Jump to content

User talk:Wahkeenah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jmabel (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 31 December 2005 (→Sockpuppet?: I still would like an actual apology, not a conditional imitation of an apology.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi Wahkeenah, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 11:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nationals

Ok so what, who cares, they way i see it is that he is just pointing out a bit a triva, which i must say i never noticed my self but i do see where he is coming, your acting like he is rewriting the bible. It all came down to the wording, which i'll admit at frist was very vague and gave the impression that it did come from senators, which now it does not. And as for when you grew up, well good for you, maybe you should build a time machine, go back to the 60's, smoke a "dubie", and chill out. You ranting is getting old and tiresome. BTW sig you edits , becaus peopel might think your trolling or being a vandala. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These various paragraphs are all over the place. Hard to follow. FYI, most of us in the 60s did *not* use any drugs stronger than Coca-Cola... which had been cocaine-free for generations. The dopes who used dope were the headline-makers. No fun writing about the sober majority.

I gather I should not take "Don't fret, be bold" very literally. - W.

I do sign them, except when I forget to log on. - Wah-kee-nah.

  • As for Union Park i dont know, i kew it burnt down in the 20's or 30's or something, family lived a couple of block away on 25th street, no i am not that old. As for being bold, it a matter of interperation, you have to remember that is a Encylopedia and personal opinion should be refrained from being interjected, an idea than many wiki users do not adher to, at least thats my my opinion. As for your sig, it best to use ~~~~, it woros better that way. No offence taken i hope, i can get a bit steam headed and short tempered my self. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might be thinking about the Oriole Park which burned in 1944 and about which I wrote an article the other day. I have a soft spot for the Orioles, as my Uncle lived near Baltimore and took us to an Orioles-Yanks game in 1964 that featured a huge comeback for the O's and I was hooked. He called Memorial Stadium "Babe Ruth Stadium", and there was a sign to that effect there for awhile, but it was mainly a memorial to the war dead. I live in Minneapolis and was privileged to be in the Dome when Cal Ripken got his 3,000th hit. Since I'm a newbie here, and because you have been close to the subject, maybe you could critique the Oriole Park article?

I don't quite get what you mean about the Wahkeenah 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC). - Wahkeenah.

Aha, now I get it. If I use 4 tildes, it will substitute my signature. Nifty.

It occurs to me that these discussion pages is the place to vent the steam; basically brainstorming; and consensus can be reached without polluting the encyclopedia content. And I think that passion for a subject is to be distinguished from those who do overt vandalism, like trashing and vulgarizing, and who are basically morons (oops, there I go again). Wahkeenah 08:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Frank Howard and upper deck home runs - seems to me he hit more than one. But I will leave you these references and defer to you. *[1]

  • [2]
  • Last Sunday I witnessed that there are at least three seats painted white in the RFK outfield.

NRA

NRA, huh? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was an earlier reference in one of the threads, to someone maybe vandalizing a page about the National Rifle Association, so I was thinking NRA. Since NRA also stood for National Recovery Act during the 1930s, one of FDR's agencies, I borrowed Richard Armour's joke: he said that the National Recovery Act was dedicated to saving "the rare Blue Eagle". To get the joke, the reader had to already know that the posters advertising the National Recovery Act all featured a drawing of a spread-eagle rendered in blue. Or is this explanation overkill? Wahkeenah 08:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sulphur Dell

I thought "Mere words cannot adequately describe this eccentric place" was highly POV and not encyclopedic. RickK 20:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

We're really not supposed to have POV in any articles, so if you run across them, you can always reword them. RickK 20:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if the "and they stink" line were attributed, it would be okay to keep. It all depends on if it trips your POV meter when you read it. RickK 21:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

More on Comerica

I can't disagree that baseball is less popular in the general culture than it once was, but as far as the number of paying customers go, it hasn't really slipped in that area. The old ballparks that seated 55,000 would rarely sell out; their per-game attendance was not much different than it is at ballparks today (actually, today's attendance figures are some of the highest in history). I regularly went to games at Tiger Stadium in the '80s when the team was good, and even then, crowds would typically be around 20-30,000.

There is one big difference between today's parks and the old ones, though (which I forgot to mention earlier). Tiger Stadium had the upper deck directly above the lower deck, which resulted in some obstructed seats but also a lot of very good upper-deck seats. With that two-tiered seating system, you could cram in a lot of seats. In the new parks, the upper deck is always set back behind the lower deck to avoid obstruction, and this limits the number the quality seats you can have. The upper deck at Comerica is pretty far from the action, and I personally wouldn't think of sitting in the back half of it. The players look like ants from there. I can't imagine adding another 10,000 seats. Where could they go? Funnyhat 01:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Called Shot

Perhaps this should be it's own entry? You certainly have pleanty of info on the matter.

"Frankford Stadium"

To answer your question, in the future, if you create a similar accidental title error, you can just add {{delete}} to the top of the article, or, even better, {{db|reason}} (where you replace "reason" with an explanation 'mistake in article name' or whatever the case may be). That lists it at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, where any admin can delete it. Niteowlneils 14:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Braves Records"

Hello Wahkeenah!

I am glad that you noticed my edits. I actually do not have "one source" for those records. I went through a book called The Sports Encylopedia: Baseball in the late 1980's and compiled a list of records by franchise. I included all cities for each franchise since it was basically the same team. I then updated any records that were broken at the end of each season via the newspapers, Yahoo!Sports, etc. So I really do not have one source and even though I would love to, I do not have the time to research the records by city.

I do have an updated version of that Baseball Encylopedia, but what it involves to find team records is going through 100+ years of stats for each season and recording the records in each category. It is not an easy research guide for that as it lists each season and you have to find the teams within that season.

I hope this clears up how I got those records.

Thanks and sorry that I cannot research it further at this point.

Also, I hope this is how to reply because I cannot seem to remember how to reply to a message & could not find it in the Help Section!

Phatcat68 May 2, 2005, 14:23 ET

Re: Bartman

Speaking as someone largely ignorant of baseball politics, I think your proposed paragraph is quite neutral (if a bit editorialish, as you say). Though like you, I'm not sure where it would be best placed. The anon did have a bit of a point, I agree, but the way s/he went about expressing it was untenable. Keeping in mind that I'm a poor person to judge, I don't see a problem with your text, but I'm sure if anyone does s/he will quickly voice it. Cheers, -- Hadal 05:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cindy Crawford

Well, since you "went there," I personally think she's a hideous troll woman with the face of a mutant horse, but to each their own. It's not really an issue of server space, it's an issue of form. No one article needs 7 pictures of it's subject to exemplify what the subject looks like. It was cluttered and it needed fixing. ;) Pacian 08:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a self-aware feminist who takes responsibility for my faults and knows that it's better to admit we're superficial creatures and be equally judgemental of everyone, and to equally objectify both genders, than to try and suppress these natural feelings. IE better to say "What a horsefaced skank" but then follow up with "but it's what's inside that really matters" than to pretend I don't have an opinion either way :) RE: Will & Grace, I like the show but it's declined in recent years. I do love Megan Mullaly though I have seen her act in other projects and I am convinced she's fallen into a character by luck but is lacking in skill to a great degree. That being said, yes, it is a very surface depiction of gays that isn't very flattering. But when it comes to television my theory is this: it's friggin' television. If they did a show about some really boring group of gay people no one would want to watch it. There's a long-standing tradition of the gay men being played in a certain fashion, generally as the source of laughs because of their effemininity or homosexuality being considered a pitiable and laughable trait. At least on Will & Grace is is portrayed as a laughably endearing trait. IE: "Aren't gays fabulous and witty and funnily bitchy?" as opposed to "Aren't those sissies pathetic and meant to be mocked?" There IS a difference. Pacian 14:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of going off topic, let's make out a whole bunch, like, now... ;) (Glad to see we're of the same opinion on things...) Pacian 23:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disco color

Okay, I will accept your changes for the disco genrebox. But next time, please discuss changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres. Also, since boxstub is being deleted, I will replace the current genrebox with a parameterized one. Andros 1337 01:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Field of Dreams

As there is already a spoiler warning I suppose it does not really matter if you tell the joke without an extra warning. I am sorry that I removed the fact, I could not remember the exact line, but without the joke the trivia point is Point of View and had to be removed to conform with policy. Including the line is less of a problem than not including it but saying the joke is one of the funniest in the film, let readers make their own mind up. Rje 19:09, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

team records

Egad - you're right about team fans updating articles. And I thought people doing anime articles were anal-retentive! - DavidWBrooks 11:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

moved from user page

Good one, would you like to chat online sometime? Please let me know. Do you have AIM or YIM, if so what is your SN. Thanks

Josh - 6 Jun 05

Tigers

it looks just like camden yards....more so than the other copycat parks....the ivy, the industrial look, the seating bowl, the right field scoreboard....

anonymous Yankee yahoo

Well, I don't know about Yankee fans as a whole, but I must say that particular one was pretty offensive and a bad speller to boot. Probably not too bright either, to waste time making edits that someone else could just revert. Bostonian71 19:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Babe Ruth

Yes he was one of a kind personality, I can only imagine how he would fare in today's overly invasive media. I wasn't planning on writing a biography of him, but when I saw his article so incomplete, nothing written after 1922 except the Called Shot section, I felt I could finish it, although it has taken longer than I expected. Of course my writing style, which doesn't hold off on details, adds much to the time to write it, but I hope adds more depth to the article. --LibraryLion 22:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any photo's of Ruth specifically in the 1920 or 1921 seasons? I have pictures I can fill these sections in with, but I would prefer to know the exact year of a Ruth photo so I can match it as close as possible to the 1920 or 1921 sections of the article. Thanks. --LibraryLion 20:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I think I can find something with some creativite searching. --LibraryLion 22:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read that after the war there was a better quality of yarn that was being used. How much better or livelier it made the ball is perhaps a question that cannot be answered. I read that Mays also claimed he threw Chapman a curve ball, certainly not a pitch you send a message with. Chapman also could be somewhat at fault as he tended to crowd the plate. To play devil's advocate on the subject of replacing of the ball more, Chapman's death was in August in 1920. The increase of offense had started actually in 1919, nearly 2 years before his death. So the ball may have been a factor from 1921 on, but what would be the reason offense increased before this point.

Devil's advocate on the spitball. Again offense increased from 1918 to 1919, before the pitch was outlawed in 1920. Also the league office made some exceptions with the spitball. In 1920, it allowed a team to designate two pitchers who were allowed to throw the pitch. The next year it banned it outright, except, it allowed some pitchers to continue to throw it until they retired, and some of these pitchers happened to be some of the better pitchers in the game. So the pitch was not truly out of the game until years later.

I could also doubt the revelance of the tests I mentioned in the article that "proved" the ball was the same. How were the tests done? How comprehensive? Was the ball truly proven to be the same as it was before? One would have to know the specifics on the tests.

I greatly decreased what I was going to add to this in the Ruth article. As you can see, it could make for a much longer article if one goes into great depth on the subject. Incidentally, if you want a project to work on, the dead-ball article needs much improvement. The biggest reason baseball went into the dead ball era-defined as an extreme low scoring era (not necessarily less home runs) was the foul strike rule adopted in 1901 in N.L. and 1903 in A.L, also an improvement in gloves. I better quit now so I don't inundate you too much with writing. --LibraryLion 23:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I like that picture in the Baseball article, and I wouldn't worry about pictures, for same reasons I cited in putting in the Yankee Stadium photo. That Ruth photo 1921, nice shot, it is just might be a little too much of a wide shot, and the photo needs to be fixed up a bit. I do have photo program that can enlarge and fix photo flaws, you might have a similar type program. We won't rule out the photo out yet, especially if you can enlarge it, and crop it to remove the lettering.

These are the remaining pictures I might want to add, you can help look for them. Any actual photo of Ruth in years 1932, 1933 or 1934. I would like one of Ruth in 1920, his first year as a Yankee. Maybe a thumbnail of Ruth with Gary Cooper in the film "Pride of the Yankees." I will definately add a team photo of the 1927 Yankees. What are your ideas for the photos?--LibraryLion 07:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that John Goodman film worth watching? since we all know how bad the William Bendix film was. --LibraryLion 20:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is the put actors into athletes roles, and some of these actors are just so unathletic it makes the entire film unplausible. You probably know the story, which I heard is true, of Gary Cooper playing Lou Gehrig in "Pride of the Yankees." Cooper was so bad with a bat that he could only swing it effectively righthanded, but he needed to be lefthanded like Gehrig, so the film editors had to reverse the film to make it appear he was lefthanded. --LibraryLion 21:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait, but my new messages never alerted me, and I never go to my discussion page unless I see this message. Yes reading the fair use can be confusing, and legally there is a lot of grey area of what is fair use. I went over some Wiki articles and tried to see how some people justified their fair used claims for photos they used. I have completed most of information for the photos in the Ruth article, I just need to finish a few more. I gave all the specifics of the photos, including the source, year published, author, credit for photo (if known), amount of photo used, resolution, and reasons why I wanted to use this photo. To see them, you just click on the photo itself in the article. All this information by itself still may not be enough to justify a claim of fair use, but at least this makes the use of the photos as legitimate as possible. --LibraryLion 22:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might to have to also use the photo that I lent to you to put in the 1932 Called Shot article. I just can't find a better picture. I have a photo of Ruth crossing the plate after hitting the called shot home run, and a photo of him hiting a home run in the 1932 series, which happened to be the same game as his called shot home run, but the author didn't specify which home run this was. Also, I already have a photo of Ruth homering in the 1927 World Series, so I want to use something different. --LibraryLion 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1932 Called Shot

Since you wrote this section, here is my idea, and you can give me your opinion. Since it is just a little long for the article, I think this entire section could be moved to its own seperate article. Certainly it is long enough, and this could free you up to add even more about the Called Shot. If I rewrote this within the Babe Ruth article, i would most likely condense it down, but I don't like deleting and even rewriting others contributions unless warranted. Basically in my section on 1932, like other seasons I have wrote, I will give a brief overview of Ruth and the Yankees season, then in this case, about the 1932 World Series. I will of course mention the called shot, but devote limited space to it, referring one to the seperate article for specifics.

Now if you prefer it stays in the Ruth article, it probably will have to be slightly changed and maybe rearranged, because I will write an overview of the World Series in general that will probably mention facts you have already wrote, so to avoid the redundancy of information, some sentences will need some reworded, but nothing about the called shot part per se will be deleted. Hope that makes sense, I'm writing this off the cuff. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. --LibraryLion 20:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was going through my books other day, and found a picture you could use on the called shot article. It is an artist's painting of Ruth deliberately pointing to center-field. It is from a book I have on the World Series published in 1978. Photo was credited to Baseball Hall of Fame. I can download it and you can look at it . In next day or two I will give you spefific name of photo so you can find it. --LibraryLion 19:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture had been uploaded. Title is "Ruth1932.jpg"(I accidentally uploaded the actual size). I think about 300-350 px is about right. You might already know this, but to limit photo size, you would type in your brackets then "Image: Ruth1932.jpg|thumb|300px|right" then close with brackets. Of course you could add a caption under photo, maybe something like "An artist's rather liberal depiction of Ruth's Called Shot", but you may not even need a caption. Use photo however you please. --LibraryLion 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you said you wrote the entire Called Shot section. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind if I reconstruct it. Admittedley, it will be different from your version, but I can incorporate some parts you have written. Also, I am working on getting a still shot of the one you have now, but without the graphics on it. Your thoughts? --LibraryLion 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate more specifically, much of the second half of what you wrote will all be kept, the way you wrote them. So the parts you wrote about the newsreels and the Matt Kandle parts will all be kept and some other parts as well. Specifically, I will redo and or add information the intro and background of the series, up to the home run itself. --LibraryLion 22:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy. Your article is informative and well researched, and I will need these parts you wrote to make the article a complete as possible. --LibraryLion 19:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian

Hi, Wahkeenah. May I ask what is the dictionary you have which (incorrectly) lists Slovenian as only an adjective? Thanks! BT2 20:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, Wahkeenah. For some insight as to what's wrong with Slovene, please visit: http://www.prah.net/slovenia/slovenians/gobetz/introd.htm. As for the vandalism charge, if you checked the Frankie Yankovic history you'd notice Kocjancic replaced the correct term Slovenian (used by the original author of the article) with Slovene. BT2 23:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, you can also please visit Talk:Slovenians because you might come to a dead end street. I've found your excerpts from your Webster's Dictionary quite interesting. I do see that you have answered BT2. BTW it is not a question here if a word "Slovene" is an insult like it would be calling an Irishman an "Irene". On the contrary, BT2 gave himself the right to decide that a word 'Slovenian' is internationally preferred and that "Slovene" should be burried in English language. I am a native Slovene, and was taught so in schools and as I see that this word is still valid, so I am still using it. And most of all I've used it for last 3 years when I was contributing articles related to Slovenes and Slovenia. But unfortunately BT2 thinks that I've done a huge damage to my countrymen and to the whole of English Wikipedia. I know that I've done my best. Best regards. --xJaM 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd call the Kingdome a Cookie Cutter because of its round shape and field layout. I guess I could also include the Astrodome as well, now that I think of it. --Zpb52 05:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

WahkeenahWahkeenahWahkeenahWahkeenah

Hey...........

How'd you find out about me? ---User:Hottentot

According to this page the Emerald City is Art Deco:

"Just as the unsuspecting group beholds the gleaming green towers of the Art Deco Emerald City in the far distance at the edge of the forest, they realize they must first cross an enchanted field of red poppies."

---User:Hottentot

Maybe, I'm not really an expert on that kind of stuff. :-( ---User:Hottentot

Bull Durham and Dalkowski

Yeah, I know. It's mentioned in the Steve Dalkowski article. But that Dalkowski note in Bull Durham I'm sure was just a leftover prank comment made by that anon back on June 5. I was surprised it hadn't been spotted before. Though, that the film might have been based on Dalkowski's life could or should probably be mentioned in the Bull Durham article, too (in addition to the "see also"). But as it stood it was obviously not encyclopedic, so I deleted it. But feel free to make a more encyclopedic sounding note about it ;-). Shanes 06:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether users should have to log in to edit is a popular subject for debate... Me, I actually think it's fine that everyone can edit right away. There are lots of very fine edits coming from people who haven't registered (yet), and the occasional prank/vandalism edits are usually reverted very quickly. Ok, it wasn't in this case, but thats really an exception (I've probably made some couple of thousand prank/vandalism-reverts myself on all kinds of articles in my life as a wikipedian, but finding 2 week old vandalism/pranks having gone unnotised like this for so long are extremley rare). Many people become registered users only after first having tested a few anon edits first (myself for instance), and I belive making it harder for the casual reader to edit would make us lose many good editors that simply would never make that first simple edit. Shanes 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bricks

Please don't apologize until after checking the facts you implied on my talk page -- unless you already regret your snotty form of address. And after all of that, go RTFM WP:BOLD before you undertake to spoil your relationship with the next polite and helpful colleague on yr hit-list.
--Jerzy·t 02:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) You will get nowhere on WP if you don't learn how to use the article history to determine whether two edits reflecting the same approach are made by the same person or not. But as noted, that will not be sufficient. --Jerzy·t 02:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not so funny ???

I am somehow out of context of your edit [3]. Pavel Vozenilek 02:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the [[Category:People who you wonder if they talk that way in real life]]. I didn't hear these people but I am againt this category because (a) its name is too long, (b) it is very hard to classify "who wonders" and who doesn't and (c) information about strange voice fits an article, not category. Pavel Vozenilek 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fairies

I get that Tink's a fairy, and I generally approve of ridiculing the fundies who are out to get us. But not in Wikipedia. Off-topic is off-topic. Tverbeek 17:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

America the Beautiful

I was the person who removed the claim that it was a hymn. Six days before that, I asked on the talk page for any evidence supporting the claim that it was specifically a Christian hymn. None was forthcoming. Upon reflection, I decided it wasn't a hymn at all.

I'm aware that it appears in hymnals. That doesn't make it a hymn. According to hymn, a hymn is "a song specifically written as a song of praise, adoration or prayer, typically addressed to a god." Now, obviously "America the Beautiful" is a song of praise. It is praising a country, however, not a god, nor is it addressed to a god.

I removed your text re its presence in hymnals and presence in services, not because I thought it was untrue, but because I thought it was irrelevant to the article; or, at least, not so relevant as to belong in the introductory paragraph. I suppose it could fit into the History section, being relevant to its popularity.

According to my research, the poem was first published in The Congregationalist - see, for example, the article on Miss Bates, or just google for both terms. I'm not sure what form that publication took in 1895, but at present it doesn't appear to be a church hymnal. I'd be obliged if you would let me know what your source was.

Cheers, Tualha 2 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)

Dennis Miller

There's probably not a lot that can be done, except to keep an eye on the article and revert when necessary. I've added it to my compulsively-checked watchlist. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 21:35 (UTC)

  • Pages can be protected when absolutely necessary, but you're right: we do that very sparingly. I keep thinking that if enough people revert the Miller article immediately, the vandal will get tired and lose interest. As for sending a lightning bolt through his modem, maybe we can ask for that function in the next software upgrade.  :-) Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 21:52 (UTC)

You're referring to the three-revert rule, used to help prevent edit wars. That rule is generally suspended when reverting straight vandalism, and I consider the Anti-Miller edits to be vandalism, now that so many different editors have verified that the edits aren't appropriate. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Saved edits

As I understand it, all versions are saved and stored somewhere, but there is some sort of data-compressing magic going on that keeps that amount of disk space used surprisingly small. I'm not really a technical-minded person, so "magic" is about as close as I can get to the actual technique. And you aren't bothering me at all. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 22:10 (UTC)

I know what you mean about anonymous editors; the vandalism bothers me, too. On the other hand, an astonishing amount of the edits made by anonymous editors are quality. When I'm doing RC patrol, I find that only about 1 in 8 edits are trash. That means that the vast majority of IP-only edits actually contribute positive information. I think the benefits outweigh the risks of allowing anonymity. Joyous (talk) July 2, 2005 22:18 (UTC)


No personal attacks, please

Please don't edit other people's comments, nor use any Personal attacks on another user. --Madchester 04:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I-94

Yep, the Lowry Hill Tunnel image is from the "Irene Hixson Whitney Bridge", the semi-fancy pedestrian bridge between Loring Park and the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden. —Mulad (talk) 12:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

I appreciate your reversions on the Babe Ruth article. Some users might have justification to delete some sentences or parts, but I just have a problem with people who don't add one word of information to an article, and yet are very quick to delete information that they believe is not applicable. Not mention a subject which they probably have limited knowledge of to begin with. --LibraryLion 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks fine. If you could, a general picture of action of the 1932 World Series would, in my opinion, especially of game 3, also be effective. I wouldn't worry about the picture, just don't give out your real name or location, and I have a feeling your name will be way behind a few hundred, or thousand others who they need to find. :) --LibraryLion 20:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will work. It is a little grainy, but it's a picture and pictures help almost any article. You know this is one picture that if you can, make it as large as Wikipedia allows. I think there is a way to make pictures larger within the article, but Wikipedia may have a limit on the size. It's also too bad that writing is on the picture. Here is one idea you can try. You can contact the owner by his email and let him know your intentions for the picture. He might give you access to even a better image, without the writing, and you give him credit/courtesy below the picture. Course a risk of this is he may decline, and this would probably force you to remove the image completely, because he might be aware of it being potentially used at Wikipedia. Fine job though on the insertion. --LibraryLion 20:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

This area I don't have much knowledge on, but I believe Wikipedia has some information on this topic. A wiki administrator can also help you on this. The few pictures I have used, a couple I knew the sources, and asked if I could use them on Wikipedia, which was granted. One other time, I just inserted a picture without permission, mainly because the picture was already all over the web. All the Babe Ruth photo's were added by others, I don't know if they got the rights to used them or just inserted them on their own. Wikipedia says you need permission to use a photo, but the problem is very often, who do you get permission from if you don't know who owns the picture rights, and if do know who owns it, where do you find them.

I think often people in just use photos in Wikipedia without permission, and can justify using them by the fact that Wikipedia is an educational non-profit web site. What I would do, if you can't find the source, just insert the picture anyway in your article, and say "courtesy of" whatever your source is, somewhere in the article, or on the discussion page. I mean not to encourage breaking rules, but I believe plagiarizing is more serious than using pictures without permission. --LibraryLion 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty useless on questions of copyright and use with/without/sorta with permission. I would suggest you ask Dbenbenn, who generally seems to know what he's talking about. Joyous (talk) 22:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Waterfall! How old is this picture we're talking about? If it was first published in the US before 1923, then it's public domain and you can scan it from whatever book you want. If the photo was taken after 1923, then it might still be copyrighted, alas. See Commons:Commons:Licensing for more information.
If it really is public domain, it would be wonderful if you'd upload it to the Commons. Otherwise, maybe fair use applies, and you can upload it here. dbenbenn | talk 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth (translation issues)

As far as I know, there are no official guidelines for the translation of poetry on Wikipedia. That's rather unfortunate, since this means such translations risk being pulled back and forth between the two camps (literate and precise vs. poetically satisfying) and never really getting anywhere. Personally, I think translations should be as exact and accurate as they can be, and that should be sacrificed only when correct understanding of the text is at stake. While I unfortunately don't know much German, I don't think translating "feuertrunken" as "fire-drunk" or something similar puts anything at risk (disregarding that it's pretty easy to figure out what it means in this particular case, I would in most situations be quite thankful for such a literal translation), while "with fiery rapture" is dictionary-wise pretty inaccurate.

Those are just my opinions, though, but one conclusion we can draw is that official guidelines would be a great help. EldKatt 13:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hornsby vs. Kent

Well Hornsby has 301 career home runs and he played over 600 of his 2100 games at other positions, so his total is not all at 2B. Can't find the pure totals for either yet, but I believe Kent is now the career leader at 2B.

Here's a list I just found in a recent article about Bret Boone:

Jeff Kent - 293 Ryne Sandberg - 277 Joe Morgan - 266 Rogers Hornsby - 265 Bret Boone - 251

Here's the article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/231107_boone03ww.html

I was thining the same thing, Boone(36) is only 1 year younger than Kent(37), but I think Kent will hit more from here on out anyway. It depends, either could retire as soon as this year or play another 6 seasons.


Baseball "Rivalries"

Hello. Do you remember the rivals section that made its way into the MLB team pages? It's back and started by an anonymous user, whose IP begins with "24," which I believe was the same beginning of the IP as the one who added the rivals to the MLB team pages. Win777 18:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cookie cutter stadiums

Even though many books use the term, it's not appropriate for a NPOV encyclopedia. In any event, I encourage you to vote and make your case at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 21. --Polynova 02:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Cookie Cutters are completely rounded, cut off from the world. I haven't yet completed the elimination of certain stadiums because Wiki went down for a short while in the middle of last night when I was doing maintenance. Zpb52 15:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cute Girls with Overbites

Er, don't create categories you know will get deleted. If it was meant to be a joke then, er.. :/ Hedley 21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI?

yeah --SPUI (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Bowl

Oops, the only thing I objected to was including the phrase "most dramatic game in NFL history". But I apparently reverted your entire edit by mistake. Sorry about that. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

I’m trying to fix it! Any suggestion? Ki-too 07:33, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yankees Logo Description

I cut down on the second logo's description on the Yankees page. Thanks. Win777 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Rayner

Thanks for the note! Nope - wasn't around that far back in time to know of the reference. I was a kid in the 70s, grew up watching Ray Rayner in his final years before he left Chicago. My friends and I still talk about his show, more now in reverence and endearment (growing up we thought it was just goofy, but the lens has blurred!) thanks for the feedback and contributions Barrettmagic 09:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Star Spangled Banner

Done as suggested. Just for kicks, you can find that rendition online here, find "Star Spangled Bannered". -Hmib 19:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Anarcho-capitalism & joke

A branch of libertarianim and certainly much more extreme! And no, I didn't get the joke. :X -Hmib 17:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got that alright, just didn't find it that funny. :( -Hmib 20:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. That was funny, though. -Hmib 20:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Slang

As long as they all survive somewhere, I really don't care. The effort to distinguish between slang and jargon seems faintly silly, though; and there probably should be more x-references. Septentrionalis 21:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STL Cardinals

This page is getting awfully long and detailed. Do you think we should condense the timeline and then put on one of those tags that says "See Main Article: History of STL Cardinals" and then put the detailed timeline in it's own article? Let me know what you think. --CrazyTalk 17:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Maris

That's a pretty good rewrite! Hayford Peirce 18:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was an avid Yankee fan during the 50s (not since 1964, however) and my impression at the time is that Mantle was not greatly liked by the New York press at the time, mainly because he struck out a lot, was a semi-hick, and (mistakenly, of course) in their view was not as great as Dimaggio had been. It was not really until the outsider Maris came along and threatened the Babe's record that they finally took Mantle to their bosom. Other people, of course, have written about this. I dunno if something about it belongs in the Maris article, or in the Mantle article (which I haven't read recently), or in both. I do think it should be somewhere, however. Hayford Peirce 18:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you do it? I could spend a lot of time looking up articles and citations for stuff that you probably know off the top of your head. If you want to write it for the Maris article, I can take your stuff and see if it can be adapted for the Mantle article, which I'm sure it could be without much trouble. Hayford Peirce 21:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like it. I should have thought of the M&M boys myself. It was quite a summer.... Hayford Peirce 01:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: St. Louis Cardinals

Sorry, but I'm a bit lost on your message here. Was it in response to a comment I made or an action I took? If so, I'm not quite aware of it, so could you please make your meaning more clear? Thanks, Sango123 19:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :) Sango123 20:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Ninth again

I've brought up the translation issue on Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) in hope to catch some attention. Since we've talked about it before, I thought you might be interested. I should look into how to go further with the guideline thing, by the way... at some point. EldKatt (Talk) 11:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to call the very final bit (measure 843 and onwards) a fifth "movement" (in the hypothetical symphony within the symphony). It doesn't mark a major change like the others, and it's pretty accurate to see it as part of the fourth "movement". Above all, it doesn't fit in with the standard four-movement symphony structure that the whole comparison is made with. The problem as I see it merely lies in the description of it in the article, which is more than a little misleading. As you say, only the first bit is in any way "fugal". And it's not really fugal in the true sense of the word (real fugues, at least of any substantial length, are very rare in classical music anyway) which is why I changed it to fugato; even fugato might be an exaggeration, and just calling it "imitative" might be preferrable here, but that's another story. Most importantly, it doesn't describe the whole thing well. I'll change it to something more descriptive at some point, unless someone beats me to it. EldKatt (Talk) 14:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've met my alter ego, "CrazySpeller".--CrazyTalk 20:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fictional Squirrels

Okay, you asked. I haven't actually given much thought to the fictional squirrels category, but here's why it may be valid while 'Cute girls with big noses' is not. It is easy to tell whether an item is a fictional squirrel or not. For any given item, it either objectively fits into the category or it objectively is not a part of that category. Consider 'Cute girls with big noses'. How big of a nose does she have to have before fitting into the category? Ms. San Giocomo (sp?) doesn't seem to have a large nose to me. But maybe I haven't paid much attention. Is she cute? Some people think so, other people do not. So we cannot say objectively that she fits the category. In my opinion, her nose isn't big enough.  :) --Yamla 14:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 'Possibly cute girls with possibly big noses' would almost certainly be an objective category. Then, I wouldn't revert the addition of the category on grounds of POV. I might nominate the entire category for a deletion, however. Speaking of which, did you ever consider nominating fictional squirrels for a deletion? --Yamla 17:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz

I saw your edit for The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and I was wondering if you would like join the new WikiProject Oz. It's a new WikiProject to help organize and edit all Oz-related articles. If you would like to join, please add your name under "Participants". Thanks. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that controversy. I wish you would join, since in order to make the project successful, I think we need people with all types of Oz-related background: The books, movies, and of course, Wicked. My strong point is the books, so a film expert would be an asset. Let me know what you decide. --[[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You would just need to be willing to work to create the best possible Wikipedia articles pertaining to Oz subjects (in your case, film-related subjects). I would like to see The Wizard of Oz film to be a featured article someday, and from what I see, you seem to know alot. The Project is simply a way to create standards and coordinate efforts to create the best possible articles. Also, joining the WikiProject would give you more backing: you can run things by the community, and a get consensus. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tough questions indeed. I think what distinguishes Wikipedia is exactly its openness. Sure, those yahoos can edit, but we can just as easily revert those edits, so in a way there is no point to vandalism, since it is just as easy to revert. I think what also distinguishes Wikipedia is its community. The meeting of the minds. Sure, one guy can write a comprehensive Oz guide, but the fact that we have literally thousands of people going through and editing each day, there can be verification of facts, questions raised about the accuracy of a subject, and thus in a way, Wikipedia can be more accurate than other sources. Sure, there are jerks and yahoos, but, so with anyplace in life. Also, Wikipedia is literally a one-stop information shop, no need to browse lots of different sites for various facts. Need to know about Jesus? Click. There you are. Need to know about autofellatio or The Wizard of Oz? Click Click! Instant information. As for the rip-offs, I don't know. It may be the license allows it. I'm just an editor. See GDFL for more info on that. I hope my rambling explained something. See also Wikipedia:Press coverage for more on the 100's of press mentions Wikipedia gets every day. I find it amazing. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 04:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Random questions

Would anybody care about Ward Churchill if it weren't for Bill O'Reilly making such a big deal out of him?

A number of Native American groups would, I should imagine. Kelly Martin 02:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Now, on to important things, something I was asked by a colleague, and you might know: How to use i.e. and e.g. together properly, as in this example that was posed to me:

[company name] has indicated that our routing problems, i.e. our inability to reach some websites, e.g. [company1].com and [company2].com, have been resolved.

Wahkeenah 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to do that is not at all. "E.g." and "i.e." should never be overused, and there is never any reason not to replace them with "for example" and "in other words" (respectively). Both abbreviations should be used sparingly, and never in the same sentence; furthermore, abbreviations (as well as contractions) should generally be avoided in formal writing. Furthermore, in the instant example, "i.e." is misused; "our inability to reach some websites..." is not a restatement of "our routing problems", but rather a consequence of "our routing problems". Kelly Martin 02:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

You should've left the "name of your face" thing. Anyways, just curious as to why you disagree with lower-case R. —Wiki Wikardo

I thought I had done so. Anyway, when I was being taught English grammar and usage, they told us that titles were spelled with capitals. Maybe the rules have changed since I was a kid. Wahkeenah 17:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't leave on the original vandalism. Anyways, yeah, you're right, but a book title ain't the same as an encyclopædic article. —Wuuuuuucy, I'm hooome

Re: Jesse White

Nope, I'm too young! Nevertheless, I created a stub for him because he deserves more than to be a red link. If you have the knowledge to expand the article, that would be great. HollyAm 00:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I'll definitely check out Harvey sometime! HollyAm 01:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


MLB Rivals

Yup they're back... kinda annoyed that it's returned so soon. I'm still trying to figure out how the Nats have developed so many rivalries less than a yr into their existence. :-) --Madchester 05:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am not supprised. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 19:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Phillies

Original research, no. As for the writer who knows, but he apparently has left some other ontresting comments on other pages, not under the same s/n, just kinda tracked around. As for your user page Megan Mullally yes and no, she is not as "nasaily" as here character on the show. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Minnehaha four seasons.JPG. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

  • The copyright holder, and
  • The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

  • The copyright holder gets the best protection of his work by licencing their work under an open content license like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another choice for licencing one's work. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag: {{GFDL}}.
  • The copyright holder can also release his work into the public domain, see here for images released into the public domain.
    • Images from certain sources are automatically release into the Public Domain. This is true for most governments like the federal United States government. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments) However not all governments release their work into the public domain, such as the UK government (See herefor images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.
  • Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of Fair Use. To see if this image qualifies and then how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For any other sources of for more information see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that if you don't tag your images, they will be deleted.

P.S. If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --SEWilco 05:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Licenses

All this licensing talk is mumbo-jumbo legalese that makes no sense to me. I said in the description that I took the pictures, which is true, and dat's dat. Wahkeenah 05:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you haven't specified a license under which Wikipedia can use the image. Wikipedia does not have permission, so the image will be deleted. And no matter how pretty the picture, dat's dat. (SEWilco 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Minnehaha four seasons.JPG

Image deletion warning The image Image:Minnehaha four seasons.JPG has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

(SEWilco 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Jeff Kent

Hello, do you think the remarks about Jeff Kent are objective? If we include the statements about Kent, shouldn't we mention the appearance that Barry Bonds and Milton Bradley famously are unsuccessful with interacting with good ol' boys? I mean, how many people have complemented Bradley and Bonds on their maturity and composure? Just seems a little one-sided. What do you think?--CrazyTalk 03:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, the whole thing should probably be taken out. It could just be Bradley mouthing off (something he's good at) and Barry Bonds is the ultimate prima donna, so it's not like they are on the high road. I had not previously heard of Kent being accused of being racist, I just figured he was a jerk. Wahkeenah 03:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 strikes

Re: comments on 3 strike rule on User talk:stevenwmccrary58#3 strikes; I believe the source will be The Rules of Baseball: A History of How They Developed by David Nemec, The Lyons Press, 1994, but I am checking on that. Thanks for the heads-up. Steven McCrary 15:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Got the book, you were right, I corrected the Baseball page. Thanks, Steven McCrary 16:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ballparks

Well, that could work with regards to the South End Grounds and the Polo Grounds, but I think there should be seperate entries for Tiger Stadium and Bennett Field and for Crosley Field and the Palace of the Fans since those have seperate wikipedia articles. - Farquard 02:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. The three South End Grounds are usually considered to be the same park, whereas Tiger Stadium and Bennett Park are really two different stadiums. The field was even rotated 90°. Farquard 03:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. It seems odd to me to date Tiger Stadium to earlier than 1912, but I guess that is a subjective viewpoint. Farquard 18:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of how it's set up now? I must admit it's simpler this way, although the articles on the earlier parks should be merged into Crosley Field, Tiger Stadium or Griffith Stadium as apropriate. Farquard 18:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for some reason I thought American League Park was at the same site as Griffith Stadium, and I was somewhat confused by the Baltimore situation. Do I have it right now? Farquard 18:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning on getting onto 19th century or Federal League teams' parks. If any one does want to add them, I would sugest putting them in a different table. Farquard 19:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Mack Stadium actually was 360 to left on opening day. They moved it out to 378 late in the season.Gateman1997 20:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it only had 360 to its original wall. The permenant wall as you say wasn't established till a later date. I just think it's better to have the opening day distance then the later year one since we also have the final distances from 1968-70 before they closed it.Gateman1997 20:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, we list both and label them opening day and later 1909 or something to that effect. As for "current" dimensions, this infobox is the one that was used for the modern stadiums. I'll adapt it to eliminate the "current".Gateman1997 20:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely for adding current and if interesting and/or available the opening day dimensions. Anthing more might be over doing it unless there was an extrordinary reason to list more then those 2 sets. As for the 360, I referenced BallparksofBaseball.com and Ballparks.com which are the most complete ballpark resources on the net.Gateman1997 22:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


By the way... what's your favorite baseball team?Gateman1997 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs fan huh? May whatever God or gods you believe in have mercy on your soul :) . You're right about the A's of course. They can be exasperating to say the least, but they've given me one world series win in my lifetime and they've been good enough the last decade to keep me eternally optimistic. Beane does good work with what he's got. Now if only our new owner can give us a new park I'll be on cloud nine.Gateman1997 00:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've always been a fan of the Coliseum... pre 1995. It was a pretty park before then especially for a multipurpose... now it's just sad. May Al Davis and his team rot in hell. It's like going to visit your aunt after getting hit by a car, she looks like crap. The new park is currently planned for just north of the Coliseum in a "ballpark town" kind of thing. The plan actually has promise to happen and looks good. The fallback is the Coliseum's north parking lot. And last resort is they leave town, probably to Portland or Vegas (of course if that happens we'll be down a Wikipedian because I'll be jumping off the Golden Gate)Gateman1997 00:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how we get attached to places where fun things happen. I've grown to like the Metrodome quite a lot, despite its reputation as being "sterile" and any number of other criticisms. These are folks who evidently like to watch baseball in the cold and the rain. Those who cry for the loss of the "Jewel Boxes" have forgotten about the cramped seats, the bad sightlines, the lack of parking, the restrooms that were from the stone age, etc. Although I must say Wrigley might be the best of the old ones, even if I am biased. I hated the old Sox Park, by contrast, because it was built for men of the average size for 1910, whereas Wrigley's seats and aisles are roomy. The only thing Comiskey had going for it was character... and characters. The game was undeniably entertaining there, at least during the Veeck years, but it was not well-designed. Wrigley was much better designed. Meanwhile, the much-lauded Fenway might be the worst. My brother was there last summer and had a "box seat" down past the Pesky pole, with a nice view of the Green Monster and a bunch of posts. He said it was the worst seat he's ever had at a ballpark. I don't know how roomy the seats at your Coliseum are, but basically every seat faces the infield, which is not such a bad thing, and is in contrast to the Dome here, which is a valid complaint. As far as the A's moving to Portland or Las Vegas, that's just silly. Those areas are too small to support big league ball. Now, if you start to hear rumors they're going to move to New Orleans, then be afraid, be very afraid.  :) Wahkeenah 00:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America the Beautiful

Hi, Wahkeenah, and thanks for your very courteous review of my rather thorough analysis. I was tired of the skeptic crowd, etc. coming back to the page again and again. . . not knowing the history behind the poem and musical score. So I thought I would write it while I had the moment and inspiration. Glad you got something out of it!

You're right. . . why ATB wasn't chosen as the National Anthem in 1920 is an interesting facet of the story to research further. Wish Federer would have given a citation for it specifically, but, alas, I don't see one. Perhaps a newspaper/magazine search for that year in Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, etc. might yield something.

Funny thing. . . my 1929 Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia has no mention of Miss Bates or ATB. It mentions at length the Battle Hymn of the Republic, Dixie, and Yankee Doodle (and an 1832 piece entitled America). Amazing.

I did review your (and the other editor involved) edits before composing my analysis. (Keeping the editor/reader in mind) I appreciate you having a healthy respect for what actually happened in history, rather than what we as present day modern or postmodern people read into it - and thus display our biases and lack of knowledge of the past. Keep up the good work! --avnative 19:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm much in sympathy with you. My first President I remember was John F. Kennedy (which betrays my age, I suppose). In my educational duties I run across students all the time who actually don't know who Reagan was, much less did. According to them, Clinton was the first President of the United States. . . (rolling eyes)
And we wonder why Wikipedia has trolls, vandals, and well meaning but uninformed/misinformed folks making edits to it. My general theory is that the average editor is 14 years old, and the average reader is 11. So when I read something that is well rounded, and find editors who are far above average in their contributions, I take note. And believe me, I take excellent note of you! (smile)
Yeah, we'll see what future edits may bring. Sometimes folks have a chip on their shoulder and take easy offense, and sometimes you actually contribute to another's knowledge of the world. It's something I have no ultimate control of. . . but I contribute in the hopes that some of what I put out may stick around. Time will tell. --avnative 19:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
You bring up a very insightful point. . . and I'm inclined to agree with you. My Grandparents aren't around to explain these events anymore, but in my gut I think you have the emotional history about right. The Star Trek/Star Wars analogy drives it home. I think you're right. People like certainty and clear right from wrong, not anything too muddled that requires reflection. Hey, there's a Bush/Kerry analogy there in it too! (tee hee) --avnative 20:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


Astrodome

I don't know. I think the Superdome was pretty Reliant.... until the toilets stopped working.Gateman1997

I'am sorry, but the half the roof blew off, and water has caused a lot of distruction. WikiDon

Bacall

Left a note for you in Lauren Bacall. WikiDon 02:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political Correctness

I prefer to have public discussions on public pages. If you plop your comments on the page I will be happy to respond there.

Hello there. I've been linking those dates so users' display preferences kick in. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year; toss a comment in if you're in the mood. –Hajor 13:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and for the 18th-dynasty joke. "Titicaca" is indeed an inherently funny word in English (the reference you give to WC Fields is good, and valid, and a fair bit more serious as a source; far better than "hee-hee, last night the Animaniacs said Titicaca" stuff that was there before) but the challenge we're facing is how to get that cultural referent in without trivializing a continent's geography to the point where we look silly ourselves. But yeah, if I was to go with anything, it'd be WC Fields a million times before Beavis and Butthead. –Hajor 14:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Judy, Judy, Judy"

I am pretty sure that line came from Tony Curtis imitating Grant in Some Like it Hot (or on the set of), or somewhere else. It was Curtis doing Grant, but third party imitators cut out the Curtis reference. Does that ring a bell?

And then Jim Nabors did it in The Andy Griffith Show, and then Gomer Pyle.

WikiDon 00:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Snelling

Hello, Wahkeenah. That was a very nice picture of Fort Snelling you contributed. Just wanted to say kudos. Jonathunder 01:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Canaries

Hi. First at all, I'm not funny. I'm a serious person. You can read about the Baltimore Canaries at Lip Pike, or if you prefer you can go to:

The next time, please, post any message to my Talk Page. Thanks. – MusiCitizen 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Hoax

Hi there! Regarding the Moon Hoax, the point is not whether you or I believe the accusations, simply that we should report them in a neutral way!

Hurricane Katrina Hoax

The problem with your claim is that no one has made the case except you. If there was a movement of people, with an established literature, and 6% of the US believing in a Katrina Hoax, then I would agree, but not if you just made it up.

Traveling Wilburys

About the guitar chord in the song End Of The Line, I do not want it included in wikipedia because it is classified as original research. Sure, it might be common knowledge to those who have listened to both songs, but as far as I know, noone else considers the fact that George Harrison borrowed a chord from an earlier work to be important. Wikipedia is supposed to report on common knowledge. That is, what is already known and what has already been demonstrated by important people in the past. It is not a place to try to advance your theory that George Harrison borrowed a chord from a previous song is very important and it was only because of a copyright dispute. Composers and songwriters borrow from and use similar techniques in their work all the time. I cannot find any evidence that the case you refer to is strikingly different to any other case of composers recycling their own work. If I remember correctly, isn't the chord in question just a d major arpeggio?

I added a bit of context to your End Of The Line article, in case readers unfamiliar with the lawsuit were stumped about what you meant. Be warned that other wikipedians may come along and remove your info, because they are trying to abide by the no original research policy I outlined above.

Also, please refrain from the personal attacks. You are not helping your cause by accusing either me or jgm of being nazis. Both of us are trying to make the article abide by wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Therefore, I will revert the article again to conform to those guidelines, and any discussion about your additions should be taken to the talk page of the article.

Regards, Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that I've actually seen the diffs of your edit, all you did was adding the wikilink, which is fine. Therefore, I will not revert that edition. Please provide an informative edit summary, which lets editors know what you are doing, rather than using your edit summaries for personal attacks. The song End of the Line *is* inherently notable, so I may work some more on that article. I still don't believe that the part about the opening chord is important, so it will probably be deleted or reworked, either by me or another editor. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vonnegut

Hey! I appreciate the editing that you are doing on the vonnegut page. Can you give any references regarding comparisons of Vonnegut's appearance to that of Twain or re you peddling original research? --Gaff talk 09:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon

(...re: not denying the truth of it... you're right, I didn't...)

I don't deny it because there is no need to do so. It's not relevant. Of course, the "until ... disagree with" part can be applied to almost ALL people regardless of anything! (Yes, you and I both included.)  ;-)
VigilancePrime 16:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Series

Are you planning on reverting back to past tense for all the text? I had switched it to present tense to match the banner for each Series. It doesn't much matter, but they should be the same. It's weird to have "so and so defeats so and so" and then have the descriptive stuff in past tense. Wahkeenah 02:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after going through the Series listings, the present tense does work pretty well from a narrative sense. I'll change it back. By the way, do you have an opinion on whether the team names appear in the series listings (instead of just City Name (AL) etc.)? —Cleared as filed. 02:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a fight-to-the-death strong opinion, but just as with the past/present tense question, I think consistency is best. The overall listing is kind of a hodge-podge right now. The pre-1900 combatants all have their team names or nicknames, while the modern Series are presented in the old style of just the city name... and then someone felt the need to put a footnote explaining the two different New York National League entries! OK, I say lose the footnotes and use the nicknames openly, as with the earlier entries. The question is what to do with Boston in 1903. Conventional "wisdom" calls them the "Pilgrims" but that is apparently inaccurate. I would be inclined to label it as Boston "Americans", complete with quotes to make it clear that they really didn't have a nickname yet. I think that's the only oddity like that, the others all had nicknames by the time they found themselves in World Series action. Wahkeenah 02:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm on it. —Cleared as filed. 02:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos. I would have left out the "the's" in the headings, and just used them in the paragraph overviewing the Series. I was amused by someone projecting the Astros as the winners already. I don't think this is 1919. I also saw on the team pages that some a-none had listed "2005 possibly" for both the Stros and the Sox. That's a little silly. Wahkeenah 09:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I wasn't too sure about the "thes," but the names all become plural-sounding when you add the nicknames, and I thought it sounded weird without them. I wouldn't be opposed if they were taken back out, though. —Cleared as filed. 12:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Hill

Perhaps you think it's funny, and perhaps it is, but Graham Hill has nothing to do with the article Graham. If it were an article called Famous people called Graham, then your paragraph would have a place. As it is, it hasn't. --Stemonitis 08:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grahams

As the article says, they are hills over 2500ft, with 500ft of relative height on all side, anywhere in Scotland. I'm guessing this relates to whether or not we should capitalise the name - we capitilise Munros, Marilyns and Corbetts so I say we should. Grinner 09:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your fixing of the vandalism. No matter what one works on, it's becoming too hard to keep up with the vandalism. Wikipedia critics are justified this regard--anything you write can too easily be changed, and contributors have to waste time just making sure their content isn't hacked up. This wasted time also takes away from focusing on new projects. You have to wonder sometimes if it's worth it. --LibraryLion 21:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you always have to leave an article open for others--unless the vandalism is rampant, but one thing Wikipedia should do is at least make everyone register a name, so no one is identified by some IP address number, a number which many users will be part of. It may not reduce vandalism much, but at least it would be an extra step one would have to do to edit anything. --LibraryLion 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Cobb Page

You do good in reversing vandalism and adding factos and such, but I added a fact to the Ty Cobb page that you deleted. It was "*Shortly after his death, Cobb's body was on display in Georgia. But due to vandalism, it was closed." That is in fact a true fact, for I lived in Georgia at the time. Therefore, I will add the fact back. I really don't know how to varify it anymore than that I was there. Rhetoricalwater 02:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:San Francisco Giants

I thought that talk pages were supposed to be about the article, and not the subject matter. On a slightly unrelated note, where was the clear fact in that comment? ςפקιДИτς 14:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

Dear Wahkeenah, you deserve a medal for the first paragraphs of "Cricket"! And those numerous would-be-encyclopedists who were active in that article before you, they deserve a kick in the ass, and a hard one! I read "Cricket" in the summer in order to understand the game. No way! I couldn't believe the fundamental uselessness of the text in its old version. I went to hit my punching-ball for a while... Thank you, thank you, thank you! Walter (Waldirei 18:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

ps: Please explain to a foreigner (the good way you have proved to manage...): Why is it an insult to call your face "the most beautiful"?

The true test would be to find someone who doesn't know Cricket at all, and have them read it and see if they have any clue afterward. I'm the living proof. Phase one: I knew no more than there are two teams, a ball ist thrown from one team towards a batter of the opponents, then most times the ball is hit by the bat, and players start to run around. Phase two: Had the idea to consult en.WP in order to understand what the point of the game is and what could be so fascinating for some. Phase three: Was more puzzled than ever and got angry about the authors; bookmarked the page for later thourough study, but with little hope. Phase four, some weeks later - alas, your paragraph (and although modified, it is still your achievement) makes things completely clear in a few words! --Waldirei 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I even don't (and don't need to) have a clue about baseball. See? --Waldirei 08:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May I quote you (...) about something I write? Anonymously, of course. No need to ask. Everything I utter publicly is quotable :-) (Because what isn't, I keep to myself.) No need to hide my identity. Anonymous quotes would be weaker. But I only praised these Cricket-paragraphs - you may still be able to write, let's say, less useful stuff ;-) --Waldirei 21:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

Hi, I only think it is appropriate to have it in the header if the person is commonly referred to using a nickname in general public usage, as in the case of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. I don't think Pamela Anderson is commonly referred to as Pamela "Pam" Anderson. Arniep 19:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I didn't exactly mean that as she was more often known as Pamela that would be a reason not to include Pam in the header. I used Lewis "Scooter" Libby as an example because in the media he is often referred to with the nickname between his first and last names i.e. Lewis "Scooter" Libby which is quite unusual. I only think people should have their nicknames in between their first and last names in the header on Wikipedia articles in cases like this if not, just say Ernest Banks commonly known as Ernie. Arniep 01:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Da Bears

Regarding former homes, what do you think about listing one-use sites, such as Chicago Stadium for the 1932 championship game, or Dyche Stadium for opening day in 1969? Wahkeenah 23:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, these one-use sites should be regarded as "misc. use" and not officially home fields. That's what is listed on one of my primary references: Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League (ISBN 0062701746). Thus, I have not entered one-use sites in "Former homes" and rather listed them seperately in their relevant articles. For example:
By the way, wasn't the Eagles-Bears opening day game at Dyche Stadium actually held in 1970? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Thank-you for calling those other unacceptable non-articles to my attention. I will send them to AFD shortly. The Literate Engineer 04:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not going to give baseball special treatment. It's a shame you feel I've unfairly singled out that list, but unlike you, I don't believe that being the National Pastime somehow makes baseball (or anything else for any reason) a special case where editors don't have to comply with Wikipedia policy, entries don't have to be actual encyclopedia articles, and slang or jargon somehow becomes encyclopedic because of what kind of slang and jargon it is. The Literate Engineer 05:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you of vowel play

[5] - brenneman(t)(c) 14:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Money and Beets, and Liver... ewwww

Hiya, I had never quite read my quote that way before, heh and I certainly agree with you. :"D Just to clarify, periods of time refers not to money's historical capacity to hide the truth, but rather to how long it can hold a specific truth back. I don't like liver either, I'll have to add it to the list on the next update; but I'll keep that recipe in mind in case it crosses my path in the future. Thanks! - RoyBoy 800 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That beet recipe might come in handy. - RoyBoy 800 15:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I will bet a silk pyjama, there isn't any three-L lllama. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I hadn't ever heard of the poem before you gave me the first two lines - which of course prompted me to Google them. I can now add Ogden Nash to my list of poets that I enjoy. Thanks for the random bit of llama-related trivia, and for prompting me to learn something! Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

  1. Calm down.
  2. If you dislike Wikipedia so much, why are you bothering?
  3. From your tone, I'd guess that I'm more than thirty years older than you; whether I remember or not is, in any case, irrelevant. The main point is that Welch is a film actress, and sometimes (when she was allowed to be) quite a good one. There's no reason to think that an article on her doesn't belong here, but schoolboy sniggers about her breasts don't.
  4. If you know Welch well enough to call her by her first name, why not ask her if she wants this gutter-nonsense in the article? --Mel Etitis ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 09:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holt?

Wahkeenah, thanks for the nice note, to answer your question . . . no I am not a "Holt", I went to Rollins College where the main road (the only road) through the campus was named for the long time and really the first GREAT president the college had, Hamilton Holt in the teens, 20's and 30's if I remember correctly, 1000 H. Holt Avenue is the address and it was always fun to steal his bronze bust out of the admin building. So nope I'm not a Holt but in a way I have your clan to thank for my degree ;).

Re:christopher reeve

The link name IS ALREADY IN THE LINK. I have not censored the link. You are restating its name explicitly FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISING THAT WEBSITE. That is spam, son. Either you yourself are the author of that website, or you have some personal reason for pushing it. Since you refuse to offer any alternative explanation, I am free to draw my own conclusions. Wahkeenah 14:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Maddox, the author of The Best Page in the Universe is currently writing a book and a comic book. His website is more popular than McDonald's website. Technorati ranks it as the 31st most popular "blog" (though Maddox does not consider his site a blog). This is clearly not some kid spamming his Geocities site everywhere; it is an actual website. I believe it has every right to be posted as an "External link" on the Wikipedia article for Mr. Reeve. Just because the man is dead doesn't mean criticism can't be pointed in his general direction. --Snafuu 09:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the tinman. --Snafuu 22:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. "I wish I would have died and not raised you" -Maddox's mother --Snafuu 01:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Hi there, could you please supply a source for Image:Alcatraz postcard 1965.JPG. Thanks! --Kilo-Lima 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comments

As above: your uncited, unverifiable, POV assertions are wholly inappropriate and nonsense in the wardrobe malfunction article. If you cannot comment rationally and with civility, don't comment ... and I will not respond to them or you hereafter. Instead, I will move that you get censured for your actions. End commnuication. E Pluribus Anthony 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Stadium

From what I understand they dropped it fast as part of the new park is being built where Busch 1 sat.Gateman1997 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Ramps

I trust your jocking, or joking, as you American's call it (not intended to be neferious at all) when you said the exit list for the highway 94 page was to long? Or wer'nt you not?--Gephart 05:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please watch the comets

"The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." -- couldn't agree more!

haha. ok you got me to laugh with that response. ;) happy hollandaise to you. I've self-reverted the complaint. -Justforasecond 23:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Alcatraz postcard

To qualify for fair use, it needs to have a link of where you got it. Even if it's fair use it needs to be in a page, if not it's a orphan fair use and it's speedable. If its yours, do a Template:PD and why it's PD intead. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 20:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just reload it and tag it as fair-use but with a source. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 22:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find nothing for a postcard so just tag it as fairuse, and say that you scanned it yourself, the copyright is probaly lost anyways so a Public Domain tag will work also. --Jaranda wat's sup 23:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesses

Hi. I have absolutely no idea what the correct version is. I was just a little bit troubled by seeing the guy referred to as "Ramesses", "Rameses" and "Ramses". This offended my sense of consistency, so I made sure they all reflected the spelling he has in his own article, namely "Ramesses". If we ever re-spell his name there, we'd need to make the appropriate changes elsewhere, including on the 10 Commandments page. Cheers JackofOz 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for all your messages. Cheers JackofOz 21:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing the Peanuts facts

Dear Wahkeena, I'm Janet6, a Wikipedia user--I want to know why you erased my info about the The Complete List of Peanuts Birthdates and Information. It isn't on the Internet, so you wouldn't find it anyway. Can you answer back? Thanks

Neil Sedaka

You apppear to have reintroduced the incorrect observation that the ballad version of "Breaking up..." quotes the doo-wop intro from the original up-tempo version, which it does not, in any version which I have ever heard, with the exception of one *very* broken karaoke track. Can you produce evidence that an actual release version of this song ever sounded like this? I'm going to take that back out; if you can, lay the cite on me, and I'll put it back in.
--Baylink 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to try to track down a copy; I've *never* heard it that way. Do you still have a copy?
--Baylink 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janet6

Hey Wahkeenah, there was a page on the Peanuts article about the kids' ages and birthdates... why did you revert it? I was going to read it today. --Janet6

Sockpuppet?

I have no idea why you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet, but I believe you owe me an apology. I believe that one glance at my contributions will disabuse you, but if it doesn't, please present your evidence for this truly bizarre accusation. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IF you are not an alternate persona of those other guys, THEN I apologize. There has been this "edit war" with this character who keeps inserting this editorializing about Reeves death, and when you deleted my neutral comments that discuss the questions about his death, but left in his "in dispute" nonsense, I jumped to the conclusion that this moron had struck again under yet another guise. Wahkeenah 17:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What appears to have happened is that, following up a trail from another article, I went to a user contributions page and followed up several diffs that were marked as top, trying to clean up the more blatant aspects of the mess. I made edited a paragraph that was blatantly wrong (see talk page for what I cut: if you really think I was accusing myself of possible libel, you must think I have a very elaborate ruse going on); it looks like before I got to this page, you made a larger change and somehow I didn't notice. So I made an honest mistake. A bad edit (given your intervening edit), probably not my first, but one of few, I believe.
For now, I will assume your good faith, even though it is clear that you will only reluctantly consider the possibility of mine. Either you haven't looked through my contributions list as I requested, or you have looked and still think I might be the sockpuppet of this agenda-pusher or, as you so politely put it, "moron". If the former, please look. If the latter, then please start an RFC to allow me to clarify the matter. And if you do look at my contributions and realize that you are wrong, I still would like an actual apology, not a conditional imitation of an apology. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wahkeenah&oldid=33414406"