| Revision as of 19:29, 20 November 2006 editRedBirdI55 (talk | contribs)55 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:47, 22 November 2006 edit undoWahkeenah (talk | contribs)22,205 edits Archive time.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Comerica Park Whaling thing == | |||
| ]It is gone, replaced by a Verison advertisement. --] 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If you mean the distance markers painted on to the green outfield fence, I think so, in fact I remember thinking how much advertising was now on the outfield wall in right and especially left in front of the bullpens. I don't think there is a distance marker on the left field line at all, I was looking because I wanted to see how much they shortened it up from the first 4 seasons. There may be one in straight away center and down the line in right. Hopefully they were smart enough to apply some peel away vinyl or other application that preserved the underlying artwork of the whales, becuase it could be possible to 'drape' the wall with advertising, but who knows, that might be too logical. Anyway, back to work. --] 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Overtime == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Please see my message at ]. Thanks -- ] 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, I've got no objection to your new addition. -- ] 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Barry manilow== | |||
| I was looking over the history and talk page of Barry Manilow. Thanks for taking care of all that nonsense about homosexuality that people continued to put in. ] 02:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Didn't about the weathermen until now - quite ironic indeed :). Music of almost every generation has been criticized as it first hits the mainstream, especially in the 50s with ], but the music has gotten progressively worse as time has went on. The thing that bothers me the most about new music is the casual and constant use of shock words, particularly the F word. I can't say I hate the sex references in today's music too much because then I would be a hypocrite as I enjoy music like the innuendo laden ]. | |||
| ::I actually discovered the gem ] a few months ago while browsing through a disco collection. ] 01:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Please refrain from removing content from the Square page, in a lame attempt to conceal your own square-ness. If this continues, cool non-squares will be dispatched to your house to beat you up. That is all ] 07:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| My goodness. He's persistent. I've added the page to my watchlist, also. If necessary, we can semi-protect the page, but let's hold off on that to see if it's needed. ] | ] 13:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I wouldn't worry about mentioning it. If he notices, fine. If not, fine. ] | ] 13:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tourist trap== | |||
| I made significant changes to the page ] and from the history page it looks like you have spent some time working on it. Please take a look and let me know what you think. This is my first attempt so... ] 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Sweeney appears to exist , although the article here is...not great. Perhaps you could take a moment to write an actual sentence instead of the garble that's there? ] | ] 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks much better now. I hope my comment above didn't come off as rude: as I read it this morning, it appears a little brusque. If so, I apologize. I was editing under the influence of allergy medication, and I didn't trust myself to fix the article. ] | ] 12:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==World War II or the Second World War== | |||
| The terms are generally synonymous although most American(U.S.) historians tend to use the "World War II" or "World War 2" designation, historians in the United Kingdom and Canada have standardized on the "Second World War" and consequently, the "First World War." You will find both conventions in use throughout the internet and unless there are significant reasons for choosing either system, I will defer to applying the designation: "Second World War" to only articles pertaining to a British or Canadian subject. Encyclopedia Britannica: "World War II also called "Second World War" conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45. The Misplaced Pages article on the subject describes it as: "'''World War II''', or the '''Second World War''', was a ] ] fought between the ] and the ], from 1939 until 1945." | |||
| ] 15:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reverting== | |||
| When reverting good-faith edits, it's polite to give an explanatory edit-summary. The editor you reverted on ] doesn't understand what your problem with his edits was, and frankly, neither do I. When people communicate, it makes it a lot easier to come to consensus quickly, and without bad feelings. Thanks, ] <font color="green">]</font> 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Quotations, periods and commas== | |||
| Explain to me, since you seem to be an American, why you use a British form of useage in regards to the placement of a comma and a period when quoting. Here is the common answer to placement: "When it comes to commas and periods, though, logic doesn't enter into the equation, at least not in the United States. Universal American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, regardless of logic. | |||
| ~"Diane," she said, "put the book down and go outside for a little while." | |||
| ~"I will in a minute," she replied, "as soon as I finish this chapter." | |||
| This rule applies even when the unit enclosed at the end of the sentence is just a single word rather than an actual quotation: | |||
| See the following google search: <http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=commas+and+periods+in+quotations&meta=> | |||
| ] 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sources -- some examples == | |||
| This is the only example I can think of off hand ] but I saw some really good ones recently and I'll send the articles to you when I get the time. Thanks! ]] 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please ignore ]. No specific citation style is required. Naming the sources in the text of the article is perfectly acceptable. See ] if you'd like more information on the ''multiple'' ways to cite sources. -] (]) 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, the user appears to be a troublemaker. Check ] for a ''partial'' list of other articles she has pulled this kind of crap on. -] (]) 18:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hodag== | |||
| I've never heard of a ]. Is there supposed to be one in the Mall? ] 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The season is limited as well as the venues. ] is a good place. As well as ] locations and ]. ] 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==HHH Metrodome== | |||
| Thanks for the heads-up. Since I left ] as a result of a few teenage editors who were ruining the encyclopedic viability of the project, a few of them have followed me to all of my other edits to revert my removal of obscure, non-notable pro wrestling tidbits. My apologies for any offense I may have caused. - ] 07:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Interesting issue. You might get some outside opinions on whether NPOV concerns are applicable in a direct quote by dropping a message at ]. That's a page that's widely read by many regular editors. ] | ] 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I just want to know what in the world you have against Scott Mitchell. He is my former employer of whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for. You keep removing him from the Notable Alumni section of the Illinois State University entry yet he is listed on by their cited website as a notable alumni. I would simply like an explaination. | |||
| == Re: Photos == | |||
| Well, basicaly yeah, ] says (among other things) that "fair use" material should only be used when: "''No free equivalent is available '''or could be created''' that would adequately give the same information.''" (emphasis mine). I realise not everyone is entierly happy with this (see lenghty debates at ]), however creating ] is one of the ] of the project after all. I'm not trying to compell you or anyone else to do anyting. I simply added the photo request template to the article's talk page to alert the comunity as a whole that a photo is requested, people are free to do nothing about it, just as they are free not to write about scertain topics, but sometimes Wikipedians with photography as a hobby will check those categories and help us get the photo we need (I would if I could, but I'm not even on the right continent). Even if they have never even seen the article in question. Keeping unfree images in the articles "while we wait" have proven to have a clear tendency to discourage anyone from actualy replacing them. So sorry that I upset you, but "that's the rules" I'm afraid. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 07:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Where am I compelling others to do research for me? The images are deleted in acordance with the ] and ]. I'm also adding the {{tl|reqphoto}} templates in order to alert as many people as possible that the article need a free licensed photo. As for what determines if a image is "replacable" or not, well it can be tricky sometimes, but mostly it's fairly obvious. Take ] for example. That one is IMHO a no-brainer, the stadium is very much accessable to the public. Anyone within a reasonable distance off it can simply drive over and snap a few photos of it. I'd say that qualifies as a "''subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created''". If all we required was that "''a free licensed photo can not be found within 5 minutes on Google''" we would never get free licensed photos of anyting. If you have a seriuos complaint about how the policy works ] is the place to go, and there is always ] if you feel a particular image was wrongfully deleted. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Ballparks == | |||
| Nah,don't worry about it. I'd been working for a few days on it and then thought for a moment I'd lost everything since I'd followed a few links in the preview screen and ended up somewhere completely different. I went back a few times, though, and found my edits, still in progress. I balked at saving it without completion because I'd left a few blank, but I did it anyway, since I'd scared myself half to death. | |||
| I continued on, and apparently you jumped in and filled in the blanks as well as adding a few things. Since it was 2:22 when I completed it, and I had to be up at 6:22 (I set my alarm weird times) I didn't want to do the work just then, and decided to do it today. I would have done it this morning, but a coffee spill took up most of my time before I had to head off to school. Got a break now, so I'll merge your stuff in. There's some good stuff there, and you fixed some of my grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as rewording things at times when I couldn't do it properly. The only things that I wouldn't put in are the references to the championships won (as the section is focused more on physical architectural features), the references about 5 times in a row to Dodger Stadium, and the mention of Babe Ruth getting a short porch. Weren't you the one I argued with that about on the Yankee Stadium page? Aside from that, the only problem is that with the added text, the pictures probably won't line up with the text for the stadium, so I'll probably switch or move a few of them. ] 16:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Klobuchar== | |||
| I was advised by an admin, ], that adding these boxes before the individuals in question are seated presumes that they will, in fact, be serving as senator from wherever (after I had put one up on Jim Webb's page). So I merely trying to establish consistency per the guidelines of Misplaced Pages, see - it seems pretty clear cut. ] 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comments in ] == | |||
| While your statement about Byrd is true, it isn't really relevant in discussing the article about Ellison. Thanks, ] 12:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==RE:"Satanosi"== | |||
| Good point - Satanosi is a bit extreme - I had a feeling I couldn't get away with it for that long :). I've replaced it with a humorous news headline. ] 03:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Not going to happen. I only follow the right ideas which happen to be ]. I see no good reasons to change my beliefs - so I will not be changing them any time soon. ] 04:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Ahhh...that would make sense. I'm used to playing defense against ]. ] 04:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *We actually go "way back". To make a long story short, we have belonged to the same forum for almost 2 years now and had been quite vocal about our political differences there. Just recently he discovered my page here and decided to do some damage. ] 04:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *That's good to hear. It's always good to be open to new thought, and ] is certainly a great program. Which reminds me - I missed it tonight. With me, I obviously lean heavily to the right, and need to work on the open mind thing a bit more. As great of an author she is, that's what too many ] books can do to you. ] 04:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *To answer that question I would have to know your age, but Notapotato is about 3 years from the big 4-0. The type of work he does here certainly seems a bit out of his age range. (Your replying style seems to work better) ] 04:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *As for the replying style - I actually meant the bullet points as opposed to my old method of repeatedly identing it which got a bit too far into the middle of the page. I have heard a lot of good things about a democratic congress and a republican president or vice versa - and can see how it would work well. I guess I have the next two years to see for myself. I've already got my McCain 2008 shirt - but of course the entire nation would be once again drug through the age issue as with RR. ] 15:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD Nomination: ]== | |||
| I've nominated the article ] for deletion under the ] process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that ] satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see ] and ]). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ]. Don't forget to add four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. ] 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You Missunderstand the prod has been removed and it is now in AFD. ] | |||
| ==As for your comments on Elonka's talk page...== | |||
| I think they are uncalled for, I am NOT trying to personally attack, just noting that at this moment there is no claim of notablity on the page. This was thought of going to speedy a couple of months ago, removed an AFD suggested but never acted upon. You have ample chance the save the article, and even linked to an article I recomended ttttto help improve the article inquestion. You have ample chance to save the article, why complain and make unfounded statements about myself? ] 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Notability of ] First off The city pages awards, including the amount of them, then you have how he got into radio (which I got to say is pretty dang unique), and the Atlantic monthly article in the links section. I don't see any of those in the ] page. As for the personal attacks, you are assuming my position as that I am pro-] and anti-] This is simply not true. As I asked here why not improve the page and get rid of some of the non-needed stuff so that it fits ] instead of complaining??? ] 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re:Hurricanes== | |||
| You got that right - we are about as far from an ocean as you can possibly get in the U.S.A. ] 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Scott Mitchell == | |||
| The scott mitchell article is finally up for AFD. Just thought you'd like to know and maybe comment on it since you have been active in the discussion.] 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||