User talk:AaronY/Archive 3

A little question

Hey I'm a little disappointed. I gave you that barnstar and you archived your talk page. I wanted everybody to see it, lol. Considering your fine work, do you have any interest in the Sopranos? It needs work and I'm about to start working on it tomorrow. Would you be interested in helping? Aaron Bowen 01:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you would ask me, I'm actually a big fan of the Sopranos and am looking forward to April. However, I have a lot of other projects started here such as Lawrence Taylor and Hakeem Olajuwon whose articles I'm trying to bring to FA status. I just got their autobiographies and some other books on them and am reading them for some info right now. I'm also busy maintaining the articles on my user page and am going to try to bring Minority Report (film) and some other articles up to GA status. All that's assuming the MJ FAC keeps going so well. So I'm too busy to really help sorry. It's a shame I saw it before and remembered thinking how poor it is, it'd be nice to have it FA worthy or even on the front page for the series finale. As for your barnstar it's right here, thanks again. Quadzilla99 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough, just so everybody knows, I gave Quad the barnstar because he is the main contributor to the Michael Jordan article and almost single handedly made it into where it is now. Which is breezing through FAC and on it's way to being an FA. Aaron Bowen 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was a ton of work. The FAC was grueling (and I mean grueling, 130kbs grueling) After it was reset everything has been going smoothly, so far. Quadzilla99 02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a maintained by the on the article's talk page since you've done so much work on it, if that's a problem just take it off. Aaron Bowen 09:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Marskell is making concrete suggestions for trimming B movie, and hopefully work will finally get under way; since I'm still trying to travel (caught in a snowstorm), I'm wondering if you want to have a fresh look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/B movie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - I think it's already overtime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jints template

That's fine. Looks good.—DCGeist 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Maintained

I replied to your comment about Template:Maintained on its talk page. --24fan24 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYG GA

I just promoted the page to GA. The way I saw it, it was a good page and didn't deserve to be waiting on the GAC list for so long. See that page for my minor problems, though. And sorry about the templates thing. The problem was that one of the refs was appearing weird on the bottom of the page, so I tried the templates to see if they would work, but it turns out, I was actually fixing the wrong ref! I've always used the templates, and probably always will, but I just wanted to let you know I wasn't trying to make a statement or anything.

And by the way, I just nominated two articles for GA (the ones that were right above yours on the sports section. If you have the time, maybe you could check one of those over (and my passing your article shouldn't mean anything, it's just a suggestion...). Thanks. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  03:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I put a lot of work into that article, it's part of a series of Giants history articles I'm working on. I added the fair use rationales. If I have time I'll look into your articles, it's been a while since I've done a GAC so might be fun. Quadzilla99 03:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan

i know the article is well on the way to FA, but i left some queries on the MJ talkpage. i am not entirely sure if my queries are legitimate, but perhaps if you could see if they make sense. (as if you hadn't had enough of the article already heh). Chensiyuan 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm definitely happy to answer any questions on the article. No problem. Quadzilla99 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo Antelope

Hi there, Thanks for your suggestions on the fac status of the Bongo article. I've addressed many issues (apart from the inline referencing - if possible can you help with this as I'm new & have difficulty with the way to do that). Please can you look it over again? Thanks, Black Stripe 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job

I usually don't have the time or desire to work an article to FA (or even GA) status, but it always amazes me to see someone do it on a page I have on my watchlist. Great work. Great persistence. --Onorem 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan FA

I just noticed that the article had been promoted. Congratulations! Abecedare 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your copyediting was vital by the way. Quadzilla99 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII

Hi. I took cave of the image situation a bit, adding a couple screenshots and FMV captures. However, at 20 images, I think it's going to test the limits of the fair use haters at FAC. Any other thoughts about the article? — Deckiller 04:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I responded best I could given my relative lack of knowledge in the videogaming field. Quadzilla99 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. — Deckiller 05:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I, Onomatopoeia, give you the Resilient Barnstar for tirelessly improving Michael Jordan into a featured article, using a huge FAC discussion to your benefit. I also want to mention you also shaped MJ from B-level into a good article before. I now proudly add barnstar nr. 6 to your collection!

Thanks a lot. Quadzilla99 08:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thank you

Thank you for the RickK Barnstar, it is very much appreciated.  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Quad - I need to bring up your editing style because I want us to be on the same page, as we both are working to improve the Giants page. First, you gutted the Giants logo/uni section - fine, the new page is a better place for uniform minutiae. Then, you re-did the remnant with several inacurracies, grammatical mistakes, and spelling errors. Then, when I tried to fix the inaccuracies and the errors, you arbitrarily made new parapgraphs and broke some longer sentences into repeat simple sentences. Now, while I see you don't like single-sentence paragraphs or sentences with too many clauses, normal 2+ sentence paragraphs should follow the basic rules of paragraphs, i.e., they present a cogent point or thought within the paragraph. When a new point is introduced, the writer may start a new paragraph. Now I am going back to the Giants page and parsing the uniform/logo paragraphs - as an aside, if you think uniforms are trivial, why are you even concerned with that section? The rest of the page is in dire need of attention: I'll take care of the uniform patch of turf, free of charge. Cheers, 808 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. Please don't take any changes to an article you work on personally and attack them, assume Good Faith. Quadzilla99 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for both your message and your specific, productive observations and suggestions during the process. In the end, I'm happy about the FAR--it got the article down from monstrously long to merely...uh...remarkably long. I'm also glad that after Jayzel and I really got off on the wrong foot with each other back in January, that we were able to reach not only an understanding but agreement on the article. The Jordan piece looks great, by the way. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lester

Thanks for looking at the article, Quadzilla. I've attempted to fix the violation you noted. Let me know if looks good. --Eva ^bd 14:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, like I said it was a minor thing. Nice work on the article. Quadzilla99 14:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Uh-oh

Sock blocked.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Refs on Minority Report

Hello Quadzilla99! I was fixing references according to the guidelines. Most of your citations were either before punctuation marks or had a space in between. I did not try to change the style.--Crzycheetah 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of them was located after punctuation:[1] I think you misunderstood the guidelines the punctuation refers to the punctuation in the text. As I said I went through a prolonged process formatting the refs on Michael Jordan, and they were deemed correct according to every guideline and looked over by SandyGeorgia who knows more about ref formatting than probably anyone on here. Also you clearly changed the entire style from a manual one to the template technique. Like I said I'm not going to move them back, just be aware that many editors don't like templates. I'm mostly telling you this so in the future you don't change the style of an article's ref formatting and upset future editors without discussing it first. Quadzilla99 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at what I have done: [2]. I have not changed your reference format. I just changed "<ref></ref>," to ",<ref></ref>". That's it. --Crzycheetah 05:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have found the problem. User:Igordebraga, not me, has changed your reference format, take a look here.

That's my bad I totally screwed up. If you look at the version I was referring to it was formatted properly:[3] Another editor added the templates and messed up the punctuation placement. I apologize he didn't mention refs in his edit summary. I assumed it was you. Please forgive my error. Quadzilla99 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, I'm a person that likes organization, that's why I put those templates. But I only made those changes because I thought the article was fine, and with some work could get to the GA (which is why I also improved the "Production" section and added box office, an award summary, and after the nom, the story-film comparison after some research). Anyway, since you were in charge of the article before, well, that was a good job. And good luck with the themes... BTW, there was a "stub" of that before[4] igordebraga ≠ 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in charge of the article. Sorry if it came off that way. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the policy like I said. I'm not the only who doesn't like the templates, and as WP:CITET says "Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to another (template to manual e.g.) without consensus." Even still I didn't revert them. Quadzilla99 14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Stuart Patterson

Thanks for looking at George. I've not been able to find any more info about his early life. I just checked a couple books out of the library which will hopefully contain more info. I've also tried to polish the language you requested. Thanks for the reviews.--Eva ^bd 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJ

Just dropping by to congratulate you. You hung in there! --Dweller 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! I've got Ipswich Town F.C. at FAC at the moment. Norwich City F.C. will be next, but it's not even ready for Peer Review yet! --Dweller 15:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hideaway (film)

On 27 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hideaway (film), 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.

--howcheng {chat} 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Good luck!

Thank you very much. I hope everything will run smoothly. =) Nishkid64 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shareef Abdur-Rahim

Thanks for volunteering to look at it! Chensiyuan 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl years

The whole thing is confusing, see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Naming conventions basically because non-fans get confused the playoffs and Super Bowl should be referred to by the calendar year the occur in. Also indiivdual years should not be wikilinked in Wikipedia. Pleased don't get mad at me neither decision is my choice. You could probably ask for further clarification on the talk page over at WP:NFL. Maybe I'm not 100% correct but I'm pretty sure that's the correct format. It's confusing—the Chicago Bears and New England Patriots articles are considered featured articles and could be used as examples. Maybe we could just say they won Super Bowl XXI and XXV without mentioning the year. They are mentioned again in the section with the year mentioned. Quadzilla99 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have followed the ongoing discussion on the confusion on the season vs. year-played, especially surrounding the 20xx-yy NFL Playoffs articles. Keeping that in mind, I was trying to distinguish the parenthetical year to a season by linking them to the applicable NFL season article. (As you say, the wikilink to 1986 serves no purpose.) Factoring in the above, I reviewed the context in which it fell into. Since the section referred to "season...season...season," I felt that rigid application of style would force a rewrite for this paragraph. Perhaps the hardest part of style is knowing when not to apply it.

All of that said, the article (in its current state) would be better served by not listing the Super Bowl year or season (one can find both in a single click). This is consistent with your conclusion. I would not be opposed to a future version of the article wikilinking the years to ---- NFL season or New York Giants ---- season'. Thanks for the input. —Twigboy 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC), formerly of the top row of Section 315.[reply]

Basically I just formatted like I suggested on your talk page, it's fine now. Quadzilla99 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Thank you for the welcome! I look forward to doing as much as I can in my spare time.Lubiann 14:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem, thanks for fixing those typos in the NYG history article. Quadzilla99 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

• Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you

Hi, you write me a message concerning the lineups for the Super Bowls. I want to thank yopu, you and others insopired me to complete the lists. Thanks again!Gypaetus 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giants Images

Hi Quadzilla99,

Thanks much for adding the Fair Use Rationale statements to the Giants images. (BTW, it is rationale with an "e") Please pass the concept on to others so that we all have to deal with these image files only one time.

Again, thanks!

Take care,

Larry

--Lmcelhiney 00:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, In know how it's spelled I just copied them from the Chicago Bears article as it's an FA—guess I missed the spelling. Quadzilla99 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, guess I did misspell it. Oh well, I spelled it correctly on all the other pages of images I've uploaded—must have been a momentary brain cramp. Quadzilla99 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem in any case! I am just pleased that others are using this FU Rationale to avoid this sort of issue. Best, --Lmcelhiney 22:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I didn't upload the images, I always add rationales. I'm very familiar with the image policies. Thanks for fixing my errors. Quadzilla99 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! very impressive, I have a much smaller set of commons contributions. Commons are by far the best images to use in most cases. Take care, --Lmcelhiney 23:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I corrected the typos in my above post by the way, in case you couldn't read it (I could barely understand it). Quadzilla99 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Value

Hi... you left a note on my user page about editing the "biological value" page; I took a look at it.... frankly, it is complete nonsense. I wouldn't even know where to start... The term isnt used in medicine, and the entire write-up is nonsensical.

So... yah, I'm staying away from it... Gacggt 02:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Biological Value was used in scientific circles for a very long time and was formerly an approved method used by the FDA. I told you it needed a lot of work and a complete re-write, that's why I was seeking the help of biologists. I also said if you decide not to work on it there's no need to respond to my message. So I don't really understand what your point of leaving a comment here was, maybe you couldn't understand the message I left you. Quadzilla99 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called politeness to respond when someone leaves you a message. Nice to see such etiquette rewarded with such a nasty response. Gacggt

What's the point of saying it's terrible—when I told you it was—and saying it's useless and not worth your time? Don't really get what that accomplishes. Quadzilla99 21:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I have responded also. Lakers 07:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looks fine, you should also try [5], if you haven't used it yet. Lakers 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Sexton

I can tell you're an FSU fan, and I tried to make the edits as unbiased as possible, but you must admit the Lyme Disease diagnosis and the doctor it came from must be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism. I like FSU and don't have a problem with most drug users, but come on.

I'm not an FSU fan. I don't even follow college football, you just added original research and the source doesn't back up your speculation. You're not allowed to put in your own speculations—it doesn't even matter if they're true or not you can't summarize things on your own. Quadzilla99 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "my own" speculation, it is the opinion of millions of college football fans. The guy was not diagnosed by "a specialist" in Lyme disease, the guy went to a charlatan who diagnoses everyone with Lyme disease. I am disappointed that you just whacked all my edits, as I thought they were very fair. What would you consider an appropriate source? The source confirmed he was coming back from the Bonnaroo festival, and I suspect hallucinogenic drugs are far more common there than Lyme disease outbreaks. I've no interest in an edit war, so can you please work this into the article somehow? I assure you it is highly inaccurate as it stands.

If you'll look others reverted it as well, speculation has to be very well sourced. All you added was the initial speculation which most press agencies discreditied after the doctors reports came out. You'd need a major media publication directly bringing accusations after him well after the Lyme disease diagnosis was announced. Quadzilla99 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia can have whole pages devoted to how the government orchestrated 9/11, but not have a single mention of how a guy coming back from a music festival might just have been on drugs, I find that absurd. Others' edits were more vandalism-like but I thought mine were very fair.

DCGeist

1. My summary was correct and not misleading: [6]

2. I haven't seen you leave any warnings for DCGeist who has made numerous violations. His summaries were purposely misleading:

First DCGeist reverts the article and says (restore to last version by Girolamo Savonarola; the material in question is suitable for sound-on-film, not this article, and is not appropriate to an intro in any event) but my edit was obviously on sound film and on topic. Consequently his summary was deliberately misleading.

DCGeist then changes his mind and says (revert to Featured Article version--this is an article about sound film, not about a single-minded editor's unsourced, nonconsensus obsessions) and I revert and note that the changes are completely sourced (New York Times; May 26, 1930; pg. 29). Again his summary was misleading.

DCGeist then says (restore Featured Article version written in grammatical English) and the only grammatical error I can find it "th" which should be "the" and so I change it and add the note.

DCGeist makes personal attacks against other users [7] and does not permit other users to make appropriate edits to articles which he seems to view as his own (RKO, Sound Film, etc). In addition, he does not heed to the revert rules [8].

ThanksZosimus Comes 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This:[9] Is the edit summary I'm talking about. Quadzilla99 05:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, that edit was made to correct the supposed "grammatical errors" referred to by DCGeist when he reverted my previous edit. You can see these corrections by looking at the changes I made [10] not by looking at the revert which DCGeist made and then my corrections.Zosimus Comes 06:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous the edit summary clearly came in the middle of an edit war and was deliberately misleading. Quadzilla99 06:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was a correction resulting from the fact that DCGeist kept insisting that there were grammatical errors and so I corrected them (even though is was an extremely minor point, namely, that "the" was spelled "th"). I don't see any warnings from you on DCGeist's page for all the blatant violations that he has made and yet you find the time to quibble with me about correcting a minor spelling mistake.Zosimus Comes 06:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was clearly misleading; you were inserting disputed material with an edit summary that made it seem as though you were making grammatical correction. To top it off you tried to make it seem as though I was referring to another edit summary. Please stop this is getting ridiculous. Quadzilla99 06:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit summary I warned you about:[11] which re-inserted disputed material—including a pic that another editor had removed and warned you about—under a guise of making a grammatical correction. Quadzilla99 06:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain a little more slowly:

1. I revert to my sourced and appropriate changes along with a better preserved copy of a poster. [12] and state ("Please stop removing sourced content.")

2. DCGeist reverts this [[13]] and states ("restore Featured Article version written in grammatical English").

3. I look over the edit to look for any grammatical errors. I find that "the" is spelled "th" and I correct it. [14] and then add the following summary ("Fixed minor spelling error: th=the").

Thank you.Zosimus Comes 06:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit summary I warned you about:[15] which re-inserted disputed material—including a pic that another editor had removed and warned you about—under a guise of making a grammatical correction. Quadzilla99 06:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was the same pic not the one in dispute, however the edit war was not over grammar it was over content—as you well knew. Quadzilla99 06:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit occurred occurred on March 28 on March 27 Geist had already disputed the inclusion of the material you added, after that point an edit summary of "I think this acceptable see talk" would have been fine however to re-insert disputed material with an edit summary of "Fixing minor spelling errors" is inappropriate. Quadzilla99 06:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.DCGeist gave misleading statements about the nature of his reverts. He also kept changing the reasons for his reverts. Why haven't you added a warning to his talk page?

2.The material in question was sourced and corrected erroneous statements which were in the article about the nature of the Great Depression and the sound film industry and errors about the economy in 1930. See [16] for more information.

3.The correction of "th" to "the" (which DCGeist could have easily corrected) was in response to his insistence that there were grammatical errors in the edit.

4.If DcGeist hadn't kept on insisting that there were grammatical errors I would have simply reverted to the corrected and sourced version.

5.DCGeist has a confrontational attitude. See the personal attack he left on my talk page, for example. He refuses to let anyone edit certain pages (RKO, Sound film)which he has taken over. One only has to look over his edit history to see the numerous times he has reverted appropriate edits and improvements on these pages, simply because he does not agree with them. This is an encyclopedia and not a personal website or blog for DCGeist. The articles should be based on facts which can be backed up by published sources (like my edit) not by personal opinions.Zosimus Comes 07:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had inserted the info and said "I disagree see talk page", that would have been fine, but to re-insert disputed material with an edit summary of "fixing minor spelling errors" is inappropriate. Quadzilla99 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is becoming pointless. Let's agree to disagree. Our time can be better spent trying to improve and expand this encyclopedia. I always have published sources to back up the statements I make. If I make any errors, I gladly admit them... as my only interest is to find the truth. In the case of the above edit, however, my edit was clearly sourced and appropriate. It is truly unfortunate that wikipedia often becomes a popularity contest...instead of a an honest attempt at relating the facts. The errors on the Sound film page should be corrected. I have presented the facts on the talk page. Hopefully they will be corrected someday. Thank you.Zosimus Comes 07:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was clearly misleading, All I did was warn you to leave accurate edit summaries—particularly when you are in a dispute. Quadzilla99 07:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eye movement in music reading

An unlikely topic, given your sports orientation! Thanks for your edit. Tony 11:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

Glad you like the script :) There's some sort of bug with it at the moment (for me at least), in that the file size always shows 12 kB; I'll probably try and fix it at some point, but it's not a priority. It's the prose size people are usually interested in anyway. Dr pda 12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, it works fine for me. Thanks again for creating it. Quadzilla99 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cox image

I think it is ok. You have all of the technical requirements (the rationale, etc). As to whether it qualifies as fair use, I think it is ok. I wouldn't worry unless someone objects. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brodeur's Early Life

I know it's not much but I added an early life section to the Brodeur article. If you feel like you can review it now then please feel free to do so. Sportskido8 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations list

Thanks for trying to help; I move them to the correct category (kept or removed) after the FAR closes. The list is actually pretty complex, so I prefer to do the changes myself. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

essay on how to obtain flickr images

Hi Quadzilla99. I have been working on an essay on the steps of how to get flickr members to release the rights of their images. My goal is to make more people aware of the the free license alternatives that are available. Since you seem to be really good at getting flickr members to change their license to accommodate Wikipedia, would you mind taking a look? User:PS2pcGAMER/flickr Feel free to edit it at will. It is just an early draft, so I'm sure it could use some changes. Also if you have a chance, please let me know your thoughts on if it is even worthwhile to publish to the community. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No rush as I am not in a hurry to get it completed. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Can't Sleep

Sorry to do that, but my revert takes priority. Did you see it? That made so mad. Evilclown93 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should have, but what is done is done. Evilclown93 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cox

On 9 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthew Cox, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bird

Thanks for catching the vandalism on the Larry Bird page. Much obliged. :) --Mackabean 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Biological Value and The Editor's Barnstar

Thank you! I'm glad you appreciate it, and sorry it took so long! It should be much more accurate with clear definitions of both scales of BV in common use. Its a bit under-referenced, but all the fundamentals (the experimental technique, formulae, etc.) are referenced to solid original research papers. I might unleash myself on the non-NPOV criticisms section at some point, although that section should be fairly comprehensible to someone who has read the rest of the article... - Zephyris _Talk 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the references - Zephyris _Talk 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fly

Hi,

I created the entry for Fly (exercise) and thought you might be interested in looking it over, based on your past contributions. I'm not even sure it makes sense. Based on our discussions over at weight training, I thought you might jump at the chance to rip into some of my prose :)

WLU 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Raptors

Hi, a well-meaning editor nominated the Raptors article for FAC, but personally I know there are unresolved issues with the article (mostly listed by myself on the talkpage even before the nomination). What do you think I should do? Does it mean that once an article is nominated it must go through the whole process of voting and so forth? Chensiyuan 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for helping out, as always. Chensiyuan 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, somebody respectable actually voted "weak support". I think I'm going to chime in now, and keep fingers crossed. Chensiyuan 05:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates

Sorry for the delay in response; I didn't want to get too emotional. Thanks for the education. It seems somewhat problematic that none of the documentation on the use of Citations, Refererences, or Footnotes mentions this practice, or even gives examples of it (cf. WP:CITE, WP:CITET, WP:FOOT). I agree that WP:DATE seems to unambiguously suggest this practice, though it doesn't give mention of references either (I was aware of WP:DATE, but it always seemed "obvious" to me that it did not apply to footnotes--more fool I. Before your examples, I had not encountered any pages that linked dates in references.). Anyhow, perhaps someone on your side of Wikipedia:Date_debate should consider updating those pages? I don't want to since I personally rather strongly dislike the effect. Thanks. (p.s. I don't think labelling a well-meant note "vandalism" is the best expression of "good faith"...) jhawkinson 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cox

Thank you for your contribution to Matthew Cox, as it has been featured in the "Did you know" section. WP:CRIME appreciate your efforts. Wooyi^Talk, Editor review 02:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooyi^Talk, Editor review has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

"Jihad (song)"

Can you take a fresh look at the article and give your thoughts? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article, it's real appreciated. LuciferMorgan 23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Since you contribute with some movie articles, specially that one I nominated to the GA and later we had approved, can you please help me with a PR I'm doing? igordebraga ≠ 00:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Lana Stempien

On 14 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Death of Lana Stempien, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship?

Gillyweed mentioned the Wiki policy "Wikipedia is not censored" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#CENSOR) when refering to the questionable content that's been previlent in this month's featured pictures. I don't like it, but it seems to tie my hands. Is there any way to change policy to prevent especially disturbing featured pictures from becomming POTDs without infringing upon the "no censorship" rule? Kevin 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Raul has stated (I'll find where) that while there is no censorship certain articles that are featured will probably never appear in the main page, pics should be the same way. That argument is nonsense anyway as you know full well no picture of a naked man or woman (outside of a native setting), or genitalia will ever make it's way to the front page. Quadzilla99 03:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's his comments. Quadzilla99 03:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

Sure, I'll give it a try. --Maxamegalon2000 13:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin.

Hi. I think in the near future you should try running for adminship, if you want it. You'd pass with flying colors easily, and I'd certainly nom you. Before you accept thoguh, I'd like you to improve your edit summary use a bit, they like to point that out there. Let me know if you're interested.--Wizardman 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Career achievements of Dwyane Wade

I added the source for Wade making 22 straight before missing one. Kind of lost my cool a bit in the edit summary because I'm not a fan of people removing data without discussing...especially because some of that information is extremely well researched. I don't agree with all of the data added, as I originally stated in the discussion and as we discussed before, but I did not remove anything out of respect for other editors. I think that anon-ip should exhibit some good faith before completely removing data he deems not noteable, especially because his opinion...is just that, an opinion. Anyways, just letting you know that I added the source for it. Zodiiak 18:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just noticed you had the right reference in and removed it. It notes his 22 straight there, Nique had 23 straight, so obviously Wade is second. I was watching that game when his stats were blasted and they thought he was going to tie/break the record. I don't think any other player has had 22 straight, as it wasn't mentioned...but that doesn't mean he's not second with 22. Zodiiak 19:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LT_on_SI.jpg

You are the only one that supported the keep other then Yakuman piping in at the last minute. On the other hand it was only Abu Badali that supported deletion. Looking at the image, it is a copyrighted picture of the guys head. There is nothing historical, iconic or notable about the image. By our current fair use standards, it should be deleted. If you think I am in error, please request a deletion review. -Regards Nv8200p talk 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:"On the other hand it was Abu Dabali"? Quadzilla99 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I misread that, my bad. Quadzilla99 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Michael Jordan

What's the problem here? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump

Thanks Mucho! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - as I said on the MJ talk page, I honestly didn't see the history of the page before I did that. I only saw the request from Tony the Tiger. If you don't want it on the page, please feel free to revert again - I won't add it back. I was really just trying to be helpful to someone who requested it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD Questions

After my embarassing Village Pump call to make something that's already been made, I thought it would be prudent to start a new section on the issue of what pictures should be allowed as the Picture of the Day. Trouble is, I'm having some problems, and some unsolved questions, and I don't think the direction I'm going would as yet make a good article. Here's what I have so far: "Yesterday I made a post called "Featured Articles/Pictures and the Right to Choose" here, which endorsed a main page devoid of featured content. However, I was unaware at the time that http://www.wikipedia.org/ links to the kind of page I was asking for. In the hypothetical situation I stated, where the little girl just lost her pet squirrel and didn't want to see a picture of it, she could just go to that page, look up Joan of Arc or something directly from that page, and even on April 13th 2007 have minimal change of seeing the picture of the squirrel which at the time would upset her. However, to those who choose to come to the English Wikipedia main site, and utilize the featured content, they expect to see images and such that, in the words of LessHeard vanU at Whaling in the Faroe Islands "not deemed illegal, or outraging common decency". So now the problem becomes one of drawing the line for what should go on as the picture of the day. Should we allow any picture of anything at all to go on the front page, or should there be a limit? Three topics reguarding this should be discussed: 1. Is there already anything preventing a picture almost universally disturbing from making it into the front page? On Wikipedia:Featured pictures it says featured pictures should be "beautiful, shocking, impressive, and/or informative". It further gives guidelines at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. But with the current rules, is there anything in place to stop a pucture of, say, Goatse.cx from being a featured picture, if it met all the criteria on Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. What if a picture of Goatse.cx was added to the Rectum article, and fulfilled all the requirements of being high resoultion, high quality, neutral, etc. More importantly, why hasn't it already?"

I think it sounds kind of weak as it is, I think, and there's some things I don't know, chief of which, what exactly the difference is between a featured picture and a picture of the day. The Guidelins at Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day seem to me to say that every featured picture will eventually become a picture of the day. Am I correct in my interpretation, or do some Featured Pictures never make it to the front page? Second, what exactly are we looking to do? Do we want to add an 11th point to Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria saying the "featured picture shouldn't outrage common decency"? Third, you said " Say a photo of two people having sex became featured, it would never get on the main page in a millenium." Why not? I looked at Raul's comments, but the page doesn't mention much about pictures that won't get on the front page, just that "I'm concerned Jenna Jamison might be too risqué". So what so far is stopping such things from going on the main page? Fourth, I'm just not really sure about how to go about making a post like that. I'm not really sure what I should and shouldn't use as an arguement, what's a good point, and what's just fodder for ridicule. Fifth, on a somewhat seperate topic, am I allowed to delete my request for a link's only userpage, and should I?

I think some of those questions would need to be addressed before I can make a post on the village pump. This is a very complicated issue, one which might be over my head. Perhaps it would be a better idea for you to write a request in the Village Pump, or get someone else who knows a great deal on the subject to do so. Kevin 00:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just have different views I don't think that graphic pics showing gore or blood and guts should be put on the main page. You seemed to be saying all pics should be off the main page which I don't agree with. I would say some pics should be featured but should not make the main page such as the one of eye surgery and the Whales. Unfortunately I think I'm not going to have time for that right now. Maybe next week. Quadzilla99 00:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm getting through. A page where you can get the article you want without seeing featured content ALREADY EXISTS. Go to http://www.wikipedia.org/, and you'll find exactly what I was going for, which moots my post "Featured Articles/Pictures and the Right to Choose". Now I'm more struggling, like you, to prevent articles which are questionable to the majority of Wikipedia users instead of things which might possibly offend just a few users. Now, like you, I'm just trying to prevent graphic pictures from going on the front page. Anyway, if you're busy, that's alright. Get to it when you can. I'm running out of steam anyway :). Kevin 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay maybe next week or after the Whaling pic goes on the main page. Quadzilla99 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shell

I see you reverted Talk:Michael Jordan from the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} tag. Why? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Could you explain why you reverted my edit on date formats in the Wikipedia:Manual of style? --Jim77742 23:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the New York Giants (1979-1993) GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "Giant" Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For completion of the trifecta of GAs for the History of the New York Giants 1925–78, 1979–93 and 1994–present in relatively short order! —Twigboy 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GO GIANTS!

Thanks! Quadzilla99 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually four GAs by the way including the main article, History of the New York Giants. Quadzilla99 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What comes after a trifecta? A quadzilla? :) —Twigboy 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I guess a Quadfecta. Quadzilla99 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Filter?

I was trying to post something in the Village Pump (unrelated to POTD, btw), but when I was done, it said my post was blocked because it had (can't put link, or else it won't be able to post, but it appears to be a Don Murphy discussion board, whoever that is) in it. I thought it was a mistake, since it took about 5 minutes to write and maybe someone else posted while I was writing (someone posted while I was writing this. edit conflicts are hard to avoid in pages with a lot of traffic), but I went back, and tried it again, and got the same message. I double and triple checked, and that link's not in my post. In fact, no links are in my post. I don't even know who Don Murphy is. Why can't I post to the Village Pump, and why is it blocking my post for a link I don't have? Meanwhile, I've saved my post to a Word file. Kevin 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand it. I've pressed preview, and it looks fine, but I'm still getting the message. Lemme see if it can post here. If you can see this, the spam filter didn't block it.

"I'm not sure if this belongs in the Village Pump, or if it's more of a feature request (I forgot were those go anyway), but I was wondering if a little fuzzy logic could be put into our search engines, like Yahoo and Google have. For instance, if someone types in "manuver", they'll only get articles that misspelled the word like they did, instead of any suggestions such as "did you mean 'Maneuver'?", or if it's really proactive (or rather, annoying) like other search engines, simply search for Maneuver without even asking you if you wanted that spelling. (P.S. I spellchecked this entry. No sense having an entry on spelling with misspellings ;-) Oh, and on a similar note, any chance of getting a spellchecker to prevent those with edits from accidentally misspelling words, or should we just leave that up to other editors? Kevin 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

P.S. You can respond here. I've got this page on my watchlist, so I'll see any messages you respond with soon after. Kevin 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Quadzilla99 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life section of Tim Duncan

Hi, you reverted my removal of the personal life section in the Tim Duncan article. I was wondering if you could respond in Talk:Tim Duncan#Notability of personal life items. Thanks. Ytny (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of doing that. Quadzilla99 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Quadzilla99 04:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

Matthew Cox:  GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. IvoShandor 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've really torn into that article, nice work. : ) IvoShandor 10:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lawrence Taylor!

Dear Quadzilla99, Why can't the Lawrence Taylor article have the official New York Giants colors, since the original L.T. in one of the greatest linebackers ever and pretty much the rest of the other NFL greats have the colors of the teams that they had extreme success with?

See here. Quadzilla99 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurs-Lakers rivalry

On 18 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spurs-Lakers rivalry, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 23:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Duncan

Hi... Onomatopoeia and I have decided to try and bring the Tim Duncan article up to GA status, if you'd like to join us your contributions would be appreciated! (although I'm aware you've been editing it before already) Chensiyuan 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help out if I have time. I edited it slightly before—I don't want to take any credit for the shape that thing was in:[17] It definitely needed cleanup, I've been meaning to get around to it for months now. Glad to see you guys are upgrading it, if I have time I'll pitch in. Quadzilla99 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:American football

I intended straightaway to copy the selected article, biography, and image to the April pages, but I got involved with an RfA and was a bit slow; thanks very much, then, for creating those pages (redlinks in portal space are truly ugly), and apologies for any confusion that might have resulted from my dereliction (I have shortened the Grossman and NYG history leads just a bit in order that the 55-44 column spread might better fit). Thanks also for your note; having appreciated your sundry efforts at the portal and having certainly concurred in your suggestion that things be a bit more taut, I've been meaning to drop you a line but have found myself otherwise occupied. In any event, I will surely reply to your remarks at the main talk page and DYK talk page in the next day—I agree with you w/r/to the DYK in part but don't think they need be as small as those on, for instance, the main page or the (featured) medicine portal, for reasons that I'll set out—but in the meanwhile I've removed {{cleanup}} from the DYK page inasmuch as such tags are (almost always) properly reserved for mainspace and since the length of the April DYK (to be up for just nine more days) is necessary at present for columnar spacing. Sorry, once more, for any trouble caused in our cross-editing [I didn't see, I should say, your two quotations, but I will surely add them to the quotations for next week :)]. Cheers, Joe 07:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we disagree over the length of the hooks; I think the DYK in portal space to serve a rather different purpose from the main page DYK, but I'll take that discussion to the DYK talk page. In the meanwhile, I wonder if you'd mind leaving the present DYK with the provision that we'll go with shorter content in May (consistent with whatever talk page consensus might emerge), principally because if they are made much shorter we're going to have some spacing problems; these will, of course, be up for just under nine more days. If you are nevertheless inclined to shorten them a bit, I'd surely understand, and I'll probably move the TYCD and cats to the right column and then return the columnar spread to 55-44 or so. In any case, I will when I'm a bit more awake address the DYK length question at the portal talk page. Have a good one, Joe 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you rightly observe, we appear to have rather divergent conceptions of how a portal ought to be formatted, so we probably ought to take our discussion to the talk page in order that others might weigh in (although my experience has been that few editors are interested in portal space); I'll offer my thoughts at the talk page in a little while. Thanks, Joe 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Raptors

Thank you for your feedback. I would split the season into a separate article in about a couple of hours. I see that you're editing some parts of it now, so just to let you know. Chensiyuan 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the DYK process, but please go ahead. Chensiyuan 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history of biology

Thanks for getting to that GAC review so quickly! I think it's ready for reconsideration now; my spamming for help on talk pages paid off.--ragesoss 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Instant service! --ragesoss 18:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Taylor

Alright, I'll take a look at it later this week (lastest Thursday).--Wizardman 02:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

Matthew Cox: I have passed this GA nomination and removed the hold, it is now listed at WP:GA. Good work and keep it up. IvoShandor 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Quadzilla99 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well most excellent then, it really was an excellent article, and a very interesting read. I love the fact that the guy was not only brazen and probably what most people would call a it crazy but he looked completely insane as well. I hoped to improve the article through my review and I think I accomplished that goal. However, you are the one to be lauded for you hard work. IvoShandor 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorpe

I'll try to help. Speaking of which, I plan on sending New England Patriots to FAR late this year on my own terms, when I have the time (one of the biggest flaws of FAR is random people nominating the articles at the wrong time, such as when the writers are working on another project. Fortunately, we don't have an issue with this in the NFL articles, for the most part). — Deckiller 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olajuwon

Hi Quadzilla. Is it ok if we delete Image:Hakeem.jpg from [18]? I'm fairly certain that the flickr uploader does not own its copyright (;-) ), and in any case, they have it listed as by-nc-sa. Best ×Meegs 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anabolic steroid featured article candidate.

I have nominated the Anabolic steroid article to be a featured article. Please vote in support of it being a featured article here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive3. Contributors have been working vastly to improve this article since then taking into account criticism of it and improving it on all accounts since it's last nomination and it has gone a long ways since then. Please vote in support of it. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos and Uniforms of the New England Patriots

I agree that there should be a summary, but before, and now, the entire article is part of the main page. This essentially renders the separate article useless. There needs to be a summary, not the entire article. Pats1 11:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TyrusThomas4lyf

He doesn't seem to have made any uncivil comments since his warning. Most people start off a little rough, but he seems to be doing fine. Let me know if any problems crop up. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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 BetacommandBot 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hakluyt

Hi, Quadzilla99, I've completed revising the article "Richard Hakluyt" and would appreciate it if you would have another look to see if it qualifies for "Good Article" status. Thanks. Cheers, Jacklee 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for approving the GA status of the article! Will have a think about getting it up to FA status – am a little busy at the moment and won't have much time to work on the article for a while. Cheers, Jacklee 02:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining policy

Note This thread was cut and pasted here from a thread I started elsewhere by the responding user:

I'm the main contributor to Michael Jordan, which passed FA last month with a vote of 19–0 after the nom was re-set. See the second sentence in the article, statements are allowed to be put in the lead if they are sourced elsewhere or not likely to be disputed. Leads do not require sources, I know you don't contribute much writing to articles so you might not know this but, leads are supposed to be summaries of the articles they're in therefore they do not require sources. As a matter of fact leads generally don't have sources, also as said before the fact is not likely to be disputed. See the legacy section that explains all his achievements and recognition from various sources. Quadzilla99 09:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, disputing that is kind of like disputing that the sun is hot or grass is green, etc. Quadzilla99 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "legacy section" makes me believe he's "one of the greatest basketball players of all time". But still, "Widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time" doesn't sound as a encyclopedic description.

That the sun is hot and the grass is green, these are physical phenomena that can be experimented. Our opinion is really not of much influence of these facts.

For the Jim Thorpe article, we could be so much less POV while still praising this athlete if we describe him with something like "Jim Thorpe is a N-times gold medal winner in this and that American athlete." There's no reason to use empty statements as "Considered one of the most versatile athletes in modern sports..."

p.s.: As a matter of fact, after reading the article, I do consider this man to be one of the most versatile athletes in modern sports. But you see my point, right? --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases the knowledge is so common that it's acceptable, there was never one complaint about that in an exhaustive FAC for Jordan. If it were in any kind of dispute there would be a problem. For instance, look at the Britannica article for Michael Jordan:[19] it's just a succinct and apt way to describe the person. In cases like these I think statements like what we're discussing are fine. I don't think we should get too carried away in worrying about being POV that we can't just accurately describe things. Incidentally, I'm not really a contributor to Thorpe I just saw that it was up for FACFAR so I figured I'd try to save it. I never edited until yesterday. I'm saying that as this isn't some deluded fanboy talking who's trying hype somebody up. Quadzilla99 12:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Britannica doesn't seem to cite any source at all. I wouldn't use it as an example to follow. You would agree that, as it is today, it would terribly fail a FAC nomination here.

"...there was never one complaint about that in an exhaustive FAC for Jordan" - It doesn't imply we can't discuss it here. It would be more to the point if you would tell me "There was a complaint about that in a FAC for Jordan and an exhaustive discussion decided it should stay." I would have a strongly interest in reading such discussion.

"In both cases the knowledge is so common that it's acceptable"... I'm sorry, but aren't you being American-centric? How ignorant am I to never had heard about Jim Thorpe before? For instance, do you know who is considered the best composer in Brazil? Do you know which Bolivian city is widely regarded as the one with the most beautiful woman in the country? --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the greatness which is asserted as a fact, but the perception of the greatness which is. That is the first point. Secondly, in any event, an encyclopedia has to present more than numbers and trophies won an athlete. For example, why is Maradona considered one of the greatest soccer players of all time? It is neither the goals he scored, nor the number of trophies he won, because in those respects he has been tremendously outnumbered by vastly inferior soccer players. In team games, as long as you're part of a good team, you stand to win many medals. But that alone does not make people recognise you as the pivot of the team or a sporting prowess. In this case, Jordan won something like 6 NBA championships. I know of several players who won the same number, and even a greater number of championships, but they are not "great". Partly because their major statistics are not as high, and also because the measure of their influence on their teams is less. You can't measure influence in the same way you can't measure greatness, but that's another issue. If wikipedia merely lists players' achievements as they are, why would the reader be interested? There are hundreds of "successful" basketball players who don't make things come alive. The reader wants to know who are the outstanding players. Descriptives like "greatness" is a viable option especially when the perception of the greatness is a fact. Besides, if you merely use achievements as a barometer, the inevitable outcome is many top class players never won a championship in their life (Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton and dozens more), and many average players win championships on the backs of their successful team mates. Chensiyuan 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't said we should only present numbers and trophies won. I feel sorry for making you believe that. But that is simply a misunderstanding or a simplification of my position.

Great part of your argument above seems to argue that Michael Jordan is one of the greatest players of all time. I also never objected that.

You said "Descriptives like "greatness" is a viable option especially when the perception of the greatness is a fact". I would only correct this to "when the perception of the greatness is a verifiable fact". The threshold for something to be included on Wikipedia is not truth, it's verifiability. And weasel words are simply phrases that are hard to verify, by definition, and that's why they need to be avoided. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you would call weasel words most people would just call apt descriptive terms. This is not a big deal the wording has been deemed aceptable by the community and I don't see any cause for discussion here. If you look at Thorpe as of two days ago in there were a lot of legitimate weasel words that I have removed (section headers:"Olympic Hero", "A rising star", etc) that I have since removed. So I'm not a user of weasel words or unable to recognize them. Quadzilla99 12:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work in this article is astonishing. Don't think that my objection to the language used in this passage implies a dislike to your work here.

Actually, I would call "Olympic Hero" POV. Weasel words would be "Thorpe is widely considered a true Olympic Hero".

Did you gave any thoughs to my comments on America-centrism and common knowledge in Bolivia? --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the evidence is common knowledge and even if it is not known to someone, it is something that is extremely easy to verify. Per Wikipedia:Disputed statement a statement is validly disputed if "It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify." Jordan is listed in countless polls all over the internet as one the highest ranked basketball players of all time and Thorpe being considered one of the most versatile athletes is also easy to verify. To make a side point, I'm not sure if you understand that I removed Olympic hero section title and just changed it to Olympic career—that's what I was driving at. The article still has some words that eed replacing but I don't think the statement about him being considered one of the most versatile athletes of modern times. Quadzilla99 14:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, yes hero is a weasel word to me usually because a hero to one group might not be ne to another. Greatest is not it's stating best or better than in common English vernacular, it's also constantly used in sports, society, and other topics. Quadzilla99 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Here's a perfect example. It's an official list from the NBA note the wording. Quadzilla99 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a perfect example! And I'm sure this is just one of dozens of verifiable solid titles Mr Jordan holds. My point is that it would be far more encyclopedic to describe him by these statements than by sentences involving "widely considered".

I believe we should write the articles in a way that it could be read (and accepted) by someone ignorant about the subject. I, for one, didn't knew Mr Thorpe, and would have no reason to accept him to be "considered one of the most versatile athletes".... just because his Wikipedia's article says he is. Saying he is a gold medal winner is a completely different story, as I know I can verify this info, and that it doesn't involves opinions nor subjective judgments. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you see you asking yourself either to source the statement "John Smith is considered the greatest American <insert-profession-here>", ask yourself if you would need a source for "Juan Simito is considered the greatest Chilean <insert-profession-here>". --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we're going to have to agree to disagree as I said relative to the criteria for disputed statements and also the general community policy regarding citations in the lead; in the future when you read a lead remember citations are not required there as it is a summary of the article. So there are two viable reasons not to include a citation, as I said the validity required for a disputed statement is "[i]t contains information which is particularly difficult to verify." and the lead does not require sources as it is a summary of the entire article. Quadzilla99 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book FUR

Sorry, I was going to. But my first reaction to that comment was "ok, completely ignore how good the article is and find something small to object about. Great." Sportskido8 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Raptors 2006-07 season

Did you know? was updated. On 26 April, 2007, a fact from the article Toronto Raptors 2006-07 season, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Diaw pic

Seriously, I don't understand how the pic I uploaded is NOT fair use...I've read everything about Wiki's fair use policy and criteria, and the pic fits as a sporting events poster - that's clearly what it IS!...What more is needed? Thanks for at least being encouraging while you deleted the pic! Sundevilesq 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters it has logos and it's formatted like a magazine cover so it's not suitable for a person's infobox:[20] Quadzilla99 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwyane Wade

I recently requested semi-protection for the Dwyane Wade article. It's beginning to turn into an edit war with the anons who refuse to acknowledge consensus in discussions. And continually add poorly sourced information that has nothing to do with Wade himself. Zodiiak 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article's been protected. Good thing too, it was getting pretty hectic. Zodiiak 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jordan

Hello! I recently made changes to the Micheal Jordan page, which you have reverted. The second time I made the change I asked for comments on the Talk page before reverting, but you either missed or ignored this. Please do me the favor of commenting on the Talk page to explain why you do not know/remember/understand/see why MJ is a nickname for Michael Jordan. - Ektar 18:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information generally gets discussed first and then inserted on an established page not inserted and discussed before removing. I commented there. Quadzilla99 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myasuda

As opposed to Myasuda the jackass who goes around and reverts at his will. As well as his excellent use of the word "ignoramus", even though you two were clearly in the wrong.--TyrusThomas4lyf 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marchetti

It is a common error, however, Jim Brown was the AP MVP in 1958. He received 22 votes, Johnny Unitas received 15 votes. Marchetti received none. Marchetti did, however, win the AP NFL Lineman of the Year in 1958. The AP released these stories on Janurary 12 and 13, 1959. You can look it up yourself if you can do some research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jturney (talk • contribs)

Try to remain civil I gave you the link:[21] Here's some more Marchetti at databasefootball:[22] Jim Brown at databasefootball:[23] Let's not turn this into a competition, if you're right great if I am great. In the end it doesn't matter anyway.Quadzilla99 01:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not upset---this is actually kind of a scoop I am posting, in fact, I may be writing a short article in a national magazine about it, but I felt like posting this for the sense of accuracy. I am new to editing here and I admit I don't know all the rules. However, check out the image on teh AP NFL MVP article. I think it will pass muster. Also, about the tildes, I just found them on my keyboard. . . .Anyway, as i just posted, all the sources you cite are wrong. They are all printing the AP story, sonwhere in the early 1980s this error began. I am not sure exactly when. Since then, it has been pass along. The source I have posted is from the day the AP released the story. The following day, in the nation's AP newspapers the story about Marchetti being voted the NFL lineman of the year appears. Jturney 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it in there for now and check the NY Times awesome online archives, They should have the original info. However per WP:VERIFY even if it's true it will need a source. Quadzilla99 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the page. There is the Oakland Tribune article which is the source. The NY Times, LA Times, Wash. Post will all have the same story, depending on space that day. Further, I have posted the Marchetti Lineman of the Year and will do article for that next. Rest assured, this is accurate and has been verified.Jturney 03:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're telling me that. I just told you it was fine see your talk page. It just said it needs a different license. Quadzilla99 03:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're all set, the article looks a lot better. Nice work! Quadzilla99 04:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brodeurbook.jpg

We seemed to get off on a bad start, I apologize that I was unclear and uncivil in my previous messages. I've provided clear and actionable suggestions at Image talk:Brodeurbook.jpg and hope that you will take another look. --Iamunknown 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that FAC reviewers generally offered recommendations and did not directly the article. Then again I am new to the proceedings. --Iamunknown 06:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is my impression incorrect? --Iamunknown 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TyrusThomas4lyf

I've noticed you've responded to alot of the edits of TyrusThomas4lyf, I am having alot of dificulties dealing with this user on the LeBron James page. he appears to make alot uninformed and persoanlly biased edits on many other pages as well. I'm wondering if there is anything that can be done to ameliorate this situation? I beleive he is close to the 3 revert rule.thanks.Duhon 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA/R

Thanks for the headsup. I may not have many edits, but my opinions are as valid as the next person. Its offends me that someone would just cross out my comment like it was nothing.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 02:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YANKEES

Thank you for joining. It is my first WikiProject. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 13:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure not really the hugest baseball fan anymore, I'll try to help where I can. Quadzilla99 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babe Ruth.jpg		The Order Of The Yankees
		For being the first editor to join WP:YANKEES Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the bambino for now. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 14:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for catching my nowiki error. --Ioshus^(talk) 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Quadzilla99 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston - a look

I saw your comment posted on the FAR for Boston, Massachusetts. I believe I have addressed the issue concerning the introduction. However, I am not sure what you meant by "dash in measurements." Can you clarify that? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: e-mail

Uh, done, though I'm not sure what you want to e-mail me about, lol. Anthony Hit me up... 02:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC