictures are always welcome, and can serve as a great way to show off that new article you just shepherded to Good Article status or the great picture you took the last time you were at a game. Comments and suggestions on improving the newsletter are always welcome, and help me improve it on a monthly basis. Keep contributing and editing, and don't hesitate to contact me or post on the College Football Wikiproject talk page if you need help or just want someone to look over your article. | |
| ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is still 8 days premature. If you disagree, let's discuss it on the talk page.--chaser - t 02:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. What? It's not going to happen? Grsz11 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obama's Presidency hasn't started yet because Obama has not been sworn in yet. That's why it was originally changed to a redirect some time ago, why Obama Cabinet was changed into a redirect, and why everything has gone into the transition article. Having volunteered for his campaign, I understand the enthusiasm, but it's impossible to have a Presidency until one has actually assumed the office.--chaser - t 06:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a future event, we have thousands of articles for future events. We don't not create an article simply because something hasn't occured yet (2028 Summer Olympics). Grsz11 13:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obama's Presidency hasn't started yet because Obama has not been sworn in yet. That's why it was originally changed to a redirect some time ago, why Obama Cabinet was changed into a redirect, and why everything has gone into the transition article. Having volunteered for his campaign, I understand the enthusiasm, but it's impossible to have a Presidency until one has actually assumed the office.--chaser - t 06:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Michael_Z._Williamson
It is still listed here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_14#Michael_Z._Williamson I wonder why? I removed my message on the user's talk page. Thanks for letting me know about this. Best wishes, and have a great evening. travb (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Super Bowl XLIII
Do you ever realize that Canada, Mexico and Latin America are part of North America? Hence the "Other North American Broadcasts" header that you erased. In the past, we have seperated USA and Other North American broadcasts from the International (AUS, EUR, Asia) in Super Bowl entries. And next time, refer to the civility pages on Wikipedia, otherwise I might report you for behavior. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:23 PM US EST Jan 17 2009.
- I've done nothing wrong, just trying to get your attention. "Other North American" countries are international, and it's pointless to break up a two paragraph section into two one-paragraph sections. Grsz11 03:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Uncivil": "Do you know what a talk page is?" And as for the international part on Canada, Latin America and Mexico, I do not say that they are not international at all, but our neighbors. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:34 PM US EST Dec 17 2009.
- Pretty harmless question really: I hadn't seen an edit by you there in awhile. As far as your interpretation, international says "In American English, "International" is also commonly used to signify "outside of the country"'. But it's petty, really. The point is, it's stupid to extend the table of contents with all these headers that are not needed, especially if a header is used for a single paragraph or less. Grsz11 03:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Uncivil": "Do you know what a talk page is?" And as for the international part on Canada, Latin America and Mexico, I do not say that they are not international at all, but our neighbors. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:34 PM US EST Dec 17 2009.
Welcome templates
Thanks for the message. I have a couple that I have shamelessly copied from other users and customised. You will find them at User:Ukexpat/welcome1 and User:Ukexpat/welcome2. I have them set up as custom templates in Friendly which makes them easy to add to welcome pages. – ukexpat (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Request to move article Charles Lockwood (Corporate Strategist) incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Charles Lockwood (Corporate Strategist) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
- Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
- Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
- Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.
If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous IPs
Is there anything you can tell me about this anonymous IP User please?. Regards Ijanderson (talk)
How do you feel about a merge to Real-life superhero? - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Idlewild Park PR
Congratulations on the GA. Yes, I'd be happy to have another look. I suggest that you also list it at WP:PR in hopes of getting feedback from other editors as well. I've found multiple reviews to be really helpful in getting an article ready for FAC. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll add it to the article talk page under its own heading. I'm working on it this evening, but I probably won't post anything until tomorrow (Thursday). Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Article
Just remember next time you clutter someones talk space with unnecessary templates, when it says "Article" you are supposed to put the name of the article you are referring to. Lenerd (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, this was a little outta line: [1]. I know it gets asked ALL THE TIME, but unless we have clear proof otherwise, please assume that the question is being asked in earnest, and do your best to politely respond. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm just trying to improve the Obama article, no need for the attitude.--65.78.167.201 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Air and Simple Gifts
|
On January 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Air and Simple Gifts, 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. |
Dravecky (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama
The article I saw this morning said he took the oath at about 7:30 p.m. on the 20th. So it's the 20th either way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, I had it wrong. It was the 21st. [2] But his term still started at noon on the 20th. This article includes a photo. I wonder if it's public domain? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: WikiCup
It's not done like that for many reasons - it was tried at simple wikipedia but I don't think it went very well. I hope to see you in next year's contest! Garden. 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
re: Barack Obama Project
actually I know the existant because someone tagged Soetoro (father and step-sister), and Jakarta with Barack Obama project tag. I did help with Soetoro by translating some stuff from Indonesian (like Soetoro's second marriage and children). Unfortunately, I got no information on his Menteng school, though my uncle is former resident of Menteng district. I normally edit articles as I passed by. But thanks for the suggestion. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Grsz11 (err, how to spell that...?)
I just saw you adding some links to WP:OBAMA. As everybody (at least around here) is talking about the outfit of Michelle, I quickly translated my german article on St. Gallen embroidery to english. As my english is maybe not perfect to write an encyclopaedic article of reasonable quality, I'll be glad if you could crossread the article once. Thanks for the help. The best way of doing some regional advertisement ;-) --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
It is unlikely that I'm going to be able to find time to get through that article as you requested, due to pending travel and a houseguest. Two editors who are particularly helpful in that topic area are Finetooth (talk · contribs) and Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs); they each have numerous FAs and are active at Peer review, so should be able to help out. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A good idea to eliminate duplication -- but
...Although I just now tried, Grsz, to use the Template:Obama cabinet infobox as a combination child-template - slash - in-article table (to thereby perhaps allow the original "Obama Adminitration Cabinet child template" to be deleted), alas the contributor who designed the wikitable it's based on didn't buy into the idea. Sorry. ↜Just me, here, now … 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Soak Zone
It's good to get input from as many editors as possible. Since I've already done two PRs on this particular article, I hesitate to do it again. I think you'd get fresher ideas by running it through the system at WP:PR. If nobody else reviews it until it enters the backlog, I'd be happy to review it again. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Monarchies in the Americas
You're correct, essentially all the articles are exactly the same. This is mainly due to the fact that the monarchial structure has remained quite consistent throughout the smaller Commonwealth realms. Some of the pages mentioned have an "Origins" section which is separate for each page and the "history" section usually contains visits by The Queen or other members of the royal family. All references used on the respective pages are from the respective government's websites. The only problem is...most of these countries are so tiny, their government's websites aren't all that helpful. The articles do need more work though, perhaps sometime soon when I get a spare minute I can try to find some more info. Hope that helped. ;) Best, --Cameron* 11:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
re Request at Talk:LHvU
...
- I see someone else got it open - you might wish to remove the delete request (unless it has served it's purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
February
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
UCC.
I think I have found that source.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Hi. When you removed my entry about the Super Bowl party in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 article, you said it had nothing to do with the article. But the source that I cited said they receieved bailout money. Are you saying their bailout was a different bailout than the one this article is about? Because if that's the case, then you were correct to remove it from the article. If that's not what you're saying, then I think you made a mistake to remove it, because the source says they did get a bailout. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, I was saying it doesn't need to be in that article period. It's more fitting in Criticism of Bank of America. Grsz11Review 18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. The article on the bailout should explain how the bailout money is being spent. These companies pled poverty to the government, so the fact that this one is spending $10 million of bailout money on a party is very relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent has nothing to do with the article on the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. The article on the bailout should explain how the bailout money is being spent. These companies pled poverty to the government, so the fact that this one is spending $10 million of bailout money on a party is very relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent comment on my talk page: Oh. OK. Then I was partly wrong about some of your edits to other articles. However, I still maintain that the way the bailout money is being spent is extremely relevant to the article on the bailout - for you to say it's not relevant is totally wrong. Hmm. So, you created the article on Obama's presidency? Well, then, I was really, really wrong about that one. I'm sorry. By the way - in case you're wondering, I wrote in Ron Paul for President. I view Bush, McCain, and Obama as all being the same when it comes to this corporate welfare stuff, which Ron Paul and I both oppose. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disputing your proposed deletion of Bailout mentality. However, I do dispute your proposed deletion of Twanda Carlisle, and I explaned why on the article's talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think the way the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article on the bailout? Why do you continue to refuse to answer this question? Every source that I cited talked about the bailout, so how can you say it's not relevant to the bailout? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Bailout mentality article
I've removed the PROD template, I'm not sure if it needs a separate article (maybe it could be merged to Bailout), but sources are cited and it appears to be notable enough. —Snigbrook 15:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
ITN for 51st Grammy Awards
|
On 9 February, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 51st Grammy Awards, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Re any who doubts Obama's notability as a memoirist
According to New Yorker Obama was paid by his publisher and also granted a sabbatical to write about law/politics but instead concentrated on his memoir, putting all his time and effort into his writing for an extended period of time, without the services of a ghost writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmeherenow (talk • contribs)
- Everybody writes these days. It's not a profession unless it's an actually means of income. Grsz11 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
absolutely not.
I've made the apologies needed, I await Jojhutton's, and if bobblehead wasn't actually doing what Jojhutton was accusing me of, this would never have happened. Bobblehead needs a clear and blunt awareness imparted to him about the consequences of his actions. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank You
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| For coming to the rescue of a fellow editor in a bad situationJojhutton (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
I feel a bit sheepish at the moment. I just wanted to thank you for doing what you did. It would have been really easy for you to attack me as well, given our past, but the way you conducted yourself goes far beyond the call of duty. I know that we dont agree on the Obama page, but you are true first class stand up person.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
RE:Idlewild Park
Perhaps. I'd have to take a thorough review of it again, though. BuddingJournalist 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter
|
Issue XV - February 2009 | ||
|
Welcome to the latest issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter! I hope that you're enjoying regular updates about the goings on of college football on Wikipedia, but if not, feel free to add your name to the "no delivery" section on the newsletter signup page. I encourage everyone to make regular visits to the College Football Portal and perhaps make it your Wikipedia entry page instead of using the Main Page as your gateway. Nominations for selected articles and pictures are always welcome, and can serve as a great way to show off that new article you just shepherded to Good Article status or the great picture you took the last time you were at a game. Comments and suggestions on improving the newsletter are always welcome, and help me improve it on a monthly basis. Keep contributing and editing, and don't hesitate to contact me or post on the College Football Wikiproject talk page if you need help or just want someone to look over your article. | |
| ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
This has been an automated delivery by Cbrown1023 talk 01:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Name change on de.Wikipedia
To whom it may concern, I registered de:Grsz on de.Wikipedia before global account was established. I'm posting here to confirm that that username is under my control, and that I would like to have control of de:Grsz11, as those are my edits as well.
Courtesy of freetranslation.com, because my German isn't quite good enough:
Zu den es darf angehen, ich habe de:Grsz auf de. Wikipedia registriert, bevor globales Konto eingerichtet wurde. Ich stelle hier auf, das zu bestätigen ist Benutzername unter meiner Steuerung, und dass ich Steuerung von de:Grsz11, haben möchte, als die meine Änderungen ebenso sind. Grsz11 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi! I've just renamed the User:Grsz11 so you could usurp the account at de.wp now. Regards, — YourEyesOnly (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Petersen House
|
|
On February 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Petersen House, 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. |
Backslash Forwardslash 21:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Petersen House
|
|
On February 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Petersen House, 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. |
Backslash Forwardslash 03:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Coaching
I've got alot on my plate at the moment, so I can't commit to a full coaching relationship (lessons, etc), but I would be willing to answer questions and give advice on request. MBisanz talk 04:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Obama
I am considering proposing a community proposed topic ban for picascu. [[3]] is the history of warnings at this talk page, all blanked. How do you feel about this? Die4Dixie (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
[[4]] Done. PLease feel free to comment.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Got your message. I mostly work on U.S. NRHP-listed places, in individual articles and list-articles. I am inclined to just fix up the disambiguation page for Carnegie libraries, as I have had some unpleasant involvement in maintaining other list-type pages, where it becomes a directory with everything getting added in. Obviously there are many Carnegie libraries, and the NRHP-listed ones and any already having articles are notable and defensible as having on a disambiguation page, while other red-links can arguably be deleted. About disambiguation pages, i have evolved in what i do, and you'll see me ensuring that there is one bluelink per NRHP entry, at least, in this one. Covering all the NRHP ones, and ensuring one bluelink per entry for them, is mainly what i mean about fixing up this one. doncram (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
re coaching
most definitely :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What does IAR mean? ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Are you on IRC, btw? Skype?
NPOV
Wikipedia NPOV policy states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." Reliable sources have reported that the banks and the government have refused to answer questions about how the banks are spending the bailout money. You keep erasing this content, in violation of the wikipedia NPOV policy. Please stop doing this. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It is a fact, not an opinion, that the head of the government agency that enforces the tax laws, did not pay his taxes. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Rinku Singh
It seems to be less than a year from the contest to the contract, so how about if I change "a year earlier" to "only months earlier"? Sounds a bit more impressive I think. Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just created this page and could use your knowledge to see if I missed anything. Thanks, Grsz11 05:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added a few other teams and early leagues to your template (AFL I, AFL II, Anthracite League) as well as the two earlist NFL teams from PA (Pottsville Maroons and Frankford Yellow Jackets). However there are some problems with the list and some criteria needs to be addressed.
1. First the "early era" needed to defined. I have it ending around WWII, because the NFL and the AFL IV pretty much became the dominate leagues around this time and game began to take on it's modern look. If you think otherwise, let me know and we'll open a discussion. I'm personally debating about rounding the date up to 1950 to accommodate the WWII NFL merger teams.
2. This list is not yet 100% accurate. Several teams from the American Association, Eastern League of Professional Football, and sevral other leagues of the 1920's have yet to to be added. I'm sort of researching them now, but it will take a little while before I have the listing complete.
Otherwise the list looks great and it's long over due.
I'll work more on it later. As for now, I have to read why the Pens fired Michel Therrien. This looks to be Scotty Bowman fiasco of the Crosby era. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Rinku Singh
|
|
On February 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rinku Singh, 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. |
--Dravecky (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Ratttso
[[5]] has bee editing the user page for ratttso, might want to keep an eye on this user. He has said he is a computer science teacher and can evade blocks, I imagine he has been blocked before. I don´t have the patience for him now.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK problem
Hello! Your submission of John Sutton Hall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gary King (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a fact, not an opinion
On my talk page, you just wrote, "And please stop edit warring your opinion into the articles, again."
You are wrong.
It is a fact, not an "opinion," that Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 less than five days after Congress voted for it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a fact that he promised to wait 5 days until signing any bills. It's also a fact that he only waited 4 days to sign it. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- If this bill is an emergency, then why did he take a vacation and wait 4 days to sign it? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
RfA thanks
 | Sabre (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC) |
Bailout mentality
Hi.
Recently, someone else also nominated Bailout mentality for deletion, and I did not object. But later, someone else objected, and they stopped it from being deleted. You can delete it if you want - it's one of the worst articles I ever wrote. I had thought the term might gain more widespread usage, but I turned out to be wrong. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha! I now see it was you who nominated it last time too. Well, better luck this time! I won't object. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Timo Pielmeier
I brought the question to WP:HOCKEY/TALK to inquire about him. I would think that his playing in the DEL would have been brought up as a claim for his notability when the original AFD was being discussed, but it was not. I'll gladly hold off until that query is answered. -Pparazorback (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Eileen Gilsan
Why did you want to delete? She meets WP:PROF on the basis of her elected national role in the organization. Please reply on my talk p., not here. 19:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)DGG (talk)
DYK for Carnegie Library of Homestead
|
|
On February 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carnegie Library of Homestead, 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. |
Gatoclass (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Idlewild
As long as the source of the figure is given, it should be fine. The hardest part is deciding where to put it. I would try to work it into the section on the recent sale. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Josh Gibson Field
|
|
On February 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Josh Gibson Field, 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
W-B/S
It says the feature is now discontinued. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like your opinion on 71.114.8.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since I see that you reverted his rant once after I had done it twice already. That is, is there any problem with continually reverting his soapboxing? Normally I don't mess with stuff like that, but the ACORN stuff strikes me as a potential BLP violation, and as such, 3RR would not apply. What say you? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Kenzie Marie Houk murder
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kenzie Marie Houk murder, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- WP:NOT#NEWS; no indication that this particular incident will have any sort of lasting impact.
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.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. §FreeRangeFrog 04:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for John Sutton Hall
|
|
On February 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Sutton Hall, 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. |
--Dravecky (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Additional information needed required to progress this case Mayalld (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: the case already contains a link to the previous case. Investigating a sockpuppet allegation is a laborious and time consuming task at the best of times. In the absence of specific details of what makes you suspect that socking is going on, including page diffs, it becomes near impossible. Just saying look at the contributions isn't enough. That means that the clerk/admin has to wade through hundreds of contributions looking for evidence, which is going to take many hours. All that we ask is that you spend 10 minutes finding some specific diffs for the reviewer to look at, without which the reviewer will have to spend several hours hunting for the evidence, and that isn't a reasonable thing to ask of the reviewer. Without the diffs, the case shows no prima facie evidence of socking, and will be delisted. Mayalld (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is not nonsense. It says what volcano monitoring is and had an {{underconstruction}} tag on it. The Bobby Jindal thing is removable but still. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's nonsense. Grsz11 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The nonsense tag should only be used on a "page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". This article is none of these things. A cursory google shows the existence of volcano monitoring. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was the wrong tag, but the page was by definition, nonsense. {{db-attack}} would probably have been better. The page wasn't intended to discuss actual volcanic monitoring, it was nonsense. Grsz11 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. It's nonsense. Maybe not totally nonsense. It appears to be some kind of "in joke". But from the standpoint of wikipedia, it's nonsense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was the wrong tag, but the page was by definition, nonsense. {{db-attack}} would probably have been better. The page wasn't intended to discuss actual volcanic monitoring, it was nonsense. Grsz11 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The nonsense tag should only be used on a "page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". This article is none of these things. A cursory google shows the existence of volcano monitoring. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Indiana County Courthouse
|
|
On February 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indiana County Courthouse, 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. |
--Dravecky (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Bilateral relations
If you're going to take them to AFD, please don't do a batch nomination. While some bilateral relations aren't notable, most are, and mixing them together is unpleasant (there was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations not too long ago, and it was very clear to me that if two countries exchange embassies, they'll have notable bilateral relations. If not, maybe not, though in many cases yes (i.e. Israel-Arab Country pairs or North Korea-South Korea or such)). So if you want to go that way, please do one article = one discussion, and not 2800 articles nom'd the same day (I'll wear out my googles). Cheers, WilyD 00:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- While I disagree and would argue that they can be grouped, I don't plan on opening AFDs. Grsz11 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if you're not planning to, I suppose it don't matter much, but the grouping above certainly seemed to be a mistake, as some articles (like Ethiopia–Ireland relations were very notable, while even the titular one may not have been.) Makes sensible discussion impossible. WilyD 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Argentina–Holy See relations
I have moved this article to AFD, because I feel that a closer look is warranted. I have explained why in the nom, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Holy See relations. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral to the outcome. Aecis·(away) talk 00:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Idlewild depot.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Idlewild depot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
March
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Image deletion
Hey Peripitus, I was wondering how the FfD for Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_28#Idlewild_depot.jpg when there were 3 keeps and 3 deletes? It doesn't appear that there was any consensus to delete. User:Jappalang is very active in image-checking and supported my argument for fair-use. Grsz11 03:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- For deletion discussions of non-free images consensus is far from a nose count—I see three on the keep side (Jappalang, yourself and Ejfetters) and four on the delete side (Stifle, PhilKnight, Nyttend, JohnnyMrNinja) . I'm conscious in closing these that the weight of the arguments, as they apply to the non-free content criteria, is often far more important than the number of participants on each side. In this case the deletion assertion is largely that, as the building still exists, a free alternate could be taken so the image fails criteria #1. While it is truly asserted that the surrounds of this building now differ from what they were originally, this is true for all buildings of any significant age and so by itself is not a reason to keep a non-free image. I could not see any compelling argument as to why this image, over and above a contemporary free image of the same building, significantly increased readers understanding. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congrats on the FA star for Idlewild and Soak Zone. I know you worked hard on this, and I'm glad to see it finally made it. Kudos. Finetooth (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK
Hi. I have responded to your question at Template talk:DYK#List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent episodes regarding the reliability of TVShowsOnDVD.com. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Jerusalem
But I'm only one person... there's 6 or 7 of them! ;-) You might as well go ahead and block. I doubt anyone would protest as they haven't edited in an awful long and obviously they are just SPA's. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Please remove the numbering from your entry, and trim it to one selection per DYK/GA/FC line. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Triple Crown
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Idlewild and Soak Zone - nice free-use images from Wikimedia Commons on the article :). May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
RE:Spencer Steedley
Yes I recently put some information on his page and I was there at both of those highlights of his career and I am his cousin and that stuff is right and I can't figure out why you would delete all of that when it is all true. OK, he wanted me to put that on there so I did for him, and he is wondering why people don't believe any of the stuff I recently put on there.--Lkeever2 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Big East POY
The backbone is there, but it needs some work.
- Lead obviously needs expanded
- Pictures would be nice, shouldn't be too difficult as many went on to the NBA
- All players need a reference
- I would probably rename the "Team" column "School" or "College"
- Rename the "Source" column "Ref" or "References"
- Remove the sort feature from the Ref column
- Sort the players by their last name (See List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners)
- Add this template: {{Big East Men's Basketball Player of the Year}}
That should get you started. I'll add it to my watchlist and let you know if I think of anything else. I think Blair got ripped off this year; but quite a few analysts liked Thabeet, but head-to-head it was no match. blackngold29 05:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's one of the best single day article improvments that I've seen. Great job! I guess Pitt wanted the extra days rest for the big tourney. blackngold29 02:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Now as far as list prose goes, how much is needed? Is it okay just to say some things about the players or schools like I have so far? Grsz11 02:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- It also looks like a screwed up the sort function along the way. I'm guessing it's the coloring codes I used. How do I fix that? Grsz11 02:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, it's the merged row for the year when they were shared awards. Any clue how to deal with that? Grsz11 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Length of the lead looks decent, it would probably be good to have it on par with other similar list, but after looking at WP:COLB this might be breaking some new ground. As long as there are no major gaps, and I don't see any, it should be fine. I would move the picture of Chris Mullin up to the lead. As for the sorting, I don't think I've had to vertically merge columns like that before. You might try here (I didn't see anything skimming it, though it might be in there somewhere) and if that fails try User:SRE.K.A.L.24 he's done a ton of sports FLs; if it's not possible, I would just unmerge them. Glad the Pens got atleast one point, though I thought they were gonna pull it out there at the SO. blackngold29 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thank you! — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Barack Obama
Erm... you actually felt the need to pipe to edit warring? And sticking to your "Stephanie Holmes" article is just embarrassing. Ottre 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, your response says volumes. Grsz11 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pardon me? Ottre 18:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama Elitism
"Disparage" means the same thing as "said to offend," and does so with less words at a higher lexicon. This isn't worth an edit war, but you should revert your change. Ejnogarb (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- No. You were claiming it as a fact, which I fixed to reflect that it was an opinion ... that they were "interpreted as disparaging" comments. Grsz11 17:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- "that were interpreted as offending to" is, in fact, worse. Not only is it grammatically incorrect in this context, but it's the worst kind of being overly political correct. Read the article. He was criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike for disparaging small-town Pennsylvanians. Ejnogarb (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Professor Ayers
To say that William Ayers is "Distinguished Professor" hardly expresses a POV; instead, it states the title given to him by his university. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem by me, just trying to appease a certain POV-warrior. Perhaps you'll keep an eye on him too? Grsz11 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no edit war
Please see the discussion page, and accompanying comments with my edit. I'm only trying to improve the article.MrSpammy (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean it's appropriate. There is no "right" side of an edit war. Grsz11 03:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
invitation
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page. Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there. It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES. Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, 21:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year
|
|
On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year, 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. |
Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
International competition for baseball
I have done some searching; I just haven't gotten the time to actually pull a template and start working on it. I'm at a good resting place on my FT right now that I could look at it this evening. I'll get back to you then if that works for you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will, thanks. By the way, there's going to be a navbox in that Silver Slugger article with those lists once the topic is complete, so I'm going to take them out of the table headers since they are mostly redlinks right now. Thanks! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"Colonial Athletic Association Men's Basketball Player of the Year" article?
Hey. I saw what a good job you did to the Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year and I was wondering if you could make the same style of page for the Colonial Athletic Association? I've already made the navbox for the CAA POY (here) but there is no Wikipedia page to link it back to a main article. What do you think? Jrcla2 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Only problem is I had a heck of a time finding sources for the Big East, I can't imagine CAA would be a walk in the park. If you could find me a group of sources, I don't think it would be a problem to put together sometime next week. Grsz11 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do and get back to you whenever I get the chance. Thanks. Jrcla2 06:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay I found some sources. The most important one is this one, which on pages 11-12 has every POY listed as well as All-Conference selections. Additional websites I found regarding various CAA POYs are: Brett Blizzard; Johnny Newman; David Robinson (1) (2) (3); Jose Juan Barea; George Evans (this is a particularly interesting story). Something of interest is that Odell Hodge won the award in his freshman and senior seasons, but not during his sophomore or junior campaigns (source). It might also be interesting to note that Hodge, Robinson, and Kenny Sanders all established themselves as members of the 2000/1000 club while competing in the CAA. Let me know if you need any further assistance. Jrcla2 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's ok. By the way, after a little further research, I found out that Odell Hodge actually won CAA POY for his sophomore and redshirt senior seasons, not his true freshman and senior seasons. His true freshman season he won CAA ROY. Jrcla2 14:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks great. As I have the time I'll add to it. Thanks for starting it. Jrcla2 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do and get back to you whenever I get the chance. Thanks. Jrcla2 06:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please answer a question
Why did you threaten to block me for violating the 3 revert rule, but not make the same threat to the person with whom I was edit warring? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
My Userbox
Yes, I do think it is appropriate. It is part of who I am, and if other polemic userboxes are allowed (such as those for commies), then I should be able to use it.
-Axmann8 (Talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK possibility
I got your message yesterday but have been extremely busy in real life (as tends to happen). Sorry I haven't been able to add anything substantial to the CAA Men's Basketball Player of the Year article. I'll try to add stuff soon. Could you let me know if it makes it to the Wikipedia DYK section? That'd be cool. Thanks. Jrcla2 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Big East Conference football awards
|
|
On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Big East Conference football awards, 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. |
Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think I have Washington & Jefferson Presidents football up to 1500 characters. Thanks for the source, too. --Jwilkinsen (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Think you could take a look at the history section of Washington & Jefferson Presidents football? There was a LOT of material for me to use, and I was wondering if you could tell me whether that whole section makes sense/is well organized/is interesting enough to include.
- I will be adding a "Lore" section and maybe some other sections. Other than that, think it can make GA? --Jwilkinsen (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Man, there's no way I would be able to sift through and get page-specific citations for each fact in that section. A lot of those sentences in there are summaries of maybe 2-3 pages and might contain bits from other pages. I did, however, cite it to the proper chapter within the book. That wouldn't be enough, huh? Either way, I stand behind everything in there, as I took scrupulous notes at User:Jwilkinsen/foosball2 to make sure I got everything right. --Jwilkinsen (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
tourney
survive and advance, this is the wake up call they needed...I hopeCrazyPaco (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
ugh, all I can say is that this will take a while to get over. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you revert some of my changes. Please be aware that those changes are made to satisfy User:SRE.K.A.L.24's comments, so it would be great for you to explain your revert to him on the FLC page. Thanks—Chris! ct 23:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Got it, I must have missed that. But I still stand by the revert, as explained in the edit summary, and I'll drop him a message. Grsz11 23:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama
No problem, I thought the same thing but thought "eh what the hell, let it stay." But yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing it go. Soxwon (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Insults.
Can you please show where I attacked and insulted an editor today? I have gone out of my way not to even when called mean names and having my discussions deleted. I really resent that you would accuse me of that when I have gone so far to not personally insult anyone. I hope that you said something to the people who called me "stupid" "lunatic" "lusting" and to whom I made chose not to insult in kind. thank you.
P.S. Thanks for mentioning the greenlight for the upload process. I am busy, but I will if no one else does, I will some time this week. Thanks again. JohnHistory (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Also, trust me if I personally insulted someone I would be blocked. They pounce on me like a mob. Yet, they and others are apparently free to wantonly and personally insult me at will. JohnHistory (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
(On your follow up at my Talk) Excuse me sir, did you read what you referenced? I never accused any person of bias, I said the photos are baised (biased towards showing Obama with Republicans) That is in no way shape or form a personal insult sir! I don't know how you could make such an error? JohnHistory (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
In fact, you calling me a "liar" is a personal insult and I'm getting quite amazed at this process. Please do not call me a "liar". Saying the photos have a bias is not a personal insult to an editor. I never blamed any person for putting them there in fact so I don't know why you are accusing me of this and even your cited passage showed no personal insulting. Please sir, do not call me a liar and in fact if there is lying going on right now it's not me as I have proven. JohnHistory (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Reconsider oppose
It's not clear what you oppose, Soxwon or my proposal.
My proposal is simply a lay person's restatement of Wikipedia principles, that important details are included and have higher priority than trivial subjects about an article.
If you are on record as opposing it, you will be opposing Wikipedia basic principles. I am not sure why such a basic and simple proposal is generating so much opposition. I hope it's not just because some people want to oppose something. Contino (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
will blocked the wrong person
In re this 3rr report [6]. redpen reverted bc s/he is stalking me. If u look I sourced the info(that was already there) of andrea dating matt. It was reverted 3 times. Thus redpen shoulda been blocked but I was. I feel will this bc will is bias. will locke the Elisabeth Hasselbeck page. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Trademark
I don't care too much about Goldfish crackers. However, please read the Wikipedia article on Trademark. We are suppposed to use it. So please put it back. If you don't, I will not insist because I don't care too much about the issue. The legal thing and lawful thing to do is to keep it there and not remove it. Contino (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Steelers in broadcasting section
You recently reverted my change to the Pittsburgh Steelers page where I broke out the list of Steelers figures in broadcasting, citing WP:SS. I happen to disagree that summary is necessary in the franchise page since the topic of this section is not necessarily relevant to the franchise as a whole. Instead, I simply created a link to new article in the "See Also" section which I feel is sufficient for the quality and usefulness of this contect. If you disagreed with my decision, I wish you would have discussed it either in the article's talk page, or with a note on my talk page, rather than simply reverting it. -- Deejayk (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
: 30 March 2009
- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
April
You took my precious
Filthy Grsz's, we hates them. rootology : Chat 04:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if this can be reinstated as a separate article? It's quite add the preliminary rounds all have subarticles while the Finals one doesn't. We can add the stats and Template:Linescore there considering the finals section at the main article uses Template:Baseballbox. –Howard the Duck 05:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I meant to completely merge the content of 2009 World Baseball Classic - Finals to the main article, but apparantly forgot after I redirected it. I don't think there was too much that it can't all be in the main (linescores, etc.). I would prefer (as I intended) to have the contents of the Finals subarticle as the Finals section of the main article, but I'm really not that set on it. Grsz11 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: TFA
Looks great. You seem to be spot-on with the scoring system. Granted, User:Raul654 (the TFA director) generally rewrites the blurbs himself, so there's no need to put too much thought into it. Very interesting article, by the way! Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how you object to the removal of the libelous phrase "including pulling a gun on Moats"? It doesn't even make contextual sense in the article. How is someones wife being jailed for an illegal u-turn relevant to either article? "Moats questioned whether race could have played a factor in the interaction due to the nature and tone of the officer's remarks to the family" inherently leads the reader to presume the officer was a racist, and therefore if you're going to add this it should be in quotes as what he actually said, in context, not what the editor who added this statement assumed he meant. This information should not be added regardless of the references until we reach an agreement on what is fair, what is being misrepresented, and what is irrelevant. Matty (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- The race comment is accurately reflected as Moat's opinion and not at issue with BLP. Grsz11 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Then where is the direct quote of him saying this? If we had the quote, I think it would be fine. And the rest? After reading through the article, the sentence on him pulling his gun needs to be improved factually, but I still don't see how some other players wife being jailed for breaking the law is relevant to anything apart from the coincidence that it was the same officer. Matty (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- How many people do you know that were jailed overnight after a traffic violation? It goes with the fact that Powell has had issues, as was the whole point it came out in the first place. Grsz11 01:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- You need a reliable source that says that. Otherwise it's OR, as I'm sure you know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Source for what, specifically? The Zach Thomas article does have sources, though I'm really not concerned about that one. Grsz11 01:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- "It goes with the fact that Powell has had issues." Your POV as best I can tell. The guy resigned. I'm not sure why you're trying to hype the incident up in these peripherally related articles. What does Moats have to do with Zach Thomas? Nada. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't need a reference for my opinion, that's all that was - it isn't in either article. Grsz11 01:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- You mean to tell me I can't object to you having an opinion? :) Have a good night. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't need a reference for my opinion, that's all that was - it isn't in either article. Grsz11 01:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- "It goes with the fact that Powell has had issues." Your POV as best I can tell. The guy resigned. I'm not sure why you're trying to hype the incident up in these peripherally related articles. What does Moats have to do with Zach Thomas? Nada. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Source for what, specifically? The Zach Thomas article does have sources, though I'm really not concerned about that one. Grsz11 01:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- You need a reliable source that says that. Otherwise it's OR, as I'm sure you know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- How many people do you know that were jailed overnight after a traffic violation? It goes with the fact that Powell has had issues, as was the whole point it came out in the first place. Grsz11 01:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Then where is the direct quote of him saying this? If we had the quote, I think it would be fine. And the rest? After reading through the article, the sentence on him pulling his gun needs to be improved factually, but I still don't see how some other players wife being jailed for breaking the law is relevant to anything apart from the coincidence that it was the same officer. Matty (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Re-addition of material removed due to BLP concerns
As a quick heads up, please do not re-insert material deleted that cites biographies of living persons policy concerns except in rare instances where the removal was done in bad faith (e.g., vandalism). Instead, the material should stay off a given page until there is clear consensus to re-add it (i.e., that it does not violate the BLP). Thanks a million, and cheers. :) --slakr\ talk / 03:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Colonial Athletic Association Men's Basketball Player of the Year
|
|
On April 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colonial Athletic Association Men's Basketball Player of the Year, 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Illegal immigration to the United States
In case you're one of those editors making snap judgements about IP anons in a misguided attempt to fight vandalism (I once ran across a guy who didn't much care whether his "anti-vandalism" actions were justified, he was trying to get his "score" up) - please review your edit to Illegal immigration in the United States. I think you'll find it was misguided. If you have any questions, please bring them up in the article talk page. I'd be happy to discuss them with you.-166.196.235.104 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia, but being an IP anon, even an IP anon whose IP changes frequently, does not make somebody a sock puppet. Using multiple accounts to avoid 3RR, vote more than once on edit disputes, etc. makes someone a sock puppet Most Wikipedia editors are prone to discriminate against IP anons. Consequently, people who want to sock puppet usually create multiple named accounts. Most sock puppets are named accounts. Being an IP anon whose IP changes as often as mine just means that I'm an IP anon with certain limitations due to my computer network.-32.164.141.83 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I came to the talk page uninvolved and closed a discussion that was personal attacks and accusations and in no way contributing to the actual matter at hand - a perfectly acceptable action. If you actually want to address the issue of the article, feel free to do so, but attacks such as those you were making are unacceptable. Grsz11 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia, but being an IP anon, even an IP anon whose IP changes frequently, does not make somebody a sock puppet. Using multiple accounts to avoid 3RR, vote more than once on edit disputes, etc. makes someone a sock puppet Most Wikipedia editors are prone to discriminate against IP anons. Consequently, people who want to sock puppet usually create multiple named accounts. Most sock puppets are named accounts. Being an IP anon whose IP changes as often as mine just means that I'm an IP anon with certain limitations due to my computer network.-32.164.141.83 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Richard Poplawski.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Richard Poplawski.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
MLS fan?
Heh. Haven't seen you on the MLS articles before. Are you a fan? :) Philly's getting a team next year, but from what I hear, telling a person from Pittsburgh that Philly is getting something is like trying to get a Boston sports fan excited about something from NYC. :) I've got me some killer seats for the Sounders. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Richard Poplawski.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Richard Poplawski.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
ITN for MV Maersk Alabama
|
|
On 9 April, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article MV Maersk Alabama, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
mexico flag
hello . sorry if I altered something wrong..Isee you have reverted my change ..did you see what I was trying to do ..fix the missing flag on..1900 Summer Olympics it seems to still be there ..could you help explain to me what happened ..is the mexico flag still going to be seen on the page ?..(Off2riorob (talk))
- The flag shows up for me now. If it isn't for you yet, trying purging your cache by pressing Ctrl+F5. Grsz11 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- the small flags are still there ..which is what I wanted to do ..but how or why is a bit mysterious..I put the flag here..Template:Country flag IOC alias MEX and that seemed to correct my fault and then you reverted it ..to default which removed the flag from the template page ..but the small mex flag remains ..if you can just explain so if I want to do it again I can do it right ..if not ..don't worry.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
- I'll try and explain the best I can. To display the flag in the table you have to is {{flagIOCteam}}. Then you use the IOC code for the country, in this case MEX. That then tells the page to use {{Country flag IOC alias MEX}}. Then you have to input the year, which here is 1900 Summer. You can see here that the template includes early years when Mexico competed but had a different flag from the current one. When you put in "1900 Summer" it tells it you use the flag on that line, which didn't exist and therefore didn't show up. I replaced it with the flag that (as far as I can tell) is the appropriate one for that year. It's a bit complicated, and usually there are explanations for the templates that someone mentioned - "documentations", but these didn't have them. I hope that helps you out. Grsz11 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- the small flags are still there ..which is what I wanted to do ..but how or why is a bit mysterious..I put the flag here..Template:Country flag IOC alias MEX and that seemed to correct my fault and then you reverted it ..to default which removed the flag from the template page ..but the small mex flag remains ..if you can just explain so if I want to do it again I can do it right ..if not ..don't worry.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replies have been made at the help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{resolved}} ~~~~ at the top of the section. Thank you,
ZooFari 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Richard Poplawski.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Richard Poplawski.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. PhilKnight (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
: 13 April 2009
- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Presidency of Barack Obama
Any reason why you self-reverted here?[7] I was going to revert Grundle2600's addition,[8] in which he proclaimed he was re-adding the disputed material he has been trying for some time to get into the article because nobody answered his question to his satisfaction. Does this have to do with the AN/I case? Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to leave you a note before I had to run and do something IRL. Let me just cover everything there, gimme a few minutes. Grsz11 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't find anything on any talk page or talk page archive that answers my question about why Read my lips: no new taxes gets to have its own entire article, while Obama's quote on taxes isn't even allowed to have one part of one paragraph. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Probably because that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you feel that article is inappropriate, nominate it for deletion. Grsz11 23:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do think the article is appropriate. My point is that those of you who keep deleting the Obama quote never deleted the Bush quote. Why is that? Why do you think it's OK for the Bush quote to have its own entire article, but not OK for the Obama quote to have one part of one paragraph? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Probably because that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you feel that article is inappropriate, nominate it for deletion. Grsz11 23:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't find anything on any talk page or talk page archive that answers my question about why Read my lips: no new taxes gets to have its own entire article, while Obama's quote on taxes isn't even allowed to have one part of one paragraph. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings
|
|
On April 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings, 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a start...
It's just a start. But before I put a whole lot more time into it, what do you think of Barack Obama (disambiguation)? I'm thinking it could be moved to Barack Obama articles? Not sure on nameing conventions and such. But I'm thinking it would make a helpful see also type link in order to help people find the various article on Wikipedia. Categories aren't the end all be all after all. If it stays a disambiguation page I guess I can't add categories to the bottom. But if I can move it to a regular page name I think I can get away with it. I went down the article list after a search for Barack Obama with a couple exceptions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Interest in Kirkland College?
Curious why you undid my amendments to the Kirkland College webpage. What is the basis for your interest? Zulurox (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Never heard of it before, but your edit was inappropriate for the article and should have been posted on the talk page. Grsz11 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
What brings this to your attention? I am new to Wiki. There has been a lot of turmoil in the history of Kirkland College, as mentioned, which does indeed gloss over ten years of history to focus on one negative recent event (nearly thirty years after the fact). It completely ignores the bulk of the history and to anyone who knows anything about Kirkland College, appears to be written by one or more persons who have been publicly critical. As this has been a political hot potato before, I fear that this Wiki entry might become one again. Zulurox (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe that's true, but issues about the article should be brought up on the talk page, not right on the article itself. I really don't know what you're talking about - all I did was remove a misplaced comment. Grsz11 21:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Obama artbitration
Hi - I've watched with interest as you've added the text of a long AN/I thread or two to the Obama arbcom case. I think it will be more orderly if you simply link to the thread, then when it gets archived link to the archive version. And if there is a particular post you want to highlight you can link to the diff of that post. Even in collapsed form, having so much text cut and pasted into the page seems unwieldy. I suspect the arbcom clerk will suggest this or just replace the text with a link if you don't get to it first, but if you want to check you can ask on the talk page how best to handle it. Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure which was the better way to go. I've gotten flack before for someone in an official capacity having to look at something somewhere else. I've half a mind just to remove it entirely. I only copied it there because someone suggested it. Grsz11 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I may be wrong and you can always ask. Why did you strike out all your evidence? IMO you should keep it in. I seriously doubt you're under any scrutiny at Arbcom and it's a better forum than AN/I or the wider editing world to deal with this particular problem. Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Tony Naumovski
Hi Grsz, hope you don't mind but I've declined your speedy on Tony Naumovski as I read the article as having an assertion of notability. Not sure if he is notable enough for the article to survive AFD but speedies are for the least contentious deletes. Also may I suggest you consider informing the author when you tag their articles, especially when as in that case the author is a newbie (the CSD tag generates an easily copied template). Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 09:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Pittsburgh shootings
Hey Joseph, would you mind if I nominated 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings for WP:DYK on your behalf? Grsz11 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure ... no problem ... let me know the result ... Please reply back at my Talk Page ... Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
- Hello again. I did notice that ... A fact from 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 13, 2009. That was a good idea. Thanks for putting that forward. Much appreciated! Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC))
Grant
Would it be appropriate for the CheckUser request to proceed? It was stopped in the first place because it wasn't need per WP:DUCK, but now maybe it isn't so ducky. Grsz11 01:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- It probably is advisable, if only to determine whether other sock puppets exist. (Grant has acknowledged that User:Spydy13 edited via the same IP address.) —David Levy 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and the notion that Grant's "brother" just happened to stumble upon that discussion (and enter it to express Grant's exact viewpoint, citing long-term knowledge of the situation) immediately after registering an account is patently absurd. But Jayron32 evidently disagrees and regards his opinion as definitive. —David Levy 01:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- And for the record, I find Grant's "brother" explanation entirely unconvincing. —David Levy 01:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"It's apparent you have no respect for me or my opinions." Grant has no respect for anyone of their opinion. According to Grant, everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. Kingjeff (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- At long last! What took you so long, Jeff? To be fair, of course I think everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, otherwise I would agree with them, agreed? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Grant and his "bro"
These guys are crazy. If indeed they really are separate people not living under the same roof, I can't imagine what it would be like listening to them argue with each other (as brothers would). I might be tempted to throw myself out a window or something. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right, I was just assuming they didn't live together. Evidence appears to be to the contrary, and I've reread a bunch of their comments. They make no claims anywhere that they're not under the same roof. If they're able to discuss it in person rather than exclusively on the talk pages, then that starts to lend itself to spirit of WP:TEAMWORK if I'm understanding it correctly. I've warned them nicely (as you saw). They can (and probably will) ignore me and do whatever they want. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do see them both using the phrase "poisoning the well" when talking to you about how they think you've attacked them. They're either talking to each other and are being dumb enough to use the same verbage in their edits, or they're the same person who's making a similar dumb move with two accounts. (shrug) --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or we've both heard of the common tactic/logical fallacy poisoning the well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- A report has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Grant.Alpaugh. Please consider adding your comments as two editors must demonstrate an attempt to resolve disputes in order for it to proceed. Nja247 07:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or we've both heard of the common tactic/logical fallacy poisoning the well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do see them both using the phrase "poisoning the well" when talking to you about how they think you've attacked them. They're either talking to each other and are being dumb enough to use the same verbage in their edits, or they're the same person who's making a similar dumb move with two accounts. (shrug) --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fort Pitt Hotel
Hi Grsz,
The Fort Pitt Hotel is demolished now. I believe it was on the site of the present day Westin by the convention center in downtown. It is a shame because it looks like it was an awesome old hotel with a bunch of cool themed rooms. The hotel at Pitt you may be thinking about is the old Schenley Hotel, which is now the William Pitt Union (the student union) on Pitt's campus across from the Cathedral of Learning. When Pitt acquired it in the 50s, they renovated it restoring much of its former glory. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Talking about you
Thought you should know that we're talking about you over here. Let me know if anything I've said was inappropriate. Thanks for your hard work and advice. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 07:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
: 20 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
- Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
- News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
- Dispatches: Valued pictures
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Heya
In regards to your discussion on Grant's talk page, I understand your frustration, but I think in this situation it's best not to feed the offender. I think it's best to move on and let it go. Cheers. Nja247 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, and I appreciate your understanding. It's just hard to sit by and see blatantly false accusations (as anyone can see on the various talk pages). I appreciate your willingness to make the difficult block, and hopefully I can be done with this issue and get back to doing something I'll enjoy. Grsz11 21:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply
The fact that I am an admin is irrelevant; warning established editors who are doing nothing wrong just doesn't go down very well. However, perhaps you should warn whichever editor tried to revert me claiming it was vandalism in their edit summary, which is clearly inappropriate behaviour. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- You reverted twice on three pages...that's edit-warring. Grsz11 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, that other editor reverted twice, and with a false edit summary, yet you feel no need to post any kind of comment on their talk page. Secondly, league tables should not show links to season articles; they should link directly to the club itself. It's not my problem if other editors don't understand this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- There was a discussion on the talk page that you have not joined. I'm not up on standards of the project or anything like that, but edit-warring is edit-warring no matter what the consensus is. Obviously there is opposition (and a bit of a consensus against). Grsz11 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- As you can see, I prefer to go to the wider project, to prevent some kind of special status being adopted for various templates or articles, and so that we have consistency across the whole football world (FWIW I am of the opinion that Grant.Alpaugh is a complete pain in the arse; he once threatened to create a breakaway WikiProject American Soccer (from WP:FOOTY) because he wasn't getting his way on something). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm new to football (and I have no problem even calling it that) and he certainly gave me a warm welcome. I'll be living in Spain next year with no hockey, no baseball - I have to find something to do. Unfortunately, the local team isn't all that great. I haven't offered many opinions on large issues because I obviously don't have much to say about it, but the issues I have brough up have been legitimate that he just shut down. I think, if a club season article exists, why not link to it - it just seems the common sense thing to do to me, but I don't have that much of a invested interest in it to fight it tooth and nail. The club infobox is pretty long, and the current season link is all the way at the bottom and not nearly as easy to get to as the templates that some clubs use at the top (American atleast). You'd think if he was that into the American issue he wouldn't have a problem with doing things differently. I'm convinced he decides to be difficult just to see what happens. Didn't work out for him this time. Grsz11 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- As you can see, I prefer to go to the wider project, to prevent some kind of special status being adopted for various templates or articles, and so that we have consistency across the whole football world (FWIW I am of the opinion that Grant.Alpaugh is a complete pain in the arse; he once threatened to create a breakaway WikiProject American Soccer (from WP:FOOTY) because he wasn't getting his way on something). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- There was a discussion on the talk page that you have not joined. I'm not up on standards of the project or anything like that, but edit-warring is edit-warring no matter what the consensus is. Obviously there is opposition (and a bit of a consensus against). Grsz11 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, that other editor reverted twice, and with a false edit summary, yet you feel no need to post any kind of comment on their talk page. Secondly, league tables should not show links to season articles; they should link directly to the club itself. It's not my problem if other editors don't understand this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind support
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For watching my back and keeping me in line when I get out of hand. Jojhutton (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |
Re: Youtube
Yes, you are reading it right. Someone is using youtube to Harass and stalk me in regards to wikipedia.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- The screenshot is now deleted off of wikipedia, but I only know it is the IP because of the comment. I don't know if you saw it yet, but here it is.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect placement of 3 RR violation
Yesterday, since I was blocked I sent you an e-mail. But probably, you did not read it or receive it. In any case, please note that you have recently placed your 3RR violation under my name [9], when, I think you meant to file the complaint against user Luis Napoles here [10] I know this is already old news, but it would be nice if you rectify that situation. And thanks for letting other administrators know about that user’s behavior, unfortunaly he's still allowed to edit warring despite way more instances than I did.
Likeminas (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Obama
Since you seem to find humor in my recent addition to the Obama article, I'd like to point out that when I added those three things, I forgot to add this fourth thing - which is about Obama having two chefs fly round trip from St. Louis to Washington D.C. just so they could make Obama's favorite pizza. But it's too late now, and I won't be adding it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
RE:FL
From a glance it looks good, right now I can't look at it in depth. I will try my best to squeeze in a pre-FL review tomorrow or Friday at the latest, is that okay?--Truco 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Obama II
As you know I'm trying to keep an eye on civility and the like on the various Obama pages, and just wanted to advise you that edits like this are non-constructive, which I think you know (see also my comment on that thread of Grundle's talk page). What purpose does making a comment like that, calling another editor's efforts "garbage," ever serve? They're not going to agree with you, obviously, so in the end you're just letting off some steam, which is not what user talk pages are for. All it does is escalate tension and increase the likelihood of pointless back-and-forth sniping the likes of which happen every other day on pages related to Obama. I know it's frustrating to work on these articles, and there were problems with Grundle2600's prior edits for which they were already warned, but complaining about stuff a content opponent has in userspace and defaming the quality of their work is unhelpful and inappropriate. Please refrain from making these kind of comments in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you contending these are constructive edits? I labeled the information garbage, not his actions specifically. Grundle and I have worked constructively elsewhere before, he knows how I feel about his Obama edits. Grsz11 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, I'm not contending they were constructive, indeed I warned Grundle about them on that user's talk page. But we obviously give editors relatively wide latitude in their own user space, and perhaps that material will turn into something different there - if not then it's still not a big deal. There was no need to pester him about it.
- All I am asking you and really everyone to do is avoid inflammatory language as much as possible for obvious reasons (you haven't been the first and probably won't be the last person to whom I've left a note like this). It's easy to imagine a situation unfolding as follows: you say something about Grundle's info being "garbage" (which is different than attacking the editor directly, true), someone who agrees with Grundle swoops in and says you made a personal attack, someone who agrees with you comes in and says "that wasn't a personal attack, what about that other thing you did!" and then we're in the middle of a big argument with no purpose and which could easily escalate to an ANI thread with no purpose. Obviously this has happened time and time again. Even more so than in the rest of the encyclopedia, I think it's necessary for editors on the Obama pages to use the most neutral, non-confrontational language possible, even though that can be hard (I'm hardly perfect myself in that regard). Does not saying "garbage" somehow make it impossible to make your point? I don't think so, I think "garbage" could be replaced by "material that didn't have consensus," or something similar, and that the extra typing is well worth it. This is a small thing, I know, but I do think its worth mentioning.
- My thinking is that the endless bickering regarding Obama stuff could be significantly decreased if editors just toned down their language a bit. Believe me, I know there are problems beyond civility, but that's a relatively easy one to fix, so I'm just asking you to try to hold yourself to extremely strict civility standards. Please note that this is not at all a general comment on your editing here, I just found the one comment you made infelicitous and think its better to avoid comments in that vein in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly note. Please do not edit the above page as you did here. The instructions on the page state: "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case." Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, as I said, just a friendly note. KnightLago (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:South park pinewood derby2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:South park pinewood derby2.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) 06:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Pinewood image
Actually there is no critical commentary on that image. Critical commentary is commentary that is directly connected to the image. There is nothing in that section discussing the image. A source saying "the episode spoofed world leaders" is not critical commentary. A source discussing the way South Park illustrated those world leaders would be critical commentary - but there isn't one in the section. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:ATHLETE
Hey, can you throw in your $0.2 here?--Giants27 T/C 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
News databases
In addition to google news, I sometimes use three other news databases: Newsbank, Proquest, and newspaperarchive.com. I recently let my subscription lapse on the last one though. Cbl62 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously? Feature articles in two of the country's leading newspapers (Chicago Tribune and the Star-Tribune) should satisfy notability standard without even counting the feature story from Indiana. That qualifies as substantial non-trivial coverage. I'm calling them as I see them. I supported the deletion on Nick Schommer, but Jaymar Johnson has extensive coverage. Haven't had a chance to evaluate Lee Robinson (American football), Chris Denney and Matt Sherry yet. It's getting hard to keep up. Any reason to keep throwing these up on AfD all at once?Cbl62 (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Cbl62, of course there are radicals that would vote to keep any athlete article, the closing adminstrator will likely ignore them, but nominating all these players on AFD at once isn't much of a solution. Secret account 12:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for John Fetterman (politician)
|
|
On April 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Fetterman (politician), 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Heyward-Bey
Yeah I dont plan on reverting anymore, I'd rather discuss--Yankees10 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
: 27 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Jason Watkins
It´s enough ; want more sources or more info????.♠Nastia —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC).
May
Match result grouping
You were the editor who originally made the month groupings of games on the Sounders FC season page. I liked the idea and think it was definitely an improvement. The only concern I had was that it hid the results completely when collapsed. I've been prototyping an alternative that I'm about to use to update the season pages. It basically makes the box scores themselves collapsible. Bobblehead and I have been fine tuning this idea here, but I wanted to make sure you were okay with the change as well before I pressed forward. Thoughts? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Since you're the one that converted the Sounders season article to be collapsible by month I figured I'd point you towards the 2009 Chicago Fire season article and have you look at the schedule there. Skotywa has been working on a {{footballbox collapsible}} that collapses the schedule by game and I converted that article to use the new templates. What do you think? --Bobblehead (rants) 18:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion list
As a member of the Bilateral relations task force, you maybe interested in this new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion Ikip (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
welcome
 Hi, PAVA11, and welcome to WikiProject Bilateral relations! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the relations between two countries. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. Ikip (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
Welcome to the project. Ikip (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Penguins
This must be what it feels like to be an Islanders' fan! If the Steelers weren't still in it I'd be going crazy. blackngold29 04:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would appear that the players are trying to get rid of him; there's definately something going on. If they are, they're certainly doing a good job. I just hope the don't do too good of a job and ruin the season. Have fun at the game! blackngold29 04:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- The rumors have certainly been flying, but that's the first name I've heard. That'll throw a nice wrench into List of Pittsburgh Penguins head coaches, which I was going to nom for FLC soon... hmmm, howabout this for an interesting fact, from Pat Quinn (ice hockey): "Quinn became an assistant coach for the Philadelphia Flyers in 1977 under Fred Shero" as in Ray Shero's father. That's kinda neat. The only thing he seems to lack is a Cup. blackngold29 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh man, a Jagr comeback would be crazy! He kind of came off like a jerk when he left, but I'd definately love to see him back. blackngold29 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess that's that with Therrien. There's not much hope left for the playoffs, but there's some. Good video on the new Bucs's pitchers, I'll try to work on their articles some, sooner or later they're gonna make it up to the bigs. blackngold29 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Should we record Crosby's 250th career assist or just go by every 100? Great game, I want to see a Crosby vs. Ovie fight tomorrow, lol. blackngold29 01:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- For what we're giving up (which is different according to the Pens site "If the Penguins make the playoffs, it will be a fourth-round pick. If the Penguins win a playoff round and Guerin plays in 50 percent of the games, it will be a third-round pick.") it seems pretty good. Any idea how long his contract is? Not sure what they're thinking to do with Satan, just keep him around in case of injury I suppose, because he's a Free Agent after this season. I certainly bet Guerin is happy to get out of NY. blackngold29 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it! Good name too, I didn't know they were called that. blackngold29 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- AccuScore.com gave the Pirates a whopping chance of 0% to win the World Series. I don't even know what to think of that. blackngold29 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I gotta say that this came out of left field (no pun intended). blackngold29 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- An IP altered quite a few things on the 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season stats; I don't think the players' numbers should be there and I liked the way they were under one heading, like last season. That's my two cents, but it's more of your area than mine, feel free to do what you want. Thanks. blackngold29 15:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The 2008 media guide lists the Penguins' HOF, Rookie of the year, and "Player's Player Award" (which doesn't appear to be the same thing as MVP). It also has the NHL Awards every Penguin has recieved, but I don't see anything about Penguins MVP. I'll keep looking through it as it's over 400 pages, the PDF should still be on their site. Can't wait for tonight! blackngold29 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Go to my talk page and click on the e-mail this user link, I'll send you the PDF. blackngold29 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- lol, I had my finger on the button and EDIT CONFLICT. I'll get you next game, haha. That would be 5 penalties in the last 19 seconds, jerks! blackngold29 01:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's the one they use at the playoff articles. Obviously it could work, it's essentially the same info without the color. I have no real problem with it, but it seems like a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" situation. It makes sense to me to keep the regular season and the playoffs the same, but if you want to change it, like I said I have no problem with it. blackngold29 02:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you see Smizik's blog today? Seems like Dennis Dixon will have some work to do. Why aren't the Pens having a whiteout tonight? I guess either they lose a game in Philly and can have one for game 5 or sweep Philly and do it next round. blackngold29 14:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have tonight's Pens game one typed out, so you can take that one. The e-mail is loading, I forgot it was 15MB; it's coming ASAP! Playoff OT, there's nothing better! blackngold29 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was looking at that a few weeks ago and thought that would be cool for its 100th anniversary. We would have to move on it pretty soon, I can't even remember how many times I read PNC Park before nominating it, and a peer review would be good too. We should move that new picture that you just added up to the infobox too, that's pretty sweet. blackngold29 05:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to jinx it, but a Featured topic of Pittsburgh sports stadia would be awesome. I don't know if it's a legit topic though because there's quite a few lesser known ball fields, etc. Once we can get Consol Energy Center up to GA I just might order a book. blackngold29 22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm calling it now, next game: Pens 4, Philly 2. I still have a headache just from watching that Kunitz hit. blackngold29 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- That will be a memorable experience for him. Hope he gets destroyed. :) blackngold29 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, pull up your socks and put on your Steelers helmet. blackngold29 02:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have finals next week, so after that I should have plenty of time. I might have some time tonight to look it over, but if not I promise I'll get too it as soon as I can. We will get it to FAC eventually! blackngold29 20:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Question for you
I noticed you removed the update I made about Ted Leonsis' upcoming book. Is there a better way that that should be added? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks for the advice Lonbam (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Lonbam
Request for assistance
You're an experienced editor, so I'm bringing this to your attention as I don't know how to do this. User:Luis Napoles in his editing on the sainted Pinochet has changed the name of the Chilean transition to democracy article to History of Chile (1990-)[11]. The new page covers events going back before 1990 and so the redirect is completely unwarranted. Could you advise me on how to turn it back? Thanks,If I was a carpenter (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
: 11 May 2009
- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
User Luis Napoles
Please note that user Luis Napoles has once again engaged in edit-warring[12] on several articles. User Lius Napoles has a habit making his edits highly political and refuses to discuss them on the talk page see this [13]
I know you warned him before, but he deleted some of the 3RR warnings from other administrators and seems to have ignored your advice. Please do something about it this time.
Likeminas (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I have mentioned you ---> Here. Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
: 18 May 2009
- From the editor: Writers needed
- Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
- Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
: 25 May 2009
- License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
- News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
June
: 1 June 2009
- From the editor: Browsing the archives
- Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
- Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
- News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
: 15 June 2009
- Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
- News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
- Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
- Stevertigo (talk · contribs), Sceptre (talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs) and Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
- In addition, Scjessey (talk · contribs) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
- ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.
Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.
- Wikidemon (talk · contribs) is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
- Grsz11 (talk · contribs) and Tarc (talk · contribs) are reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
- Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.
The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.
- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
: 22 June 2009
- Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
- News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Questions for the President: Prescription for America and deletion policy's
I never did this before [propose any kind of AFD] but I thought G-10 (and speedy) would apply and was searching for the right template where I thought to edit "Per G-10. POV attack on an event that hasn't even take place yet. Reminder: WP is not news." as reason. Any thoughts on that?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not particularly a POV attack. NOTNEWS would apply in a proposal or discussion for deletion, however. Grsz11 03:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
: 29 June 2009
- News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
- Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
July
Editing study
Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.
Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d
Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
SuperLiga colors in MLS tables
The discussion on whether to have SuperLiga indicated in the MLS table templates has come up again here. I'd appreciated your comments/feedback. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 05:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
: 6 July 2009
- News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Obama articles arbcom case
I've requested an amendment to the Obama ArbCom case to examine and remove several of the findings of fact and remedies passed by the Committee. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Brad Thiessen
Could you please stop deleting factual information about Brad Thiessen. He was in fact called up and dressed for game 7 of the Finals. There is even a picture of him raising the cup after game 7, while dressed.
- Then prove it. Grsz11 02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- http://www.bclocalnews.com/sports/48276372.html
- http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/aldergrovestar/sports/48161462.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tman21901 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're right that he was called up. But he was not dressed for the game, just for the post-game. [14]. Grsz11 02:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed--Tman21901 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
: 27 July 2009
- From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
- Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
- Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
- Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
- News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
- Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
August
: 3 August 2009
- News and notes: WMF elections, strategy wiki, museum partnerships, and much more
- Wikipedia in the news: Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
: 10 August 2009
- Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
- News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
: 17 August 2009
- From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
- Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
- News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
: 24 August 2009
- News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
- Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Imperial Triple Crown :)
ChildofMidnight topic banned
As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.
By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,
Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.
Discussion of this motion should be directed here.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep working together to make wikipedia even better.
Hello. As someone like myself who enjoys improving the Obama related articles, I thought you might like to know about a wonderful, reliable new source of information on that topic. The new book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin has 76 pages of endnotes, so everything in the book is well sourced and reliable. The book has also been at #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction Hardcover bestseller list for the past four weeks. First week at #1 Second week at #1 Third week at #1 Fourth week at #1 Given our past cooperation on improving Obama related articles, I am sure that you will be as pleased with this new book as I am. I know that you will enjoy reading it and using it as a source to help improve the various Obama related articles. Please keep up your good work here at wikipedia! Grundle2600 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
{{Recent death}}
Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. --Brian McNeil /talk 00:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
September
: 31 August 2009
- Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
- Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
- Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
- News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
- Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Answer
Re: [15] I assume you're talking about Grant. I haven't seen anything too suspicious yet. It does seem like he's honored his ban for longer than usual this time so I wouldn't be surprised if he makes an appearance sooner or later. What have you seen? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you were talking about now. Here's my one and only warning to him: [16]. If he walks away from the MLS articles, I don't see a need to report him. What do you think? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I added my thoughts to the report. Thanks for the pointer. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Who are you again?
Just out of curiousity, where exactly do you come in in all of this? It doesn't seem like you've had much editing to do on the MLS articles lately, and yet you are perennially on the lookout for potential Grant.Alpaugh sockpuppets? – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
For you
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For your help and leadership in ensuring that a problematic, blocked user was appropriately handled. I wouldn't have known where to go or who to notify. SkotyWATalk|Contribs 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
DYK for Andrew Berg
|
|
On September 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Berg, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
BorgQueen (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It was prodded and deprodded back in May, so deletion would have to be by AfD. I've excised the problematic POV essay intro, and moved the map below the table. This kind of list is quite useful if balanced, well-sourced and well-defined, so I'm by no means sure it should be deleted. Fences&Windows 02:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009
- From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
- News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Re: Edit summaries
Perhaps you need to relax a little bit. I wasn't complaining about anyone in particular with those, and as such, did not violate WP:CIVIL. I usually post stuff like that mostly just to be "tongue-in-cheek", and get a few laughs,... It seems that part of Wikipedia's problems in retaining decent editors around here is that some people seem to take things WAAAAAYYYYY too seriously, when in fact, this is a volunteer project. So just relax a little, ok? I was just trying to be funny! ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever the cited article says, the gathering DID become "violent". It doesn't necessarily have to state it explicitly in the article for it to be valid. Anyone with two brain cells can infer that it turned violent. And I think it's also important to keep the part in about the "let's go pitt!" chants, which illustrate that many of the students, while not part of the protests themselves, were caught in the middle because they were mostly curious as to what was going on. They were trying to react to the violence of the protesters by bringing in some sports chants in an effort to try and drown them out. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. It was violent. Were you there? I was there last night, leaving just as it started to turn violent. The word "violent" might actually be an understatement. And it certainly wasn't "simple crowd control" when the police were using pepper spray. More than just a "few people got knocked down", and there is major damage all over Oakland, which still needs to be cleaned up. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- My proposed text doesn't ignore any of that, and is a little less editorialized and sensational. Grsz11 19:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009
- Opinion essay: White Barbarian
- Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
- Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
- News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
October
Kevin Jennings
- Your comments on my talk page are untrue and misleading. I have not violated WP:3RR even once, and I defy you to come up with a single instance where I have done so. You have reverted sourced material on the Kevin Jennings page. I believe your edit was off base, and I am completely within bounds to challenge you. In an effort to assume good faith, I will stop short of speculating as to the motives behind your edits. One question: Did you "clear" your reverts on the talk page before making them? If not, why do you expect me to do so?
208.105.149.80 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- You were adding information in an order that made no logical sense. The first revert was a mistake, as I was editing the article while you were and we edit-conflicted. This latest time, I simply moved it below and incorporated it with another sentence so it made more sense. Grsz11 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009
- New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
- Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
- News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
My sand box
Please feel ree to use the links on my sandbox to improve the article.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Martinez
It's not that the references in question are "off line" it's that they either don't exist or don't mention Martinez. 141.117.225.1 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey . I wonder if you would evaluate objectively the fellow's canvassing accusation and tell me what you think?--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies
I appreciate your looking at this objectively given our history. I was wrong in my previous evaluation of you, and apologize for that nastiness at Obama.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what you are looking at, but with these recent events, I can make assumptions. That section of ANI revealed a number of different addresses all located at a certain city. I really do think you should persue it, I'll help if you need something. Grsz11 01:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Due to the delicacy of the situation, I think it would be best to wait untilFrank logs in and addresses the issue. If he denies the COI, I will go to Arbcom.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Grsz11, if you are alleging that *I* am Frank Pais then go ahead and make a CheckUser request - you'll be disappointed. If you're alleging that I edited earlier this evening from another IP beginning 64then you're correct. I was at the office before and now I'm home. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Due to the delicacy of the situation, I think it would be best to wait untilFrank logs in and addresses the issue. If he denies the COI, I will go to Arbcom.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Grz: Long time no see. How are you? I noticed you’ve become involved in something regarding an alleged COI. Please proceed with care, as user the user intiating such move has a history of going around accusing people of COI. This is a prime example of such behavior. I wanted to point that out to you, so you don’t get caught up on what might be based on personal motivations rather than a good faith concern of a policy violation. Regards, Likeminas (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
FG
I don't "claim" , I am.
Vanisheduser5965 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"cant you just take down those sites"
So you are asking me to take down my professional blog and my professional website because you want to personally harass me ? No. The request is in to the Oversight admins , please just leave them off till then. If you really hate me so much that you want to drag me through more bureaucracy . There is no reason to keep this section at all.Vanisheduser5965 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what the issue here is. Saying I am harassing you is a lie, I have nothing personal against you. I simply attempted to point out why your claimed personal knowledge was insufficient as a source here. I kindly asked you to provide reliable sources that were not original research, as any responsible editor here should have. Anybody simply looking at this section without the background knowledge would have no clue what is going on, and no harm would be done. This is my talk page, and I am allowed to do what I please here. I was kind enough to unlink the blog, and the other link was dead anyways, so why you are still concerned is beyond me. You say you've "vanished" but are still here. If you want to stop being uninvolved, all you have to do is walk away. Believe me, nobody is going to care enough to look back through my history and find links to the blog (which you don't even claim to be yours in the first place) and make the connection. I am not openly saying who you are, I respect your desire for privacy. But if somebody really wanted to, they could still look through the history at this page or others and find the desired link, so removing them really accomplishes nothing. I haven't done anything wrong here, so there is no need to continue to harass me. I'm sorry your experience here was not as pleasant as you would have wished, but that is not my fault. Grsz11 03:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You requested I take down a blog I've been on for 3 years and website I have been on for 10 years . It doesn't matter that the links not clickable , they are here with the original URL . I'm not blaming you for anything ! I'm just trying to get my links removed. That's all ! Why does it matter ? Just wipe the whole section out. Hopefully oversight will just delete it all. Just leave the links off and if you get nostalgic you can look up the history. I wont come back again if you do ! I swear it ! I'm just trying to leave.Vanisheduser5965 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
DYK for Holy Assumption of the Virgin Mary Church
|
|
On October 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holy Assumption of the Virgin Mary Church, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
JamieS93 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009
- From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
- Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
- Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
- News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
- Dispatches: Sounds
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Sorry
This was me bumping the rollback link while scrolling down my watchlist. Sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Busch Entertainment
Hi ... I wanted to let you know that your edits to the articles related to Busch Entertainment Corporation have, for the most part, been undone. While I completely believe your edits were being made in good faith, they were nonetheless in error. It is true that Anheuser-Busch InBev has announced plans to sell BEC to the Blackstone Group; however, said ownership change has not occurred yet. As of right now, BEC is still a full subsidiary to A-B InBev. It is very possible that the deal could fall through during the approval and closing process, so until such time as the deal is truly completed (expected by year-end), the articles should reflect no change.
Further, when the deal does get approved, the only mention of Blackstone Group, in my opinion, should be in the BEC article. If each of the parks links to BEC--which, for at least one article, wasn't the case until you fixed it (thank you for catching that)--then that should be enough. As I said, that's my opinion; it should be discussed in BEC's talk page so we can get consensus amongst the editors.
If you have any questions, leave them on my talk page or on BEC's talk page. Thanks, and happy editing!
--McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re: Question
See User_talk:MBisanz#Question. MBisanz talk 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Kennywood
I responded to your request at wt:NRHP, actually by posting at Talk:Kennywood. See there. doncram (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Pre-1900s football
Hi Grsz11, I don't know how much help I can be. I found practically all of my information about early IUP football, from the Professional Football Researcher's Association ([17]) when I was researching John Brallier, Lawson Fiscus and the pioneering pro football teams like the Latrobe and Greensburg. The PFRA site has a very good search engine and if you type in "Indiana Normal" it will give you a listing of 27 pages of PFRA articles that mention early IUP. Sorry I can be of any more help, but let me know how it works out. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting diff
[18]. I copied some of our history to his page. I expect he´ll remove it soon. If he doesn´t , I will in alittle bit.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Gaming the system
- Hey! I think a strong case could be made for gaming on the Shane Martinez page. One editor voted non notable, and used hat vote to justify asking for all those pages to be deleted. Some IPs voted in the Shane Martinez deletion discussion, and one has only had thatone edit. I think that the page should be replaced, and the votes from these gaming accounts discounted. I expect an ANI discussin might be in order, but I have no time to collect diffs for it due to midterms. What do you think?--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I get around!--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Youtube video and Colorado balloon incident
Hello and good morning. I disagree with you on that youtube video not being a reliable source. This is a case of WP:IAR here. Clearly any ordinary youtube video is definitely not a source of reliable information, but this particular video is a recording of a Larry King episode which clearly features the family and clearly and directly supports the information in the article. In this case, common sense must prevail over WP:RS. It would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to have the video as a reference because it does more to support verifibility than the news articles do. I'll wait until your response before considering adding it back in.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Edit: I've thought a little more about this and I feel that WP:SELFPUB covers this. It is a interview where they talk about themselves and an event directly.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
- News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
- In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Revert
I've got to say I'm disappointed that our editorial collegiality is so absent that you revert such an obviously thorough and time-consuming effort on my part to address an issue raised both in the article and on the talk page, and then instead of justifying that revert on my talk page, you go to make two edits to expand the history of the Holy Assumption of the Virgin Mary Church. What's that about? I'd like to know why responding substantially to Grundle's questions, challenges, and edit, is so unacceptable to you as to cause you to revert it? He has asked for it (literally, not in the snarky vernacular sense), and thanked editors who explained what was wrong with his edits instead of simply reverting. While his en-masse reintroduction of earlier discussions smacks of making us go in circles and jump through hoops, something I'm not keen on doing, my post focused on the lone issue we had not already discussed at that page (or if we did, I missed it in the onslaught). I could ask you the same question I asked Grundle: Other than my Palin quip, do you feel any of my assessment of the topic at issue was POV? (As if that has ever been a reason to revert a talk page post.)
Insofar as I commented on Grundle's recidivism, why, if Grundle is allowed to make such declarations here as the one I used for my section title, would it be inappropriate to point out that he did not in fact live up to his own hype and promises of a day earlier? Although weight is not a central issue for talk page comments, if it were, my post is surely not out of proportion to Grundle's excessiveness, and the majority of my post is devoted to the issue, not the editor. I am not bringing any of this up out of the blue, it is asserted, questioned, etc., in a couple of previous sections, and I am gathering them together here to respond. Is there something I'm missing here? As I have commented to fellow editors at this page before, if we don't provide the factual refutation of claims made in edits or suggestions, then editors not only go off thinking they're right, but they think we're whitewashing the article by ignoring or denying "the truth". Given that we have amply refuted Grundle's misunderstandings about virtually every topic he's raised, I'd be happy much of the time to ignore this troublesome editor, stomping willfully about on a daily basis upon the borderline of vandalism, and leave it to others to handle from a purely bureaucratic angle—if those editors didn't drop the ball from time to time, overwhelmed or bending over backwards in the absence of comment to enable his behavior and shepherd his flawed suggestions into the article. Abrazame (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's pretty simple. That wasn't an issue for an article talk page. Your issue was legitimate, but the article talk page isn't the place to call out an editor for his issues in general - do that on his talk page. Grsz11 21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're oversimplifying. As I mentioned above, the majority of it was a substantive explanation of the issue and why it didn't belong where it was or represent the issue the contributing editor thought it did. I was of course responding in large part to the post immediately above my own, wherein Grundle wrote, about this issue, "Why is it OK for the article to mention one side of this issue, without also mentioning the other side?" You're saying it's not an issue for an article talk page to answer that question? Did you actually read what I wrote in that article talk post, or were you just reacting to the title and opening sentence? Abrazame (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying as well. I removed the message and it's over, another editor agreed with me. How hard would it have been to just copy it to his talk page? I'm sorry if I offended you, obviously that wasn't my intention. Grsz11 22:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Respectfully, it is not "over", as my question is not simply about what I do with this message, it's whether it's reasonable to expect people to post questions at talk pages about reverted edits and have those questions answered, or from my perspective whether it's reasonable to answer those questions, or from Wikidemon's perspective whether it's reasonable to allow or reinstate those edits if nobody ever does answer those questions. Which other editor agreed with you and what does that have to do with the questions I'm asking you? While I am somewhat offended, I accept your apology and my discussion is based not on offense, and not merely on what I do with that one post, but on extrapolating your reaction to what is going to happen on that talk page going forward with respect to the issues I'm raising of substantively responding to the litany of questions and protests there—and since when and why we seem to be shifting that paradigm. For example, I reverted someone's insult of the Clintons' marriage at the talk page, because it seemed like a BLP violation and the post was entirely off-topic. My revert was undone with the response that this additional insult was in the service of explaining a previous insult. So clearly my Palin comment is not at issue. And I guess I'm wondering what the difference is with allowing questions about what one has done wrong, and statements about what one intends to do right, on the one hand, and on the other, answers to those questions and counter statements when one so immediately and grossly ignores their own statements of intent. If one allows the former, doesn't one have to allow the latter? Abrazame (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I see there is some sort of policy action you have taken with regard to the initial cause of my post and our discussion here, and as the outcome of that policy action may itself answer or obviate some of my questions here, I will suspend our discussion for the time being and only request answers in the event that any of these questions remain at the end of however this plays out. I don't want to diffuse your focus away from that. I will watch your page but feel free not to respond before that issue is resolved, I'm presuming a week or two. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't you chime in there? I've really only been observing. His actions at the talk page are at issue to, and you're better able to address that than I am. Grsz11 23:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I rather expected to have a couple days to do so. Of course, all my previous questions remain, and there's a new one or two... Abrazame (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- What I meant in my edit here yesterday was that since you aborted your policy action, all of my above questions remain open and even more, obviously, arise. Could you please explain that reversal, and resume the above discussion with me here? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I initiated the enforcement request, and had the right to withdraw it. I prefered to give him the benefit of the doubt that he would take a break for a little while and the same issues wouldn't return. I've moved on from the issue, I'm not sure what else you still need answered. Grsz11 03:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment here, sadly, I must agree. I wanted to believe that he really was a "doe-eyed naif" and that it was not an act. I tried to help him (as did many others), but I could not fathom how anyone who espoused such good-nature could be so disruptive. Sigh. I used to avoid political articles to avoid contentious editors and general mean-spiritedness. I decided to brave the snarky comments because I felt that the political articles needed good neutral editing. I still do, but I'm not happy to be in the gunsights of some of the less-friendly members of the community.Nonetheless, I stand by the actions of the community - G was given an abundance of opportunities to participate within the rules, and rejected them - apparently purposefully. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I initiated the enforcement request, and had the right to withdraw it. I prefered to give him the benefit of the doubt that he would take a break for a little while and the same issues wouldn't return. I've moved on from the issue, I'm not sure what else you still need answered. Grsz11 03:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- What I meant in my edit here yesterday was that since you aborted your policy action, all of my above questions remain open and even more, obviously, arise. Could you please explain that reversal, and resume the above discussion with me here? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I rather expected to have a couple days to do so. Of course, all my previous questions remain, and there's a new one or two... Abrazame (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why don't you chime in there? I've really only been observing. His actions at the talk page are at issue to, and you're better able to address that than I am. Grsz11 23:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I see there is some sort of policy action you have taken with regard to the initial cause of my post and our discussion here, and as the outcome of that policy action may itself answer or obviate some of my questions here, I will suspend our discussion for the time being and only request answers in the event that any of these questions remain at the end of however this plays out. I don't want to diffuse your focus away from that. I will watch your page but feel free not to respond before that issue is resolved, I'm presuming a week or two. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Respectfully, it is not "over", as my question is not simply about what I do with this message, it's whether it's reasonable to expect people to post questions at talk pages about reverted edits and have those questions answered, or from my perspective whether it's reasonable to answer those questions, or from Wikidemon's perspective whether it's reasonable to allow or reinstate those edits if nobody ever does answer those questions. Which other editor agreed with you and what does that have to do with the questions I'm asking you? While I am somewhat offended, I accept your apology and my discussion is based not on offense, and not merely on what I do with that one post, but on extrapolating your reaction to what is going to happen on that talk page going forward with respect to the issues I'm raising of substantively responding to the litany of questions and protests there—and since when and why we seem to be shifting that paradigm. For example, I reverted someone's insult of the Clintons' marriage at the talk page, because it seemed like a BLP violation and the post was entirely off-topic. My revert was undone with the response that this additional insult was in the service of explaining a previous insult. So clearly my Palin comment is not at issue. And I guess I'm wondering what the difference is with allowing questions about what one has done wrong, and statements about what one intends to do right, on the one hand, and on the other, answers to those questions and counter statements when one so immediately and grossly ignores their own statements of intent. If one allows the former, doesn't one have to allow the latter? Abrazame (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying as well. I removed the message and it's over, another editor agreed with me. How hard would it have been to just copy it to his talk page? I'm sorry if I offended you, obviously that wasn't my intention. Grsz11 22:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're oversimplifying. As I mentioned above, the majority of it was a substantive explanation of the issue and why it didn't belong where it was or represent the issue the contributing editor thought it did. I was of course responding in large part to the post immediately above my own, wherein Grundle wrote, about this issue, "Why is it OK for the article to mention one side of this issue, without also mentioning the other side?" You're saying it's not an issue for an article talk page to answer that question? Did you actually read what I wrote in that article talk post, or were you just reacting to the title and opening sentence? Abrazame (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Grundle
IMO, if he wants to set himself up as a martyred drama queen, let em. We're probably not going to get much mileage out of needling him here. A bit revealing that he's been an almost decade-long FReeper, though, eh? Tarc (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
- Interview: Interview with John Blossom
- News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
- In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Re: Hey
Haha, I was just going to write you the same message. Yeah, I was going to start working through the article paragraph by paragraph when I got a chance, which is hopefully soon. The game log for this season's article needs cleaned-up some, we had pretty much agreed to not include "site" at WP:HOCKEY, so I'm not sure where all that came from. If you have no objections, I like the format we used last year. So, I gotta run to class now, but definately yeah. Those rings were awesome, eh? blackngold29 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Cool stuff. Do you want to use the "recap" column for the links? Someone had said a link to the Pens' site or HockeyDB at the bottom of the page could cover the whole season citation-wise. There was never really a consensus, it would probably make it easier to eliminate it, not that adding the links is hard. Did we link the opponents in the game log? Whatever, no big deal. As for last season I c/e'd the post season prose, I'm assuming the regular season should be good because we pretty much wrote it all. The Milestones section and player awards need some citations, but other than that it's looking good to me. blackngold29 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, we were the only team that really did it last season (even though we kept them pretty recent). It makes sense because basically we're copying their official site, so people can just go there to get them anyway. I'm starting to think that it would even make sense not to update the infobox stats until the end of the year. blackngold29 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Richards/Booth
What's with the Huffington Post link for the AP report? It seems like an odd outlet for sport news. Check out the comments. :) ccwaters (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right: Richards knew he was finishing his check. Honestly: the fact that a Flyer did it and the league DIDN'T suspend him and is even going as far as possibly rescinding the game misconduct says A LOT. The HuffPost has a link to a youtube clip, so I guess its should stay (as compared to finding a more typical outlet for the AP article). ccwaters (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
CSCHL
I reverted your addition of CSCHL to the University of Illinois page as there are no other athletics nav templates on the page. It could be, perhaps, added to Illinois Fighting Illini. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
November
ITN for Afghan presidential election, 2009
|
|
On 2 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Afghan presidential election, 2009, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
- Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup
- Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia
- Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report
- Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway
- Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Brazil
Hello, my friend. I hope you didn´t mind reverting your edition. It is nothing against you, It is only that there is a discussion still ongoing that must be settled. If you need to know more about it, ask me. Regards - --Lecen (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- My edit had nothing to do with the discussion. There is no justification to revert all edits simply because there is an ongoing discussion. My edit was simply grammer and copy-editing completely independent of any dispute. Grsz11 02:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you reverted what I did. It is not a matter of owning the article, do not think that, please. And I didn´t say I would revert anything written on the article, but only on that subsection. But i won´t do that anymore. I will try to make a summary of the problem in here, if you don´t mind:
- I had warned the other editors that I would improve the text on the history section. Every modification I did I warned in the discussion page. What I call "improvement" was changing internet sources with renowned historian's works on the subject. I also improved the text and removed information that was not correct. To see exactly what I am talking about, see in here.
- User Opinoso disagreed. To prove his point he fabricated information that did not exist on the sources he used it. Not only he did that, which will surely damage Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable enciclopaedia, but he also falsely accused me and disrespected Wikipedia rules by reverting texts when it was still being discussed (only to hide the fake information he had wrote). And that is not the first time he does that.
- The matter is not something like "Editor A says that history one fact happened in X way according to some sources" and "Editor B says that that history fact happened in Y way according to other sources".
- As I said on the talk page, I didn't look too much into it. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that anything was done in poor faith and in a manner meant to undermine any policy. Is there anyway you can summarize the points of the history sections before and after your edits for me? The talk page gives me a headache (see WP:TLDR). Grsz11 02:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Changes on Brazil history section
- Very well, here it goes:
- I have changed the pictures for the ones that are there now. (This is not part of the discussion, but I'm telling you anyway)
- All old sources came from internet websites that did not had focus on history nor its text was written by a historian. Changed that for renowned historians, such as the British C. R. Boxer, who was an expert on the Colonial Brazil.
- What was right on the colonial Brazil text (and was kept):
- Time of Portugal arrival; Indians behavior (nomadism, cannibalism, etc...); miscegenation. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text)
- The creation of hereditary captainships and their failure; the creation of a single governorship to rule Brazil; Sugar as the most important export good in the early years of colonization; crisis of sugar export economy; explorers finding gold mines in the countryside; a rebellion and two conspiracies against high colonial taxes.(Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text as can be seen below)
- What was wrong (and was removed or corrected:
- The information about Indians in "Origins" mix historical and nowadays info. (The modern information should be on demographics article or in the Indigenous peoples in Brazil article.)
- Bandeirantes seen as the ones who expanded Brazilian borders. In reality they found gold mines that made hundreds of thousands of immigrants come to Brazil, but the territory was expanded by Portugal that conquered what belonged to other nations through wars of conquest and later kept by treaties);
- Most of it was kept, as you can see. Although I changed passages to better fit the new aditions. Now to the Empire of Brazil section and what was right:
- Dom João VI coming to Brazil and subsequent departure leaving Dom Pedro as regent; Independence war against Portugal. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text)
- Mention of the first Brazil constitution which had a great influence on subsequent constitutions (Separation of powers, civil liberties, etc...) and also on the Moderating branch (exclusive only to the Imperial era). (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text)
- Regency; rebellions during the regency; mention on War of the Triple Alliance, end of slave traffic and end of slavery; end of monarchy. (Important: All of it were kept and expanded on the newer text)
- What was wrong:
- Independence war overly simplified (mentioned only as "a series of political incidents and disputes"; wrong perception of the first constitution promulgation; wrong reasons to why Pedro I abdicated.
- A whole paragraph on Malê revolt (a very minor rebellion that is rarely mentioned on history books, shouldn't be in this very small subsection).
- casualties on Cabanagem (a smaller rebellion during the regency, the War of Tatter was much more important and is not even mentioned).
- The other rebellions are not mentioned at all.
- more than 300,000 deads on the War of the Triple Alliance (this is how many Paraguayans died, no reason to be in here)
- wrong reasons to why the monarchy fell.
- Added:
- Some of the olders passages did not have sources (such as Dom João coming and departure from Brazil, Brazilian independence, etc...). Added reliable sources to it.
- I also explained why Brazil continued as a monarchy and did not became a republic as almost all other countries in the Americas (a very, very important info).
- Mentioned the other rebellions that occurred during the regency and why they happened.
- Added the other international wars Brazil participated (much more important than internal rebellions).
- Added information on slavery decline and population data.
- Added text about the stability and economical development of the country in this period, according to many historians.
- --Lecen (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The real problem on the Brazil history text
The first one is the original version I wrote and the next has Opinoso aditions that were fabricated or are wrong (in black):
Emperor Pedro II reign
As the new emperor could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached majority, a regency was created.[2] Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency.[3] The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy). The Cabanagem[4] the Sabinada[4] and the Balaiada,[4][5] all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor).[6] The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival."[7]
Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.”[8] From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government[9] Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years (Platine War,[10] Uruguayan War[11] and War of the Triple Alliance).[12] The emperor, who never owned slaves,[13] also led the abolitionist campaign[14] that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850[15] up to the complete abolition in 1888.[16] However, he "took too long to trespass the political obstacles”[17] and Brazil became the last american country to abolish slavery.[18] Slavery had been for decades in decline: in 1823, 29% of the Brazilian population were slaves; it fell to 24% in 1854; then to 15,2% in 1872;[19] and finally to less than 5% in 1887.[20]
Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country[21] when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889.[22] There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government[23] and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects.[24][25] Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.”[26] After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.”[27] The emperor did not care about its fate[28][29] and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup[30] that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery.[31] The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”.[32]
Emperor Pedro II reign
As the new emperor, who ascended the crown at age 5, could not exert his constitutional prerogatives as Emperor (Executive and Moderating Power) until he reached maturity, a regency was created.[34] Disputes between political factions that led to rebellions resulted in an unstable, almost anarchical, regency.[3] The rebellious factions, however, continued to uphold the throne of Pedro II as a way of giving the appearance of legitimacy to their actions (that is, they were not in revolt against the monarchy, but against the uneven social structure that it imposed).[35] The Cabanagem (from 30 to 40% of the population of the Province of Grão-Pará was killed),[36][4] the Sabinada[4] and the Balaiada,[4][37] all followed this course, even though some declared the secession of the provinces as independent republics (but only so long as Pedro II was a minor).[38] The "generation of politicians who had come to power in the 1830s, following upon the abdication of Pedro I, had learned from bitter experience the difficulties and dangers of government. By 1840 they had lost all faith in their ability to rule the country on their own. They accepted Pedro II as an authority figure whose presence was indispensable for the country's survival."[39]
Thus, Pedro II was prematurely declared of age and “Brazil was to enjoy nearly half a century of internal peace and rapid material progress.”[40] From then "onward the Empire’s stability and prosperity when compared to the turmoil and poverty of the Spanish American republics gave ample proof” of the emperor’s successful government[41] “with all the freedom permitted by an extremely broad-minded and tolerant policy toward the press.”[42] Brazilian economic growth, especially after 1850, compared "very well" with that of with the United States and the European countries.[43] The absolute value of the exports of the Empire was the highest in Latin America[44] and the country held undisputed hegemony over all the region until its end.[45] Brazil also won three international wars during his long reign of 58 years (Platine War,[46] Uruguayan War[47] and War of the Triple Alliance,[48] which left more than 300,000 dead).[49]
During the reign of Pedro II, the Brazilian economy was dependent on the export of coffee. The economic center was concentrated in the provinces of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. The rest of the country had a poor and stagnant economy.[35] Work force on coffee plantations was based on African slavery.[35] The emperor, who never owned slaves,[50] also led the abolitionist campaign[51] that eventually extinguished slavery after a slow but steady process that went from the end of international traffic in 1850[52] up to the complete abolition in 1888.[53] The reign of Pedro II was the period that Brazil imported the largest numbers of slaves from Africa, and in 1864 as many as 1,715,000 people were living under slavery in Brazil.[54] Brazil was the last Western country to abolish slavery,[55] because the Emperor did not want to risk antagonizing slave owners, who formed the elite of the country.[original research?][56][citation needed] By the end of the 19th century, most of the Brazilian population was composed of people of African descent.[57]
Brazil was a “prosperous and [internationally] respected” country[58] when the monarchy was overthrown in November 15, 1889.[59] There was no desire in Brazil (at least among the majority of its population) to change the form of government[60] and Pedro II was on the height of his popularity among his subjects.[61][62] Pedro II, however, “bore prime, perhaps sole, responsibility for his own overthrown.”[63] After the death of his two male sons, he believed that “the imperial regime was destined to end with him.”[64] The emperor did not care about its fate[65][66] and did nothing (nor allowed anyone) to prevent the military coup[67] that was backed by former slave owners that resented the abolition of slavery.[68] The monarchist reaction after the fall of the empire “was not small and even less its repression”.[69]
--Lecen (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
10 points discussion on article Brazil
Hello! Take a look at 10 points discussion. Comment on each point, please. We must settle the matter once and for all. --Lecen (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Rjanag Conduct RfC
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously participated in the underlying referenced Rima AN/I.
The RfC can be found here.
Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
- (a) posting their own view; and/or
- (b) endorsing one or more views of others.
You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.
Information on the RfC process can be found at:
Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for IUP Crimson Hawks
|
|
On November 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article IUP Crimson Hawks, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Crimson Hawks
I saw that you were wondering about why your Crimson Hawks suggestion wasn't used. I had approved your ALT2 regarding the name sharing of the mascot; however, an admin had later declined it [20] and was later returned to the TT:dyk template [21]. A view of the edit comments from the Prep area history shows his rational. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for List of Pittsburgh Penguins first-round draft picks
|
|
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Pittsburgh Penguins first-round draft picks, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
- New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol
- German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists
- Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris
- Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November
- News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more
- In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more
- Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Fort Hood CITE errors (Many)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Formatting error in Fort Hood
Thanks for fixing. I have no idea how I wound up signing a post by you! I thought I was just fixing a reference error.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was confused, thinking "I thought I just said the exact same thing!" Grsz11 00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Fort Hood
You are edit warring and deleting large sections of referenced edits without discussion. Please stop Bachcell (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, but there your accusations are lies. Referenced does not mean relevant. Grsz11 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- YOU do not decide relevancy.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
edits
Hi. Thanks for your help w/the refs. I'm trying to get a tool to help w/it, but don't have one yet.
Can we discuss some of the deletions you've made? I think they belong back in. Did you not think they were RSs? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll post on the talk page. Grsz11 04:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
ft Hood section removed from Al-Qaeda
(to Grsz11) A Fort hood section is entirely appropriate considering how often Awlaki has been tied to al Qeda, as well as Zandini, who is his higher up and very closelky tied to Awlaki. Please do not remove entire sections of sourced edits. Awlawki just went to the press all but admits he practically gave his blessing to Hasan before he did the deed, but claims it was Hasan's idea. Bachcell (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
- Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins
- Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award
- Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing
- In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more
- Sister projects: Wiktionary interview
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Unexplained removal
Do you have a better explanation for removing this section from FBI other than comments were misplaced?? Where do you think they should have gone? Isn't there a wikipedia rule against this sort of thing? Bachcell (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I do know it shouldn't go on a GA review page that's six months old. Grsz11 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Falling off
I just happened to notice your comment (in response to mine) on your AfD nomination of Wolfgang Werlé. While I disagree with you on that AfD, that matter will be resolved at that proper forum, in one manner or another. However, I noticed you pointed out the deletion of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey recently, which I had not been aware of. Moreover, in that case, even the AfD discussion has been redacted, which is very, very strange. Do you happen to more about this situation? (If you can share it privately at my email, that would be great too, if there's some reason not to discuss it on this talk page).
I worked on the Merkey article some years ago. In fact, I was one of the many people subjected to a colorful array of legal threats and attempts at personal insults from Mr. Merkey, as a consequence of editing. It was a nice surprise getting a call from Jimmy Wales about the matter, at that time (maybe 2005, I think). However, I have not followed nor edited that article for a number of years, and was unaware of the AfD or any surrounding events this year.
My feeling seeing only the result is that it's the wrong one. While his bio did not necessarily show Merkey in entirely positive light, the last time I read it (and looking at the cached version on Google just now), it seemed to be well cited and neutral. Moreover, it sure always seemed like notability was well satisfied (not the most notable person with a bio, but easily pass thresholds). Strange events. LotLE×talk 06:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved in the issue at any point. Here we have a history of ultimately giving in to pressure, and Jimmy did himself as well. However, I don't feel that is the issue with Werle. We tend to coatrack any individual who has been critical of WP like Merkey, Brandt, Larry Sanger. It's not unexpected, obviously all of us are here to contribute, and those critical of that are inherently of a differing view from our own, and we are inclined to be critical of them. The issue for me is notability, but for many others there they vote keep in some odd attempt to try and punish the man. Grsz11 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- By "not involved" do you mean that you, like me, did not see anything except the current result? I wasn't thinking that you necessarily advocated anything in particular about the Merkey article, I just thought you might have some knowledge about what happened. It's not like I'm going to do anything one way or the other, in particular, it's just something I would like to know about (redacting the AfD seems, as I said very strange).
- As a general thing, I guess I tend to be fairly inclusionist about biographies (not necessarily as much so about other types of topics). When I occasionally wander over to reviewing AfD's, I often see biographies which I am compelled to try to improve as a result of their nomination. It is kind of fun, especially in relation to people I had not otherwise heard of, and who are in fields of endeavor or geographic locations that I would not otherwise encounter. More often than not, I find I can dig up enough encyclopedic information to make a good article that survives AfD. It's certainly not an absolute thing though: I've voted "delete" on plenty of vanity or hoax bios as well. LotLE×talk 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I definitely wouldn't be opposed to it, but I'm really not at all familiar with the WP:TFA process. I guess I'd have to read up on it because I've never participated in it and honestly don't know how it works. (Honestly, I thought every featured article was automatically placed in a queue to be on the front page! lol) Also, this could be my inexperience talking, but it looks to me like Homer Simpson already had a whole lot of support for that December 17 slot? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
ITN for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies (New Orleans)
|
|
On 20 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies (New Orleans), which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
The Reference Desk Barnstar | |
| Thanks for answering my To Catch A Predator question on the Humanities Reference desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
Brazil
Hello, Grsz! Good morning! Or at least, I hope it's morning where you live! Anyway, the article Brazil is blocked due to a dispute over a content. I would like to know if you wold be interested in giving your opinion to end it once and for all. In case you do not know much about the subject, I could explain it better to you. This is the link. All help is needed. hank your very much and kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
- Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts
- Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24
- Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues
- News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more
- In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
DYK for Lowell Creek Diversion Tunnel
|
|
On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lowell Creek Diversion Tunnel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Pat Murray
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Unless you weren't planning on responding. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Norman Olson
Hello! Your submission of Norman Olson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Prod
He had a notable college career at a big school.--Yankees10 16:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dont give me that with the coverage. He is on an NFL team and went to Tennessee, he is notable.--Yankees10 16:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Over here. Looks like there's significant coverage IMO.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it won't load for me. Anyways, I'm off to do stuff IRL. You have prodded articles in the past Giants, how do those stand up? It's impossible to get anything reasonable out of this NFL cabal. Grsz11 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest I have no idea why the 10+ I've prodded recently (except for Woodny Turenne) have stood up for as long as they have so far. Personally, I understand why your pissed off by the rejection you've gotten with that AfD but calling us a cabal is unnecessary. There's no cabal to my knowledge but just people who are passionate about certain articles. If Pat Murray is deleted, I won't care because I can see why people think he's non-notable and that most people will think it should be deleted. The notability of NFL players seems to change daily because I guarantee there's sources for Murray that would prove he's notable, yet people put effort into adding sources for Bradon Godfrey who'll never have a career yet that article was kept at AfD.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it won't load for me. Anyways, I'm off to do stuff IRL. You have prodded articles in the past Giants, how do those stand up? It's impossible to get anything reasonable out of this NFL cabal. Grsz11 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Over here. Looks like there's significant coverage IMO.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You clearly no nothing of the NFL, the practice squad is part of an NFL roster.--Yankees10 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's the part that has been agreed as non-notable. Non-active roster players. Grsz11 16:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- It really isn't see the Mark Lewis AfD.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW, looks like an editor who hasn't been here in a month removed the prod tag from Cord Parks.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Van Gilder Hotel
|
|
On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Van Gilder Hotel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
December
The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
- Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
RFA?
I was looking at your contributions closely and I feel that you are well-qualified for WP:RFA, interested in a nomination? Thanks Secret account 14:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grsz11 Secret account 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Norman Olson
|
|
On December 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norman Olson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
SoWhy 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Busch Entertainment Corporation
Hey there. I'm wondering how we should handle this ... I agree that a pagemove would have been better instead of creating a new SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment article and blanking the Busch Entertainment Corporation article. The intent is in good faith and is accurate, as the company's name change is indeed official. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have requested a page move at WP:RM. An admin can just delete the content at the new page and then move the old to the new. Grsz11 01:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for your help. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice
Hi, I'm not sure if I put it in the right place but I have a question for you which would help me understand and clarify your comments about BLP's. If you wouldn't mind answering it I would appreciate it. You can do it at the talk page or at mine. I am just interested in how you would feel about this which was sort of asked but the response wasn't clear to me. Thanks, if you are busy I totally understand. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I hadn't notice. I plan on responding to the first question that I haven't yet, then I will gladly answer yours. Also, I'm on a deadline IRL so I need to take care of that as well. No worries though, I'll have plenty of time shortly. Grsz11 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- No rush, take your time. I am leaning strongly towards support but am curious about what your response will be. I'll keep an eye out there, thanks and again no hurry, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Iloveadolfhitler
Hi, I don't want to clutter up the RFA any further. But I noticed you replied to my recent comment. Do you intend to clarify your response to the Iloveadolfhitler hypothetical at this RFA some point? I would be interesting in seeing that, if that were the case. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I figured out how to make a move request and updated the one you had left. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. [email protected] (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Re
I've had a ton of school work lately, luckily finals are next week so hopefully I can do some stuff after that. I don't think I've watched a whole Pens game for like two weeks, which is the longest streak that I can remember not watching them. Hopefully tomorrow! Steelers still have time to turn it around, we'll see. blackngold29 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
photo size
hi. was the photo size larger than deemed acceptable by wp standards? the thumb looks quite small--especially so for a pic that isn't just a headshot. also, I had carefully placed it to the right of his entry. but i see you moved it so that it is no longer adjacent to his entry -- was that inadvertent? thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- It seemed big in relation to the size of the section, and per WP:IMAGE, images aren't usually larger than 180px. And also, while I see images typically placed at the top of a section when it is the only one, I really have no particular preference about that issue. Grsz11 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- to me, it seems small: a) most importantly, because his head/features are such a small percentage of the photo; b) given that it is the only picture in the article; and c) per MOS:IMAGES "A picture may benefit from a size other than the default. ...An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide... Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following...Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image." As far as putting the image at the top of the section, the only time that is called for to my knowledge is the infobox or lead picture at the start of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Plus--I had it at 200. Only 20 (10 per cent) more than the thumbnail size (180). You dropped it to the unusually small 150--the standard thumbnail size of 180 is 20 per cent larger than that).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- to me, it seems small: a) most importantly, because his head/features are such a small percentage of the photo; b) given that it is the only picture in the article; and c) per MOS:IMAGES "A picture may benefit from a size other than the default. ...An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide... Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following...Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image." As far as putting the image at the top of the section, the only time that is called for to my knowledge is the infobox or lead picture at the start of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Government Cable Office (Seward, Alaska)
|
|
On December 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Government Cable Office (Seward, Alaska), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Explanation
I made up my mind for this vote, so I unwatched the AfD page. But do appreciate that you are struggling to answer my concern, and it pains me to see that we can't connect on this.
I said I would reply here, so here goes. Writing here allows me to be more open, without all the other voters watching over my shoulder. It seems to me that you are preoccupied with justifying your past actions and statements. But that blinds you for what we really want to know. My concern is that — allow me to put this bluntly — you seem to have a tunnel vision. When you were working in a certain area, where there were a number of editors you disagreed with, your edits were focused on reacting to them. Even after I asked you twice to explain your edit with a focus on content so that we all can understand it, you still did not say anything about content. Likewise, when you were made aware you forgot to explain what issue you actually saw on the talk page, you still refused to do so.
I wish I knew how to shake you out of that tunnel vision. But I'm giving up now. I've tried all I could. I already spent an hour writing this one message, and I need to move on. I would prefer if we could just close this discussion for now, and reconnect in a month from now, when the dust has settled. — Sebastian 19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)
2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
- Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
- Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
- Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
- Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
- Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
- Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
- Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
- Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
- Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
- In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for David Morehouse
|
|
On December 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Morehouse, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Festivus!
Happy Festivus! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've declined the prod, but I do encourage you to list the article at AfD. --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Jesse Lee Home for Children
|
|
On December 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jesse Lee Home for Children, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
- From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost
- Editorial: A digital restoration
- Election report: ArbCom election in full swing
- Interview: Interview with David G. Post
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Ophélie Bretnacher
Dear Grs11,
The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a problem of non-judicial and police cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. is a matter concerningth are human rights and democracy in Europe
Best regards
Raymondnivet (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
 | Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 51 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals. | |
MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Mark Gruber: SVC
I would respectfully disagree w/ your assessment of the Fr. Gruber controversy. I am an alumni living and teaching 2500 miles away from SVC. I have had colleagues unaffiliated with SVC/Pittsburgh/Mid-Atlantic region/Catholic Church approach me about this and have received calls from fellow alumni who heard about this through traditional sources (i.e. not facebook). Both Jim Towey and Fr. Gruber are relatively high profile individuals in the region and are well known nationally. When Inside Higher Education released their coverage of the matter, it was no longer a "local" scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.123.163 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this. I agree it does have significance and is probably worth mention here. However, compared to the size of the article on SVC currently, the mention of the Gruber-Towey incident needs to be smaller than what you added. Grsz11 15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew talk at 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Grace
I found your ANI comment to be gracious and thoughtful. Given our past disagreements, it's possible that I may have misunderstood your meaning and intent in this instance, but your comment was helpful in inspiring me to step back and consider the situation. As far as swimming is concerned, on a consensus website going with the flow can also describe piling on behavior where the direction and outcome of discussion is already clear. I do actually do that on occasion to give my support to consensus actions I think are proper, but pointing out where we're going wrong seems more impactful and significant. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Mentoring
So, you still want me to mentor you for a while? GedUK 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, atleast a debriefing I feel would be beneficial: like where I fucked up with the questions. Currently, I'm working on finals, but I would appreciate any help when I have more time in a week or so. How about I get back to you sometime next week? If I forget to, however, feel free to remind me, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Grsz11 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
- Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
No Discussion?
Alright, so now you're saying the material can not even be discussed in the talk pages? I am sourcing this, am asking for an explanation of how the material is inappropriate, and nobody to date has provided ANYTHING in reference to this. If you are going to remove it, at least do me the courtesy of stating WHY it is inappropriate.
First you guys say I can't post it because it must be discussed on the talk pages first. Then when I try to talk about it there you are now saying it can't be posted about there? How am I supposed to address it there if the subject matter can't even be brought up there? You seem to be trying to silence alternate points of view at this point, rather than providing any basis of reason.
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did not say it cannot be discussed. As already pointed out to you, the text is inappropriate. That is why it was removed from the article. Copying and pasting it on the talk page is even moreso inappropriate and certainly will not help your cause. You have been told the reasons, and feiging ignorance won't help. Grsz11 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Alaska Central Railroad Tunnel No. 1
|
|
On December 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alaska Central Railroad Tunnel No. 1, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
Hi.
I don't know if this interests you or not, but since you do have an interest in Pittsburgh related articles, I thought I'd point this out to you. You can erase this message if you wish.
As you are probably aware of, Pittsburgh is considering a new tax on college students. What makes this noteworthy is that if such a tax gets created, it will be the first such tax in the entire country, and it has been covered by Associated Press, the Wall St. Journal, U.S. News & World Report, the New York Times, and Forbes. This could make an interesting article, if you wanted to do it.
Grundle2600 (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy the season!
May this season bring you joy and cheer Grsz11! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
- Election report: ArbCom election result announced
- News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more
- In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
Hello there.
Hi. If you don't want this message on your talk page, you can delete it, and I will understand.
I see that you have an interest in editing Troubled Asset Relief Program. I would like to draw your attention to this study from the University of Michigan. I think the article would be improved by citing this study.
Grundle2600 (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Last chance to confirm your WikiCup participation!
Hi PAVA11! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers! iMatthew talk at 14:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Your deletion of picture
As you may know, POV editors have been deleting the picture that accompanies the sourced information about the cleric. As well as the RS-sourced statements of a Congressman regarding the cleric. And misstating what the NYT article said about the cleric. Conversation about this has been had in edit summaries, and on the talk page. I would appreciate it if you would restore the picture that others have been edit warring about, with clear POV, and clear deletion of properly sourced material as well as misstatements, and bring any conversation to the talk page. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Royal Hanneford Circus
|
|
On December 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Royal Hanneford Circus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
is/was
Re Arsenal:
I liked Spiderman in the 1960s. That doesn't mean I've read any of his comics this week. That article implies he put away the childish pursuit. That present tense is sensational journalese added by the writer for effect.
But you are free to interpret it as you please.
Varlaam (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't mean you don't like him anymore either. I think the current wording is suitable. It's wrong to attribute his extremist views as resulting in not liking the sport, but it does not express that it is currently a prominent characteristic either. Grsz11 23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
- News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
DYK for Pittsburgh Penguins Radio Network
|
|
On December 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pittsburgh Penguins Radio Network, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Royalbroil 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Ballaine House
|
|
On December 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ballaine House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Royalbroil 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Carvalho (2007), p.9
- ^ Carvalho 2007, p.21
- ^ a b Dohlnikoff, p.206
- ^ a b c d e f Carvalho (2007), p.43
- ^ Souza, p.326
- ^ Janotti, p.171 "No Pará, [...] declarou-se que a província não reconheceria o Governo da Regência durante a menoridade do Imperador (1835); começava a Cabanagem, para durar até 1840." and p.172 "explodia em novembro de 1837 a Sabinada que, declarava-se em Estado Republicano Independente [...], limitava o tempo da separação até o advento da maioridade de D. Pedro II."
- ^ Barman, p.317
- ^ Munro, p.273
- ^ Barman (1999), p.307
- ^ Lyra (v.1),p.164
- ^ Lyra (v.1),p.225
- ^ Lyra (v.1),p.272
- ^ Barman (1999), p.194
- ^ Lyra (v.3), pp.29-30
- ^ Lyra (v.1), p.166
- ^ Lyra (v.3), p.62
- ^ Schwarcz, p.315
- ^ Bueno, p.218
- ^ Vainfas, p.239
- ^ Vainfas, p.18
- ^ Lima, p.87
- ^ Munro, p.280
- ^ Ermakoff, p.189 "Não havia, portanto, clamor pela mudança do regime de governo, exceto alguns gritos de "Viva a República", entoados por pequenos grupos de militantes à espreita da passagem da carruagem imperial."
- ^ Schwarcz, p.444
- ^ Vainfas, p.201
- ^ Barman (1999), p.399
- ^ Barman (1999), p.130
- ^ Lyra (v.3), p.126
- ^ Barman (1999), p.361
- ^ Lyra (v.3), p.99
- ^ Schwarcz, pp.450 and 457
- ^ Salles, p.194
- ^ Carvalho (2007), p.9
- ^ Carvalho 2007, p.21
- ^ a b c RIBEIRO, Darcy. O Povo Brasileiro, Companhia de Bolso, fourth reprint, 2008 (2008).
- ^ "A hora da desforra", por Júlio José Chiavenato, Revista História Viva, nº 45, páginas 84 a 91.
- ^ Souza, p.326
- ^ Janotti, p.171 "No Pará, [...] declarou-se que a província não reconheceria o Governo da Regência durante a menoridade do Imperador (1835); começava a Cabanagem, para durar até 1840." and p.172 "explodia em novembro de 1837 a Sabinada que, declarava-se em Estado Republicano Independente [...], limitava o tempo da separação até o advento da maioridade de D. Pedro II."
- ^ Barman, p.317
- ^ Munro, p.273
- ^ Barman (1999), p.307
- ^ Munro, p.274
- ^ Fausto (2005), p.50
- ^ Fausto (2005), p. 47
- ^ Lyra (v.2), p.9
- ^ Lyra (v.1),p.164
- ^ Lyra (v.1),p.225
- ^ "War of the Triple Alliance". Britannica Online Encyclopedia.
- ^ Lyra (v.1),p.272
- ^ Barman (1999), p.194
- ^ Lyra (v.3), pp.29-30
- ^ Lyra (v.1), p.166
- ^ Lyra (v.3), p.62
- ^ "Slave population in Brazil IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics)". Ibge.gov.br. Retrieved 2009-10-29.
- ^ História Econômica da Primeira República - Volume 3. EDUSP. 2002. p. 22. ISBN 978-85-314-0689-8.
- ^ "Encyclopedia Britannica The Brazilian Empire". Britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-10-30.
- ^ Black and Brown population in Brazilian censuses (IBGE)
- ^ Lima, p.87
- ^ Munro, p.280
- ^ Ermakoff, p.189 "Não havia, portanto, clamor pela mudança do regime de governo, exceto alguns gritos de "Viva a República", entoados por pequenos grupos de militantes à espreita da passagem da carruagem imperial."
- ^ Schwarcz, p.444
- ^ Vainfas, p.201
- ^ Barman (1999), p.399
- ^ Barman (1999), p.130
- ^ Lyra (v.3), p.126
- ^ Barman (1999), p.361
- ^ Lyra (v.3), p.99
- ^ Schwarcz, pp.450 and 457
- ^ Salles, p.194