This is an archive of past discussions with User:Giants27. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
My username
I want to rename my account to Islanders27. Would you have any kind of objection to this? Being that it's the same format as your username... I've wanted a rename for a long time, because I don't like being the top pages when you Google iMatthew, and I've grown way bored of this name. Heh, so your opinion? :P iMatthewtalk at 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess because it documents a living person which means a free equivalent can be created and thus should not be used under fair use claims on Wikipedia. But it's not a case of F9 because fair use is claimed. I tagged it as F7 now, which is the correct tag in such cases. Regards SoWhy16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking, since it's a BLP and the actual image isn't issued under a Wikipedia compatible license. However, I didn't know that since there's a fair use claim it doesn't qualify for F9. Thanks for clearing that up.--Giants27(c|s) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome. I think the main reason for this difference is that there should be a difference between copyrighted images which are (incorrectly or with bad faith) claimed to be free ones (cases of F9) and those where the uploader admits that it's copyrighted but incorrectly assumes they meet the non free content criteria (cases of F7). The F9 cases can sometimes be converted to NFCC compliant images by replacing the free image claims with correct NFCC rationale - but those images are first and foremost copyright violations. The F7 cases can be fixed if the poster comes up with a convincing reason why the image is NFCC compliant and as such, the tag gives them two days to provide such a reason. Regards SoWhy17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I went off of Pats getting the counter move and him removing Smith from the Rams roster so I assumed he had done it.--Giants27(c|s) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, gotcha.
Also, remember to spell out teams, link teams and add years when adding a new section. Don't just do "Rams" and "September 28" in Smith's Jags section, because those are the first appearances in that section.►Chris NelsonHolla!20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom four contestants of the top eight will be eliminated on September 30th, while the top four will continue with the same score for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Theleftorium (938)
Durova (914)
Ottava Rima (910)
Sasata (849)
Bottom 4
Shoemaker's Holiday (679)
Candlewicke (370)
Mitchazenia (347)
Juliancolton (306)
All scores are accurate as of 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
I can't image any way that something you nominate even as early as today will pass before Wednesday. If anything you've already nominated passes between now and Wednesday, or you still have things you haven't added to your submission pages, now is the time to do it! This half of the round ends this Wednesday (September 30) at 23:59 (UTC), and the bottom four contestants will be eliminated. The top four will keep their score from the first half, and continue competing through October 31. Good luck everyone!
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi! When are you running for adminship? I was already ready to nominate you, but then I noticed that you're already being coached by someone I'm sure you'd make a great admin. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
When King of Hearts feels I'm ready is when I'll run. But I'll make sure to notify you if you would like to co-nom.--Giants27(c|s) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you please update the respective team navboxes when you edit the team templates in the NFL, so I don't have to look up your edits to the templates and update the navbox. Would save alot of time. Thank you. Ositadinma21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's aight. Bears, Bills, Dolphins, Lions, Packers and Raiders. We should create a navbox for all teams so there won't be a confusion, but it would take a while. Alot of copy and paste ;). Ositadinma21:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's easier for the CFL considering every team has one. But the NFL is too sporadic an NFC North team has one and then AFC West. Too weird. I'll try to create one or two today.--Giants27(c|s) 22:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, because a certain somebody (I think you know who) created the sporadic ones. I believe Eagles247 is creating an Eagles one. Ositadinma22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I remember it. Just had prior commitments. Finishing an article that is apart of a good topic that a friend and I decided to work on a month ago. Then stuff it real life has prevented me from finishing it and doing the review. I'm free for the day, so I should get around too it. Don't worry.--WillC19:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Why does'nt the other navboxes have links to team templates just the roster templates? Also what does the PAGENAME at the bottom of the categories do? Is it neccessary? Also why don't all of the templates have simple english instead of a couple? Ositadinma20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
1) Because nobody has added them. 2) PAGENAME is just that the category will show up as the name it's listed under. BASEPAGENAME is something that you can also see but it removes the namespace. Not really needed but can be used. 3) Three have them because I created two (un-updated since March). Feel free to go to Simple English wikipedia (you can login under the same username and password as you do here). Just make sure you use simpler English since it's for people just learning the language.--Giants27(c|s) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
So should I add the team template categories to the rest of the navboxs with or without the PAGENAME? Also should the categories be side by side as in how the roster templates are or underneath one another? Ositadinma20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's up to you, there's no right way or wrong way with PAGENAME and the cats should probably be underneath one another rather than side to side.--Giants27(c|s) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am just trying to get some uniformity here. It would look stupid with one had PAGENAME or one didn't. I think that all templates should be the same. Ositadinma20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I was nosing around and saw a blanking of your page with some kind of message i didn't quite understand. Anyways nice user page .. I'm awed .. cheers!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Should I move Chris Wells' page to Beanie Wells because that is how he is listed on the offical Cardinals roster and everybody including most sources list him as. I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, but am afraid that someone will revert it back. Also the same thing with Evander Hood. Ositadinma21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Navboxes are different, click on the [view] feature of the navbox and you'll see his name bolded. However, if there's a redirect it doesn't bold, which is key for the navbox. The regular roster template, isn't on his article and thus won't need to bold.--Giants27(c|s) 02:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Now I read the WP:NOTBROKEN and understand the navboxes instance, but most editors that move a page change the link on the template to indicate that it has already been moved, instead of it going to a redirect. Redirects or no redirects; it doesn't hurt the link. Meaning you'll still get to Steve Smith. Ositadinma02:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it is kind of the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". But it just irrates me when I look on the template and click his name and it goes to a redirect. To me it means someone forgot to change the link. Do you now what I mean? Ositadinma02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
With all these sort of things, changes that are invisible to the reader really should be put off until doing a real change to the text. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Giants. Sorry, just noticed your good article review and I've added the "alt" text for the images. Thanks for doing the review, I know they can be time consuming. I've been somewhat divorced from the GA system for a while, focusing on content creation instead. Keep up the good work. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics!16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
On October 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andy Hedlund, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have no idea, but since it doesn't specify what license it is, I'd assume it's copyrighted. Not sure though.--Giants27(c|s) 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, upon further review (I feel like an official) you can send that picture to websites such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., so I think it's public domain as soon as it's uploaded to Photobucket. Eagles24/7(C)23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but remember people use images from Google and those are copyrighted. So, while you may be right I'm not sure however, the editors at WP:SCV might know whether it's copyrighted or not.--Giants27(c|s) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Ooooooo apparently I shouldn't have specified that that page is for reporting copyvios not about asking if its copyrighted or not. The talk page is where you ask whether something is copyrighted.--Giants27(c|s) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
First time adding to the queue under this system. Not so fluent. What should I do? Self-revert? Or will you handle it? Again, my apologies for having missed that. Tiamuttalk21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Giants27, I just wanted to thank you for all the hard work you put into Did you know...?. Sometimes, in this busy environment, we may feel like what we do goes unnoticed. Your hard work certainly does not and is very appreciated. Thank you. :) –Katerenka(talk •contribs)21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continuing for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 5
Sasata (1153)
Ottava Rima (1148)
Theleftorium (1025)
Durova (1010)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (534)
Mitchazenia (352)
Juliancolton (314)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1183)
All scores are accurate as of 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
Hi everyone! We're very sorry we didn't get this one out anytime sooner. We've all been pretty busy IRL. But down to business: Since the last newsletter, the first half of the round has ended. We said goodbye to Candlewicke, Juliancolton, and Mitchazenia. We'd like to thank them for all of their hard work getting this far. Shoemaker's Holiday has also withdrawn, so we'd like to thank him for his hard work too. Congratulations to Durova, Ottava Rima, Sasata, and Theleftorium for making the top 4! Good luck to you all.
You also may have seen from the WikiCup talk page that we have a new judge! J Milburn is joining our judging team effective immediately. J was assigned after Garden and Thehelpfulone announced they would be highly inactive throughout the remainder of the WikiCup. It is likely you will see J return as a judge next year as well.
Good luck again to the remaining four contestants! 20 days left in the Round, so make sure you get all your content nominated soon! You've all worked hard for this, since the beginning of January. I'm sure you're all tired by now, but you've come too far to just give up now. Congratulations Top 4!
GARDEN, iMatthewtalk, J Milburn, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Reminder: Please be more careful when filling prep areas for DYK
Hi there. I know you do great work at DYK, so please do not misunderstand this message. But when you assembled prep 2 for queue 1 yesterday, you made two mistakes that have unfortunately made their way to the main page. With Giuseppe Giulietti (trade unionist), you have somehow ignored the comments made on the nomination, both by Chamal N and myself which pointed out that the original hook (that you used) was incorrect and the Alt should have been used. With La Parka (AAA) you forgot that when adding hooks to prep, you have to double check the assessment of the user who passed the hook. In that case, a part of the hook was not referenced in the article and should not have been used for DYK. Please remember to be a bit more careful in future but keep up the otherwise great work! :-) Regards SoWhy11:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, sometimes I just don't pay attention to comments (unless the thread is huge). I'll have to start doing that more often. And with the second article, I usually don't double check for verifiers unless I really feel like they did it wrong (or are relatively new to the DYK process) and I didn't notice that with that particular hook. And like with the first error, I'll start being a bit more careful and taking my time a bit more to ensure that nothing like that makes it to the main page.--Giants27(c|s) 12:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute, I just realized that I was not the one who moved the La Parka hook to the prep area. Either way, I still should be more careful about hooks I add to the queues.--Giants27(c|s) 12:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry for that then. I had assumed you compiled the whole prep. Well well well, stupid SoWhy, you try to tell other people to be more careful and fail to be careful yourself. Rest assured that I will chastise myself for this. ;-) PS: While I am here, satisfy my curiosity, will you? When will this link turn blue? :-) Regards SoWhy13:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of preparing sets, make sure the credits aren't redlinked (or if the user link is redlinked, that the user actually exists). Thesetwo sets both had invalid credits. (And I also appreciate the work you've done. Filling the preps consistently is no easy task.) Shubinator (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I get for assuming every credit is done correctly before I moved it. And thanks, filing the preps can take something out of you.--Giants27(c|s) 12:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not it's correct. If an article has enough prose for an "Early years" section then the birthplace should be there and not in the lead.--Giants27(c|s) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just checking my fantasy hockey league and debating picking up Nathan Horton (who was just dropped by somebody else). Then I changed over to a tab where I had my Wikipedia watchlist open, and lo and behold I see you nominate him for a DYK. This probably isn't of any interest to you, but I thought I'd share anyway. I like what you've done with the article, anyway. Steve Smith (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you expanded this article quite a bit in the past week, which is great. Most of it is good, solid information, however there are quite a few issues I wanted to bring up. Firstly, I'm not crazy about having subsections for each NHL season. It looks okay now because he's only had a few, but given the standard fifteen seasons or so an NHL player usually undergoes, is this really a good format? Secondly, a lot of the references used are from archives you have to pay to access, violating WP:Cite. In regards to the content itself, I'm finding a lot of the information to be a little unnecessary. It's good to have milestone goals like his first NHL hat trick and his 100th goal, but there are a lot random goals mentioned that have no real significance. Finally, the prose doesn't have a whole lot of flow. It reads like point form in many parts without a lot of transitional cues. If these issues were addressed, I think this would be a really thorough article; I think you've done a really great job already. I liked the above comment on this talk page cause I also have Horton in my hockey pool lol. Anyway, lemme know if you want any clarifications on what I've mentioned and I'd also be happy to help you address them if you feel they're warranted concerns. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I usually don't have numerous subsections but I figured since there was enough content for the separate seasons and I believe since he hasn't been around for 15 years the seasonal sections don't look weird. However, I agree that once his career goes along, the subsections will look out of place. Secondly, I realize that but all of the archived cites (I believe all of them) show the key content that needs to referenced which IMO passes WP:CITE since you can verify the info. Thirdly, the reason I added goals from random games is because I tried to show his season in a way and showing multiple goal games or games in which he has 3+ assists was an easy way to do this. Finally, I usually have problems flow, any help on fixing that (or anything for that matter) is greatly appreciated.--Giants27(c|s) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Windows 2003
Dunno if you figured it out yet or not, but right-click on the screen, go to "Arrange Icons By", and click on "Show Desktop Icons". Wait a second and all your icons and the start menu should appear again. Eagles24/7(C)17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
On October 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nathan Horton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continued for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Sasata (1332)
Durova (1259)
Ottava Rima (1242)
Theleftorium (1041)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (534)
Mitchazenia (352)
Juliancolton (314)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1183)
All scores are accurate as of 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
We have announced the intention to hire another new judge to cover for future judge absences. If you are interested please see the talk page for the WikiCup.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Giants. I think you know how low my threshold is for college football player notability, but I saw the above article referenced at the College Football Project page, and this one seems to scream out, "I'm not notable." The guy is a backup quarterback, and the one mainstream media article that is cited about him is titled: "Is Virginia Tech quarterback Ju-Ju Clayton almost famous? Not yet" So even the source cited says he's not yet even almost famous. He may be notable once he establishes himself as a college player, but doesn't appear to have done so yet. I am not familiar with the process of nominating an article for AfD, but if you agree feel free to nominate this one. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Clayton is 1) a backup 2) admittedly unfamous by the only headline about him. He's certaintly non-notable, so I'm going to be go nominate him for AfD. (For future reference, the process is outlined on WP:AFD)--Giants27(c|s) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk23:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
And a very good morning to you, my Canadian friend. Thankyou for participating in my recent RfA. It was an oppose, but that's good. It's completely destroyed my aspriation to be sysopped. No sarcasm intended! I feel a lot better. Again thanks! Lord Spongefrog,(I am the Czar of all Russias!)22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
No, no. I don't mean it at all like that. I mean, if I was trying to be an admin, I would have to be all precise and kill myself for the slightest mistakes and be perfect, and that would be boring and no fun. I'm crazy, but not that crazy. Now I can just relax. Maybe I'll try again in a year or so, Lord Spongefrog,(I am the Czar of all Russias!)22:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahh...that makes sense. Sadly, having fun can be seen as immaturity and trying to not have fun can be difficult. IMHO, having fun (whether it's deemed mature or not) is best. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Because RfA isn't "technically" a vote. :) An exclamation point is the symbol for "not", so they're saying "not vote". :) Hope this helps. Yours, –Katerenka☆22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I've tried reasoning with Yankees10, and he doesn't seem willing to listen to anyone but the voices in his head. No one seems interested in doing anything about his annoying behavior. I don't know why he feels that he is the sole authority on what a major league baseball player's infobox is supposed to look like, but I truly wish someone would finally put him in his place.
See, and that's where you're wrong. I've noticed that the average admin treats these situations like there are two feuding children and just stick each one in opposite corners. None are really interested in digging into which is right and which is wrong. This is why I ended up getting blocked.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring is why you got blocked. Not bringing it up to an admin. If you don't edit war and bring it up to an admin to follow the situation, you should be safe.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont know if you noticed but after you told him to be civil he continued to refer to me as his girlfriend. Numerous people have told him not to leave comments like this, but he continues not to listen and continues to personally attack me.--Yankees1015:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah its ridiculous. I would love to open up what I think about him, but I would probably be banned forever. He def. should be blocked--Yankees1015:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Check out Charlie Williams (pitcher). I added the link to the 1968 Major League Baseball Draft to his article. I added a link around his birth year. Without even bothering to read the changes I made, Yankees10 just undid my work. Then I get called uncivil. Is there anything civil about that? Is this not acting like a crazy stalker? Review the facts; then tell me who is acting uncivil.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The link is not even supposed to be on the birthyear. To say he is best remembered also sounds like he is dead--Yankees1015:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continued for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Durova (1546)
Sasata (1477)
Ottava Rima (1254)
Theleftorium (1092)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (534)
Mitchazenia (352)
Juliancolton (314)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1183)
All scores are accurate as of 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
It just came to me that multiple users have worked together on a bunch of content items, which means the newsletter counts are likely off. I'll try to put that all together and figure it out by the end of the round.
The end of the round, and the end of the 2009 WikiCup is this coming Saturday, October 31! To our top four: don't give up yet. Make sure that anything you have left to nominate is nominated today or tomorrow, for the slighted chance of it passing in time. The last day items will be accepted is Saturday, at 23:59 (UTC). It ain't over till the fat lady sings, of course!
GARDEN, iMatthewtalk, J Milburn, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I just wanted to experience it and see what it was all about. I also had a lot of work to get done earlier in the week, so it was necessary. 71.125.133.63 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
_at_Disney%27s_Animal_Kingdom_(16-01-2005).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
