User talk:AaronY/Archive 1

Logical Proof of the statement "Jack the Ripper's identity has never been determined"

The statement "Jack the Ripper's identity has never been determined" is an incontrovertible logical fact. Let's examine the statement, it's strictly grammatical meaning, and it's logicality. To do this we will first examine the statement grammatically with the intention of defining it more clearly.

Jack the Ripper (English serial killer in the 19th century)'s identity (for this purpose we will just use proper name) has (third person singular present tense of have [1]) never (Not ever; on no occasion; at no time: He had never been there before. You never can be sure. [2]) been determined (To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively. To end or decide, as by judicial action.[3])

So grammatically this statement means: The English serial killer named Jack the Ripper's proper name has not ever; at no time been decided or settled conclusively and authoritatively.

Now basically to those new to logic here's a primer. An important part of logic is the for the premises to support the conclusion. We will use deductive reasoning here's the definition according to Wikipedia, "deductive reasoning is reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated, or reached, by previously known facts - the premises: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is as opposed to abductive and inductive reasoning, where the premises may predict a high probability of the conclusion, but do not ensure that the conclusion is true. [4]" Now this kind of reasoning has been proven to be true through the use of mathematics, science, and real world practice. Please refer here: [5] if you have any questions regarding deductive reasoning.

In our instance we have 3 premises and 1 conclusion:

3 premises

a) In the 19th century in England there was a serial killer known as Jack the Ripper. (true)

b) Jack the Ripper's proper name (identity) has never been decided conclusively and authoritatively. (true)

c) determined means "To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively. To end or decide, as by judicial action. [6]" (true)

conclusion

d) Jack the Ripper's identity has never been determined. (true)

Therefore according to the scientifically proven logical method of deductive reasoning if a, b, and c are true and they presuppose d then d must be true. There you have it the statement "Jack the Ripper's identity has never been determined" has been proven to be a logical fact. Quadzilla99 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Butler

I noticed you've made some contributions to the George Butler article. I was searching for something else related to him and ran across a brief bio at this link; I thought you might be interested it it as a possible additional source of information: http://www.whitemountainfilms.com/bio.htm.—Chidom ^talk  21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZMA

ZMA (supplement) Let me know if you are ok with the cite I added I am pretty careful on adding references as I agree with you some are way out there and if I add one I have read it from a reliable source. Thanks --Supplements 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a review of the study done by Brilla and Conte at Western Washington Univeristy in 1999 that was already sited in the article. The review was published in October, 2000. A study may be reviewed in several Journals but it's still the same study. If you look on Pubmed[7] there are other studies you can use to site the effectiveness of the ingredients of ZMA but the 2 studies in the article are the only 2 that I know of that were done on ZMA's actual formula. If you find anything make sure it's a new study not a summary or if it is a summary be sure to site that it is a summary. Something like this is not new research but a review of other studies which it doesn't site and not very helpful:

"Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Aug;72(2 Suppl):585S-93S. Links Magnesium, zinc, and chromium nutriture and physical activity.Lukaski HC. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, ND 58202-9034, USA. [e-mail]

Magnesium, zinc, and chromium are mineral elements required in modest amounts to maintain health and optimal physiologic function. For physically active persons, adequate amounts of these micronutrients are needed in the diet to ensure the capacity for increased energy expenditure and work performance. Most physically active individuals consume diets that provide amounts of magnesium and zinc sufficient to meet population standards. Women tend to consume less of these minerals than is recommended, in part because they eat less food than men. Inadequate intakes of magnesium and zinc have been reported for participants in activities requiring restriction of body weight. Dietary chromium is difficult to estimate because of a lack of appropriate reference databases. Acute, intense activity results in short-term increases in both urine and sweat losses of minerals that apparently diminish during recovery in the days after exercise. Supplemental magnesium and zinc apparently improve strength and muscle metabolism. However, evidence is lacking as to whether these observations relate to impaired nutritional status or a pharmacologic effect. Chromium supplementation of young men and women does not promote muscle accretion, fat loss, or gains in strength. Physically active individuals with concerns about meeting guidelines for nutrient intake should be counseled to select and consume foods with high nutrient densities rather than to rely on nutritional supplements. The indiscriminate use of mineral supplements can adversely affect physiologic function and impair health.

PMID: 10919964 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"

Basically the guy is just summarizing the 1999 Brilla and Conte study again when he says "Zinc and Magnesium apparently improve strength levels" although he doesn't directly reference it like the source you posted. There are several summaries of the Brilla-Conte study out there so be sure anything you site is not just a summary of it. Quadzilla99 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re super bowl rosters

At some point you should put the tables into an actual HTML table (preferably using the Wiki table syntax). The tab-delineated format that you are currently using will ultimately get screwed up by an automatic Wikipedia bot that will think that the extra tabs are not necessary.[8] Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's strongest man

You could do the redirect yourself you know. In future, be bold and do it yourself. Hole in the wall 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would but it says double redirect and I don't know how to bypass that. Quadzilla99 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just type in - #REDIRECT [[redirect location]]. If it's a double redirect, find the page you want it to go to, and redirect to that. I hope that explains it. Hole in the wall 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll give a try if I encounter the situation again. Quadzilla99 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thorpe edit etc.

I think your edit to the Jim Thorpe article is a good one - but I question a statement left in that his 100m record would be the longest standing record in sports history - it's kind of broad. Ernie Nevers has some records that have stood since the 1920s - and still stand. Jim Hines broke the 10 second barrier in the 100 M in 1968.

I also noticed you have an interest in sports equipment. My father, Hap Moran who played in the NFL from 1926 to 1933, used to tell a story about trying to sell tackling sleds to schools but it was an idea ahead of its time. But one of his teammates from the 1926 NFL Campionship Frankford Yellow Jackets, Rae Crowther, persevered with the idea and his [9] company is still in business.

You might also enjoy a picture I've posted to the Jim Thorpe discussion page: [10] Revmoran 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the statement can be verified then Ok. Usually those things sit in there with a ^[citation needed] tag for months which I don't like personally, so I think it should just go until someone provides a source. Quadzilla99 15:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Value Article

I made some important changed to the biological value of protein article. Please overview. Also, please clean up the Methodology section (formely Criticisms). Thanks. 63.17.103.250 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quadzilla, these same edits were applied to the section you wrote for Designer Whey Protein. Your opinion on both of these pages is needed (go there and you'll see why). Thanks! Yankees76 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some help on the Biological Value article would be greatly appreciated. I'm actively asking for a third opinion, but you might be able to help. Yankees76 03:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Olajuwon

Thank you for your contributions to the Hakeem Olajuwon article. Looking at it now the article is almost double it's former size now thanks to you. You really have done a lot of work to bring up the quality of the article. Thanks! Harvey100 01:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flu Vaccine

Thanks for the Flu vaccine Barnstar. I was feeling down. You lifted me up. WAS 4.250 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem you definitely deserved it. Quadzilla99 03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Olajuwon- GA

Alright, I'll double-check the article and add in some comments. In all honesty though I'd try submitting it to Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates based on the improvements made since I rated it almost a month ago. Looks way better than I remember. --Wizardman 03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Congrats on your recent adminship. Quadzilla99 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been given adminship, lol. Haven't even applied for it. I'll take that as a compliment though :). --Wizardman 03:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that message on your talkpage, my bad. Quadzilla99 03:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem peer review

I went and requested a peer review for Hakeem Olajuwon to see what other editors think of it. You may want to look through here periodically to see what concerns are brought up. Once that looks good you can request a good article review if you want, and if good I'll probably approve it (Since I'm part of the committee). --Wizardman 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Assassination Theory

Thanks for taking the time to add the disclaimer to the theories section. I had put the {{totally disputed}} tag on the page to serve this purpose. At the time there was heavy edit warring on the page and I felt that if I added a paragraph like that it would be reverted as Original research or for some other reason. Then once the troubles died down I just forgot. Anyway, thanks. Ramsquire ^(throw me a line) 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I shouldn't have called it a disclaimer just a clarification. Quadzilla99 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Designer Protein Picture

Nice job getting a pic in there - but is there any way you can remove the watermark on that image and reupload? It contains a URL to a commercial website. Cheers. Yankees76 18:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see it I'll remove it and go find another one. Quadzilla99 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it caught my eye while I was trolling through recent changes. Alot of online stores insert their watermarks to discourage competitors from "borrowing" images to use on their own sites. Cheers. Yankees76 19:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're good

The MJ article looks better then other with all of those sources. Thanls! --Twlighter 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good to hear some feedback it was a lot of work. Quadzilla99 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, ShadowJester07, hereby award you with the Working Man's Barnstar award for all the time and effort you spent bettering the Michael Jordan article. Thanks!  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my first barnstar thanks so much. Quadzilla99 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat redundant to the above, but I also appreciate the work that went into putting in all those references on MJ soooooo...

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all the hard work in improving Michael Jordan! Syrthiss 12:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, it really does feel good to get some recognition when you put a lot of hard work into something. Quadzilla99 12:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Pics

Alright, cool. Would you be willing to the paste the entire contents of the e-mail on each of the image description pages. People often do this to clarify the licensing when it doesn't match up. I have one more question, the flickr page for Image:MJAwards.jpg states that the author does not allow for derivative works. However, Wikipedia requires this. Do you know if the author is willing to make an exception for that image? Also, the author should be made aware that images aren't allowed for WP use only as it makes it difficult for forks, so any image released by the owner under a CC license must be ok to use on sites besides WP. Thanks and keep up the good work. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'm still waiting on an email for the one in the portait box. Quadzilla99 01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched images on the article to Image:Michael Jordan UNC Jersey cropped.jpg. The reason why I did this was because I figured this sort of image should be on the commons anyway. And since I had to upload it anyway, I decided I might as well raise the resolution while I was at it. Anyway, you might want to consider uploading future images directly to the Commons so that they can be used by all Wikimedia projects. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem, thanks for upgrading the resolution. Quadzilla99 08:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks. I just left a message for Joshua Massel. I wanted to get clarification on which specific license he wanted to use. I know I am kind of strict about the whole license thing, but that is because I want to make sure none of the flickr users get left with a bad taste in their mouth over any miscommunication. Another note: I personally don't drop the resolution too much for uploaded pictures which allows people to view the full size version of the image at the highest quality if they choose. Wikimedia software automatically makes the file size smaller for the article, so there usually isn't much of a difference when only viewing the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big photo buff, assuming he gives you the correct license, when you crop it can you affect the brightness of the photo slightly also? It's pretty shadowy currently. Quadzilla99 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just open it in Photoshop and run the auto contrast/brightness/etc filters and if it looks better than before, I save the changes. That is about the extent of my ability, but I'll give it ago. I've been so busy focusing with licenses, that I haven't even looked at how much the MJ article has improved. Great work on bring two articles up to GA status. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well MJ hasn't passed GAR yet (he types with crossed fingers) but thanks a lot. Quadzilla99 08:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:"MJ".jpg looks great. Is there any reason you want to keep Image:MJ6.jpg or Image:MJ7.jpg on the servers? If not, I'll delete them for you. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Joshua messaged me back on flickr and he is more than happy to change it to the license. I'm not sure if he is going to choose CC-BY-2.0 or CC-BY-SA-2.0, so I haven't made any changes yet. I just wanted to let you know that we are good there. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help PS2pcGAMER and thanks for deleting the redundant photos I mistakenly created. Quadzilla99 12:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hetre's the photo we got out of the whole process:[11] Quadzilla99 14:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your hard work in bringing Hakeem Olajuwon up to Good Article status I award you this Barnstar. Keep up the good work. Harvey100 14:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harvey and I agree with your Hakeem comments on your user page. However if you keep your user page the way it is now I would suggest not editing the Dirk Nowitzki article anytime soon lol. Quadzilla99 12:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Cantor

I have removed the tag from this article. It has plenty of references. If you have concerns over particular details, please put a {{fact}} tag against them; a comment on the talk page might be useful.--Runcorn 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has total of zero inline citations as of now and merely 2 notes.[12] Quadzilla99 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

I responded to your comment there. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding CB-4.jpg

Thanks for uploading the file CB-4.jpg. I see you got the image from Flickr. The tag you gave the image was not the same as it was on Flickr, luckily, the tag on Flickr was still a free on. In the future, if you stumble upon an encyclopedic image on Flickr, please upload it to the Commons. Images uploaded at the Commons are available to all Wikimedia projects, not just en.wikipedia.org. Also, you did not upload the full resolution image. On the Flickr page, please click the all sizes button and use the highest resolution available. I have moved this image to the Commons with the higher resolution image. In a few days, the image you uploaded here at en.wiki will be deleted but all your links to the image will automatically be switched to the image at the Commons. Once again, thanks for the great upload. If you have any questions, let me know.--NMajdan•talk 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. I knew it was good because you can sort by Creative Commons images that are allowed to be used commercially and altered at flickr, just put the wrong tag on it. Quadzilla99 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Looney Tunes

Alright, I added the needed fields. Thanks for the heads up. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Quadzilla99 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Toni Kukoc.jpg

Hi. I just saw you uploaded this image. Free images should be uploaded to commons, especially if they are from Flickr. Commons is setup to handle these images better than Wikipedia, as they have a flickr review process that can verify the image license and protect it better. Commons images can be used on Wikipedia (and all other MetaWiki sites!) just like they were uploaded here. Thanks! --MECU≈talk 16:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully aware of that.[13] Quadzilla99 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind word at the right time

thanks for your kind words, about WP:LAME. It really came just at the right time. I am currently in the middle of a really nasty edit war, which involves Bridgestone employees editing wikipedia. I need those words of encouragement right now, you made my day :). Travb (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy!

Thanks for adding the {{toolong}} tag to the Jeopardy! article, but you might want to read the talk page for the article first; you'll see that this issue has been discussed. If you can think of ways to improve the article by splitting off sections, please give it a shot. Robert K S 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's 60kb and after reading the talk page I see no reason why the tag would need to be removed until it gets shorter. Quadzilla99 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one reason. The tag makes it longer. By adding the tag, you're not solving the problem. The issue has been discussed, so it's not solving the problem. Robert K S 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag puts in a category which identifies it for other editors. Quadzilla99

The tag's been up for months at a time in the past, and it hasn't solved the problem. Robert K S 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise we'll put the tag on the talk page, Ok? Quadzilla99 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will serve to still identify it for fellow editors. Quadzilla99 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease GAC

Hi there. I've moved Lyme disease's Good Article candidacy entry from the Natural Sciences section to the Medicine section, as I believe it's more appropriate. I hope you don't mind; if you do, feel free to move it back. Regards, Fvasconcellos 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was wondering which of those two sections to put it under which ever works best is fine. Quadzilla99 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my contributions and contribute to my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your feedback and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks for being open to advice. Quadzilla99 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Kukoc

Quad, thanks for the CCA photo of Kuki; it's much appreciated. Damir 11:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. Quadzilla99 12:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Kopf

Thanks for getting the sources on this master craftsman. For once I see the value of an AfD, this article was languishing since his daughter first posted it, and, since she's a contributing editor she's being a sport about providing pictures--it gives Wikipedia an opportunity to be the major source on an important modern craftsman. The one image she has provided thus far is of a unique piece I've not seen photographed elsewhere, which properly illustrates the artist's training in trompe l'oeil, and his touch of whimsy. I have asked her to upload a photograph of one of his major pieces plus a close-up when she can. The sources help, the AfD has been withdrawn, the article is being improved. All in all, it worked well, but taking the time to provide a string of sources right off really helped. Thanks. KP Botany 03:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem, it didn't take too long as he is clearly a well known, well respected person. The article could be pretty good in the near future. Thanks for the positive feedback; it's always good to hear someone appreciates it when you put a little work into something. Quadzilla99 04:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've been a hothead at AfD because I find it so frustrating, the raw determination of the nominators at times, sometimes that of the keepers. This AfD though didn't have that, the nomination was simply a suggestion, you got some sources right away, people looked at the sources, someone volunteered to clean up the article, the daughter admited she wrote it, and questioned her own right to do so, by identifying herself we got a great picture for the article, it all worked with the best result for once: improving Wikipedia. I like it when Wikipedia work because editors as a group made it work. KP Botany 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback on my crusade against vandalism. Once you get the right set of tools going, it's [i]amazing[/i] how quickly you can act. --Haemo 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. You've done great work. Quadzilla99 08:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jones Pic

About the Jones picture - You shouldn't trust images uploaded by that specific user, as most of his images are taken from Yahoo Sports or the Chicago Tribune. However, this guy has a nice set of images - but they are under a biting "all rights reserved tag" :( --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I will remove it. Quadzilla99 04:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that one and the other one I got from him, the Muhsin Muhammad pic. I thought they looked a little fishy but he listed them as creative commons so I took him at his word, now I know better. I notified an admin over on Commons and he'll delete them both for me. Thanks! Quadzilla99 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem - I was going to use that guys pics awhile back too. But then I saw them on Yahoo! and FaceBook. I sent an email to planetexpress last night, asking for permession to use his images on WP. Hopefully he'll get back to me soon. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Image-HakeemOlajuwonDunk.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-HakeemOlajuwonDunk.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is already another fair use photo from his playing days - it's my understanding that you can make the case for one photo to qualify as fair use, but not two. Mosmof 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove one then and get back to you on your talk page. Quadzilla99 05:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think Wikipedia's replaceable fair use policy applies even if an athlete's retired, which seems a bit much. Mosmof 05:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first one I think I can replace with an SI cover I have that appeared during the 1986 playoffs if I mention the SI issue in the article. I'll add it and you can look it over if you like. Quadzilla99 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:RobHorry.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:RobHorry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmof 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made my remarks on the pic's page. Quadzilla99 05:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can't prove that it's a web pic, but I think the red flags are, the user has a a magazine cover in his Flickr profile, also marked CC-by-sa, and more tellingly, the picture doesn't have any Exif data that his other pictures do. Mosmof 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it does look pretty good for a cc pic but I took him at his word. Can't fault me for that. Quadzilla99 05:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the user directly whether he took it or not on the image's flickr page. Quadzilla99 05:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't catch that. I don't know, if he did take the picture, I don't think the picture would come out as well (he looks like he's using a point and shoot camera, which could never get that level of quality indoors), and it seems weird that he didn't post any other game pics. Mosmof 05:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I just now asked him now. Do you want to remove the pic from Wiki pages until he responds? Quadzilla99 05:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can l leave it up until the admins who are experienced in this sort of thing deal with it. I mean, I seriously doubt that he shot that himself, but like I said, I can't prove anything and the guy could really be a good (and lucky) photographer. Mosmof 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of doubt it too, but because he listed it that way and it looks like it might have came out of the stands I decided to take him at his word. We'll see what an admin decides. Quadzilla99 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Wyatt Sexton, was selected for DYK!

On January 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wyatt Sexton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks I was wondering what was going to happen. Thanks for selecting the article I created. Quadzilla99 03:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan

A pleasure. We all try our best to make WP a better place. Thanks for inviting me to join the project too. Chensiyuan 02:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem you did nice work. Quadzilla99 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berle

Please post birth certificate. Pepso 04:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake I wasn't the one who posted that comment about his birth certificate. Look through the history. Quadzilla99 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Sorry. Confusing because it's someone who has no user name. Pepso 07:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Raptors

thanks for your feedback. what steps should be taken to get it "rated"? i mean off the record do you think it's approaching GA? p.s. i've tried incorporating your recommendations in improving the article. thanks Chensiyuan 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i presume you refer to the Vince Carter and Marcus Camby images, because the rest i am certain are okay. actually i found those two images on flickr, with the search parameter "only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos" checked. the images were also described as "released to public". is it an image tagging problem then? if it is some other problem, i guess we can just remove the images. thanks Chensiyuan 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i think for the time being, an acceptable option is to take away the problematic images. i'd do that now. there are still a number of useable images remaining in the article. thanks. Chensiyuan 16:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sure thing i'd try to keep close tabs on the raptors article and try to improve it along the way. although i am no longer based in toronto, my friend is, and in due time pictures of the raps (taken by him) in action would be flowing in heh. thanks Chensiyuan 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Spurs/Derek Fisher

Fisher sprinted off the court because, he later admitted, he himself was not sure he had beat the buzzer, and wanted to get off the floor before the play could be reviewed. The Spurs disputed since the rules at the time indicated that there was not enough time on the clock for anything except a Shaq ally-oop or a tip play. While the light did not go off until the ball was released, nanoseconds had already expired until the clock was finally started, due to natural response in human reaction. Clipper471 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the replay and according to the rules you need .3 to do a catch and shoot. They had .4. Quadzilla99 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The play counted, yes. However, it still is controversial, as is indicative of the term in the article before you came along and removed it, and also for the fact that we are now discussing it. Please do not remove the fact that the game-winning shot was controversial. Discuss this in Talk to get more opinions; perhaps even you will see that it may have been discussed there before. I will, in the meantime, add a reference to an article to show that it is controversial. Regards Clipper471 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no controversy whatsoever, that is your opinion backed up by 0 sources. Quadzilla99 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this... "So, while his teammates rushed to view a replay of Derek Fisher's controversial game-winning shot, the Spurs' guard sat quietly alone in the locker room, considering what might have been had Fisher misfired with his desperation jumper." ("Parker perplexed once again", San Antonio Express-News, Tom Osborn, May 14, 2004) I guess since this source uses the EXACT verbiage, it can't be disputed anymore. Clipper471 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another..."The Los Angeles Lakers brought Hollywood to San Antonio on Thursday night, complete with suspense, action - and some might argue a robbery." ("S.A. is heartbreak city", San Antonio Express-News, Amy Dorsett, May 14, 2004) Clipper471 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initially you said with .4 there was only enough time to do a tap-in, which is dead wrong. The Trent Tucker Rule states you can catch the ball and shoot it with .3 seconds remaining. Also replays showed conclusively the shot was released in time.[14][15] The fact that something is originally in an article is totally irrelevant. Quadzilla99 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't see the corresponding topical discussion in the Spurs' talk page, so I'd just chime in here. I think as a matter of objective hindsight, there was no controversy over the legitimacy. The undisputed fact is that the Spurs protested, and when there is a protest, it is natural to say there was some form of controversy. But I think Quadzilla's version is quite okay - something along the lines of although the Spurs disputed the call (perhaps should say heavily), replays showed that the shot was legitimate. If however, it is proven that say, the Texas press were up in arms over the shot, then yes, that would be some controversy. Thanks. Chensiyuan 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B movie FAR

B movie has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the notice. Quadzilla99 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you walk through the garden

Thanks for your edits to Bill Russell. Its not often that I see a wikipedian interested in Russell and The Wire. Take care Quadzilla... Warhol13 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thanks. Quadzilla99 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colors for Infoboxes

I made a comment in Lawrence Taylor's talk page and I hope you would agree with my decision (It was a hard one but it WILL create confussion and wars). Thanks --Phbasketball6 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New message banner

It's not going away. Is there anyway to fix that? Thanks 71.99.87.242 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, never mind, I've fixed it now, no need to send a message. Thanks though 71.99.87.242 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment about Bill Russell article

Just so we're all on the same page, I thought I should explain why I changed one of your recent edits to the article. It's nothing personal, but this sentence just doesn't work for me. There are too many ands, and I don't think the last comma is necessary:

When his father attempted to leave and find a different station, the attendant stuck a shotgun in his face, and told him to stay and wait his turn.

I tried to split it up into two sentences, which is how it currently appears in the article. I'm not sure if this is the best solution, though, so let me know if you disagree with what I wrote. Zagalejo 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're definitely right. I like the "told him" better and was trying to get that in there but couldn't figure out a way. I had no idea I had put three ands in the sentence. Quadzilla99 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks pretty good now. Zagalejo 06:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Quadzilla99 06:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parcells1 600.png

This image did meet the Wikipedia fair use criteria for publicity photos when it was originally uploaded back in March 2006. However, I did note that the criteria has changed recently and it's probably impossible for a publicity photo to meet the new Wikipedia rules. By definition, headshot photos are intended for identification purposes (i.e. show what a person looks like) only and that isn't allowed anymore. Also, Parcells is no longer the Dallas Cowboys head coach either. Therefore, I have no interest in trying to keep the image around. Thanks. - Alan Smithee 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay no problem. Quadzilla99 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TECH

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Georgia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Georgia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! —Disavian (^talk/contribs) 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a fan of any one particular college but I do appreciate the invite. Quadzilla99 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mouhammad Faye

Given that you've done a great job on Javaris Crittenton, I thought I'd let you know that Mouhammad Faye has been tagged for speedy deletion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll look it over. Quadzilla99 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Russell

I think the article is shaping up nicely. There are a few more things I'd like to do, but right now I need to take a little wikibreak so I can concentrate on my schoolwork. I'll be back soon. Zagalejo 07:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over, but I probably won't get to it until this weekend. My general impression was that the article was in decent shape content-wise, but I'll read it end-to-end with an eye towards finding any room for improvement. Thanks for the good work on this and other NBA related articles. Myasuda 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Quadzilla99 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's as good as many other articles which have gone through the process. There are still a few little things I'd like to address (unnecessary or incorrect punctuation marks; passive voice; sentences that end with prepositions, etc.), but I think we can resolve these problems easily. I'll change my vote. Zagalejo 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Wikipedia:Esperanza

Hi Quadzilla, I know you disagree with the inclusing of that statement on the Wikipedia:Esperanza page, but it was discussed on the talk page and vaguely decided to be kept. Because this turned into a slight edit war last time, it might help to discuss this further before making any change. -- Natalya 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea it went to the talk page, I commented there. Since it's consensus that basically ends the issue. Quadzilla99 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my comment, I'll save my efforts for matters relevant to Wikipedia. Quadzilla99 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your awards page

check it out. Chensiyuan 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton! Quadzilla99 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dwyane Wade

I am usually pretty hesitant to protect articles, except in the most extreme cases of vandalism or edit warring and the Dwyane Wade article hasn't reached that level yet IMO. Also, sorry for the slow reply, I haven't been very active on WP as of late. If you are looking for a faster response in the future, you might want to try WP:RFPP instead. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did and they turned it down also. It looks like a lot to me but I guess I'm not as experienced a judge as you or the admin who declined it. Thanks anyway guess I'll just have to keep a close eye on it. Quadzilla99 02:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted and failed facs

Just a note: GimmeBot does all of the talk page updating now on promoted and failed facs; if someone adds featured or failed by hand, it requires manual intervention to correct the talk page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this in reference to Bill Russell. I was actually concerned because the FAC wasn't closed yet when the FA tags went on the article and the article's talk page, and that the user who changed it wasn't an admin. Either way it passed and the FAC is closed now. Quadzilla99 14:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Javaris Crittenton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. Quadzilla99 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan

Oops, my mistake. I forgot that he got added back in. Sorry! Kaldari 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Quadzilla99 18:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 20 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thaddeus Young, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 10:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Quadzilla99 11:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Technical problem

No idea; I've been seeing the same thing myself, and haven't figured out what's causing it yet. Kirill Lokshin 13:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Taylor

I noticed you are a member of the Wikiproject National Football League, I'd like to ask a favor of you. I've done a lot of work recently to improve the Lawrence Taylor article and recently made a request to have it peer reviewed. Would you mind looking it over and giving me advice on what to do next? The peer review page is here. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The above message was cut and pasted from a message I left on Phbasketball's talk page last week, by Phbasketball.)

I like to start off apologizing to you about the colors in the infobox, I was fighting a battle that couldn't be won so I changed my mind.

About the article, it's amazing and you did a good job, and next is to I guess put it up as a good article by putting the "good article" template in the talk page. Thanks --Phbasketball6 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'm going to get it getted copyedited by the WikiProject League of copyeditors and just submit it directly for FA instead though. Quadzilla99 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already put it as a good article would you like me to revert that? --Phbasketball6 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a formal process of making an article a GA. I went and nominated it. Please read the Good Article criteria and then see here where I put it it to read about the process. An article has to be made a candidate by an editor and then reviewed and passed based on the criteria by another separate editor who didn't contribute significantly to the article. I didn't look through the history but if you didn't add a lot to it you can review it. Quadzilla99 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually removed it from the candidates list as I have a lot of work planned for it and will probably just submit it directly for FA when I'm done. Quadzilla99 14:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bosh

Hi, if it might ever be convenient for you, please feel free to comment on the state of the Chris Bosh article, of which i recently nominated for a GA after some major revamp. thanks, Chensiyuan 14:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made some comments over on the talk page. Quadzilla99 14:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have tried to address all your concerns, thanks. Chensiyuan 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your pics

If you are in fact the Daniel Gluskoter operating www.dgpics.com and took all the pics you've added, you'll still need to release any pics to the public under no license other than creative commons attribution and/or share-alike licenses if you want then on here. Quadzilla99 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The above was copied by Dannyg3332 from a message I left on his talk page)

Are you fuc#ing blind or did you miss the {{cc-by-2.5}} tags ?Dannyg3332 19:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind WP:Civil, I was referring to this pic of Magic Johnson among others, which only state the following as their license:

© DANIEL GLUSKOTER

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

www.dgpics.com

Quadzilla99 19:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was attached to Magic in addition to others that were removed.......Dannyg3332 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you just added it, at least it wasn't there when I looked at it, perhaps someone else removed it. However, it can't be creative commons and all rights reserved. The two are mutually exclusive. Quadzilla99 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi, Quadzilla99, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm glad you found me congenial and otherwise a suitable candidate. I hope my conduct as an administrator proves this to be the case. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

since you said you don't check it much, I've sent you another message. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

It's amazing how much can happen in 4 hours! Good job handling it all. Hopefully the rogue SeanCrane IDs he made won't come haunt me in the future...Thanks for your help. SERSeanCrane 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Lyme Disease

The article Lyme Disease you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Lyme Disease for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations.

Thanks. I've never worked on the article, I just saw it while browsing and thought it was GA quality or reasonably close. Quadzilla99 02:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing help

I'm trying to get the Rex Grossman article to GA status, but a reviewer failed it on the account that the I linked the references the wrong way. I've spent some time going over the references, and reformatting them. If you have the time, can you please check to see if I cited them correctly? You seem to be an expert at references :-p Thanks :) PS congrats on the Lyme Disease article --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Right, thanks again. The comment he made was to address the earlier version of the section, [16] which only including stating the articles name. I later progressed to add the access date and publisher. Hopefully, this version will be better. I'm still trying to get some better images of Grossman, but the guy I previously asked has yet to get back to me --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Parker

hi Quadzilla, i know you've been running around fixing things up, but since i remember you saying you're a Spurs fan, thought i'd let you know i did some work with the Tony Parker article, it's far from a complete endeavour, but i hope it's an improvement over what it was. feel free to improve it. Chensiyuan 15:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm a fan of theirs among other teams, I'll check it out. Quadzilla99 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]