User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive005

The "threat"

Baseball Bugs, I think the person that placed a "threat" on your user page deserves a second chance. Why, because if the user in question said an apology then they should be forgiven. The user in question if they were this "crazed-Rambo" user they would have done it again on that "user name". Maybe, the user had seen what he did and typed a apology on your talk page. However, you claimed he was "abusive sockpuppet"; the only thing this person was doing was apologizing to you , and you didn't see this you were to see this. Baseball Bugs, do you have any mercy and forgive people. I believe a person deserves a second chance if they say they were sorry on their actions.Iron Valley (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Superman (1978 film)

While I support your enthusiasm, you have to know that the article is already way too long to have what you called "a summary of the tedious detail that follows in the same section." Also, you have to actually prove your claims, meaning you can't leave anything unsourced like you did with this statement:

"Even at that, some of the blue-screen mattes had problems on the initial release, as the suit sometimes took on a greenish tinge (most noticeable in a shot of Superman flying toward Hoover Dam). That kind of problem, also visible in the early VHS tapes of the film, was eventually fixed digitally for the DVD releases."

I hope you'll understand. Peace. Wildroot (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Your edits to WikiProject College Football have become disruptive. You have been informed that you are being disruptive and that no one supports your interpretation of how these articles should be re-written. Your response has been to lash out at other editors.

Please remember that WP:NPA states that you should "Comment on content, not on the contributor...comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.", yet you continue call your fellow editors names such as "fan boy".[1] You are also violating WP:AGF by claiming without providing any evidence that other editors are attempting to WP:OWN these articles.

Future behavior such as this could result in your being blocked from editing. At this point, it is not productive for you to continue these methods at the WikiProject. If you wish to see continued discussion of the matter, I suggest you consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 17:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Crimea River. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer to your question about mascots

Well, there's Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the Univeristy of Louisiana Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns, University of Northern Colorado Fighting Whites intramural team and the Vancouver Canucks to name a few. There's a link to a parallel page that provides a more complete list: List of ethnic sports team and mascot names. Sf46 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural sources

Baseball Bugs, I am not "issuing threats" and am sorry if that's the perception I created. I am just pointing out tasks that should be done to improve The Natural article. You asked that since "Many of the items refer to other articles or to specific episodes," why don't I consider those sufficiently referenced. Here's the reasons. One example is the Simpsons episode that is said to contain "satirical and comedic" uses of the score or "other plot elements." There are two significant problems with this: (1) Wikipedia cannot cite itself (that is a WP rule; it states "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources."); (2) Even if citing WP was allowable, then there has to be something in those articles that supports the statement "Satirical or comedic uses of the score or other plot elements have included: The third-season episode of The Simpsons, titled Homer at the Bat." I looked and there's nothing in the article that remotely supports the assertion. Think of some high school student who is doing a term paper or essay on satire and takes that statement in The Natural at face value and places it in her paper. She ends up with egg on her face and a low grade (even though Jimmy Wales says not to cite WP).

So to make that statement in The Natural article we have to find a reliable source that supports it. WP:Verifiability states, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." There may indeed be someone credible who has said that "Homer at the Bat" makes "satirical or comedic uses of the score", but we need to find that published source and cite it properly in the article. Otherwise it comes out or is challenged and flagged with a cites-needed tag: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence specifically states, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The guideline continues, "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references."

As for the DVD source, the article says, "a re-edit of the film [on the DVD] that adds some previously cut footage, and expands and re-arranges the first part of the film substantially." I wasn't questioning the fact that a DVD was released (although a cite is normal for this in a film article to verify the release date and any special features with it), I was noting that someone had made the analysis that a re-edit of the film "re-arranges the film substantially." If a WP editor decided the change was "substantial", that may be original research which is not allowed. By adding the {{Fact}} tag, I was pointing out that we need to find a source that makes that assessment, which I've been trying to find. I did find this which has some descriptive commentary that could support such an assessment, but the website, "DVD Verdict: Judge Ryan Keefer's Blog" is a blog and therefore not a reliable source. There still may be hope of finding something.

I hope this answers your questions. Just so you know, most of the entries in the Cultural references section of the article are not significant or truly encyclopedic, and should be removed. I'm not saying that the references to the film in pop culture aren't significant, but the fancruft list should be summarized and supported with appropriate citations to a third-party, reputable source.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore

Howdy i don't know if i'm doing this properly as i'm new to editing wikipedia. Did i include the source right? I probably won't figure out how to view your response can you message me at bill|at|williamwheatley|dot|com so i can figure out how to do this right thanks!. User:Bwheatley —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the story my dad told me growing up and then was verified to me that he wasn't making it up when we were at camden yards on the club level and pop introduced me to Frank after telling frank i'm the brother of the kid (My uncle billy) who caught the ball you hit out of memorial stadium. So how would i put that into the article? could you help this is all new to me.

• That's original research, and is against the rules. You can't use it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ortiz Edit War

I've just gotten the reverter blocked, but I can't revert his last changes without violating 3rvv myself. If you feel like it... PhGustaf (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment is against the rules. However, I was going to do it anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural edits

You are now in violation of the 3RR policy. Please be advised that should you revert the material again, you will be blocked in accordance with that policy. I strongly urge you to discuss your edits or, if you feel mightily picked upon, that you seek out the advice/counsel/etc from an admin. A big ol' list of them can be found here. Please consider this your only warning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have assumed ownership of the page. Fine. It's yours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if I am to understand correctly, we came over to your house, pointed a howitzer at your head and made you revert yet again? I bloody well think not, my friend. Unless you are possessed of a fairly unique problem hitherto unknown in the annals of science and medicine, you chose to violate 3RR all by your lonesome and without the guided assistance of any other editor.

You will note that I said you violated 3RR. I did not say I was going to report you for it - even though, as you have been registered here for since May of last year, you are well aware of the rules. My notifying you of your violation was to get you to calm down and step back a little bit. Jim told you to read WP:CITE. I told you to read the same thing. Perhaps now is that time to actually do what two, different, experienced editors are telling you to do - not to screw with you, but to help you avoid the craptastic jackpot you seem determined to get yourself into.

Lastly, you need to grow up just a bit more than a little. Jim and I were trying to help you; accusing us of violating wiki policy is a sure way to ensure that you get zero rhythm when you need assistance. You had best start thinking about how your behavior is going to alienate your fellow contributors as you edit past your one year mark and beyond. Because I don't believe in disposable people, it doesn't matter if you take The Natural off your watchlist; I am going to put you on mine, and check out your edits for a little while. I am here to help you, if you ask nicely. I am also here to make sure you don't get rude with other editors. When you demonstrate that you can handle both criticism and the editing environment better than you have today, you will have improved yourself.

You can say 'thank you' for not reporting the 3RR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Spangled Banner

You're right. To be honest I skimmed right past "Performances" because I thought that paragraph would be about notable or memorable performances: Rosanne Barr, Borat. Maybe it'd be best to merge my lines into that section and retitle it "Criticism"? (I don't think the title of the section needs to be more specific than that.) Tempshill (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Natural

BB, I'm sorry to see you abandon your interest in The Natural, and that you took my interest in improving the article as a personal attack. I asked Arcayne to review our difference of opinion on that "cultural references" section not to gang up on you, but to let me know if 'I' was off-base. If he opined that either my approach or understanding of WP guidelines was wrong, then I would have adjusted one or both and continued to work on raising the article's usefulness and quality. I certainly wouldn't have picked up my ball and glove and left the field in a huff.

Which brings me to a suggestion: please review and take to heart WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. I have already recommended closer study of policies regarding sources, citing and verifiability, but a review of your edit history shows you are well aware of them (or at least cite them) when deleting other editors' contributions. It is also ironic that you accuse two editors of owning the article when we just began editing it within the past couple weeks. You, on the other hand, have been editing it since August. Who's sense of ownership is getting in the way here? And shame on anyone who has been aware of the dismal state of an article about a film by Barry Levinson, screenwritten by Robert Towne, based on a story by Bernard Malamud, and starring some of the world's best known leading and character actors! Although the film received mixed reviews and certainly has its critics, the article should have no trouble finding material for interesting and significant Production & Development, Themes, and Adaptation sections, completely absent up to this point. That, by the way, is the genesis of my interest in improving this article.

If you disagree with my methods, that's not only fine with me, but I welcome it. The best articles in WP are developed through the contributions of multiple editors through the vehicle of consensus. And, you're right: I did not like the list format or contents of the disputed section. It, other than the overly-long Plot section, was the largest section of the article. It's fancruft content, suitable more to IMDb trivia, is what I would expect from a tenth grader when the teacher asks about the significant aspects of the film. That list is painful to look at when a treatment of the themes of myth and hero and baseball in American culture would serve so much better. In fact, a quick academic search shows there are numerous scholarly papers that discuss how the changes made in the adaptation process significantly affect the themes Malamud — one of the most important writers of the 20th centruy — focused on. The fact that Hobbs hits a home run at the end of the movie and reunites with Iris and his son are key changes from the original and are worthy of much more attention than a masturbatory trivia list. So, guilty as charged.

And being nice to people has benefits. Here's why: as I looked at your edits so I could better understand your practices (with the goal of ameliorating the dispute), I started looking at articles on which you've worked; due the viral nature of WP, it's impossible for me to not become interested in them and improvement of their quality. It's very possible we will meet again. Maybe we can collaborate rather than argue. A benefit of others taking WP:CIVIL to heart is that not only did Arcayne not hit you with a 3R violation, I did not as well; in fact, I refrained from making a justifiable edit that I knew would cause you to violate the rule. Instead, I continued to try to engage you in a productive discussion, which you rejected. You're welcome for not likely causing you to be benched for a couple days (which, given the volume of your edits, probably would have been distasteful to you). Good luck, and I look forward to working productively with you in the future.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

respond to Bugs in a paramount pitcure

okay I read that in a picture called Jasper Goes Hunting where a character named Jasper is hunting. he finds a scarecrow they spot a rabbit hole and its indeed Bugs Bunny saying Eh, What's Up Doc and the scarecrows says Why It's Bugs Bunny and he says Hey I must be in the wrong pcture and dives in the hole. Mel Blanc supplied Bugs' voice and Robert McKimson anmiated the Bugs sequence

[[User:MrJanitor1|MrJanitor1] 16:42 January 13 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation

You've been reported for your 3RR violation. Magnanimity is best reserved for those capable or willing to appreciate it. Your continued attacks indicate that our good will is not enough to assist you. Have a splendid day. - - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

where I read about Bugs' cameo in a paramount picture

I read it on Big Cartoon Database and Internet Movie Database

MrJanitor1 16:53 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Roller derby

(I responded on my own talk page, but here it is again just in case:)

Well yeah, I would rather include it all, as we did previously, since that appeases the monthly stream of contributors who want to add one tidbit or another. But someone got a bee up their butt about excessive "trivia" and tried to kill the whole section, so the compromise was to remove all the music info, under the theory it was likely to keep growing, whereas the other info was pretty stable. Apparently that person hasn't visited any of the articles about popular TV shows or any number of other pop culture topics, and decided to pick on the roller derby article that day. Also I feel it should all be included because who are we to assume a researcher will not find the info of value?

If you wouldn't mind, could you add a note of support to Talk:Roller derby#Roller derby songs again? Maybe point out that the length of the article is not so much of an issue anymore, since we've spun off the history section into its own article. —mjb (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Amcaja

Sadly, our constant Wiki-associate Amcaja retired from Wikipedia last week. Let's bid him a fond farewell. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BubbaGumpMOA5.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BubbaGumpMOA5.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BubbaGumpMOA4.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BubbaGumpMOA4.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Animation Wiki-Project?

I was just wondering if you ever considered becoming a member of the animation wikiproject. Considering the retirement of two of our most active participants and the recent joining of another editor, you'd certainly be a big help. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What would I need to do? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's actually extremely easy. All you have to do is go to WP:US-TOON#Participants and sign your name under whatever section ("Active", "Inactive", "Supporter") you wish.

We definitely need more members, and the project page is in dire need of an update. Hope we can all do something about it. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the Animation Wikiproject as a supporter! It looks like the project is starting to grow! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what a "supporter" does, but I reckon I'll find out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, either, but apparently you're supposed to assess articles and contribute to the coverage of animation throughout Wikipedia. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Duck Soup

Sorry. I just did some Web-surfing, and it wasn't Roger Ebert who said that. It was online film critic Danel Griffin, who works for the University of Alaska Southeast. Ebert does admit, however, in his own review of Duck Soup, that, while he enjoys many of the routines in A Night at the Opera, he must "fast-forward through the sappy interludes with Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle. In Duck Soup, though, there are no scenes I can skip; the film is funny from beginning to end."

Danel Griffin also has an excellent, critical website, called "Film as Art", which you should consider giving a look. I think you'll agree with his analyses of Marx Brothers films. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Natural image thanks

BB, thanks for jumping on the fair-use issue with Image:TheNatural.jpg. Those things are such a pain. At least they've made the initial upload process much more intuitive than it was. I also reduced the size of the file and re-uploaded it; the powers-that-be seem to like that as well.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rooftopbleachers image

I've replaced the disputed fair use template on Image:Rooftopbleachers.jpg. The picture can't be PD-1923 if the crowd had gathered, according to the article, to watch a 1929 World Series game. --Onorem♠Dil 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That PD-1923 could be a code, I'm not sure. It may also be some sort of thing that might have been placed by someone else. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:37 PM US EST Jan 21 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Guess I shouldn't have assumed the article caption was correct. Glad to see it's all straightened out now. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Onorem♠Dil 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Lineup for Yesterday"

I've reformatted the quote and sourced at Lou Gehrig. Let me know what you think of it, before I go ahead and do the same for all of the other players' articles, eg, Ruth, Cobb, Dean, Hornsby, etc. Is it a home run or a foul bunt? Cheers, JGHowes ^talk - 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At Ogden Nash, I've also added this New York Times article as a ref [2]. Altho it doesn't quote the poem in full, it does provide reliable verification. JGHowes ^talk - 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done at all 25 baseball player articles, plus some article clean-up along the way here and there. JGHowes ^talk - 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nash animal quotes made my day! JGHowes ^talk - 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ballpark Photos

I got the first one from a library archive of which I can't remember off hand. The second one I got off of an old postcard from 1902. --Randall311 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I could remember what I changed the names from. I am 99% positive that this image is from the first construction of league park. The one you have up there now is the second carnation of league park but before the palace of the fans. I wish I could find the original source of this picture. --Randall311 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

For awhile, I wasn't sure just what to award you with, but I hope this cookie will suffice, since...well...everybody likes cookies! I'll always be grateful for you and Amcaja welcoming to the project with such enthusiasm, as well as helping me on contributing to articles and settling disputes. Enjoy! ;-) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Preston Black

A tag has been placed on Preston Black requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen, now play ball.

That's how he begins his sermons. (read my response to your comment on my user page) Also, I like your user box about sock puppets be damned darned. I'm dealing with that right now. I created an account about 3 weeks ago, and this is my first run-in with a SP...and it's a beeotch.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, speaking of socks, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sports Nuggets. Our buddy apparently shifted to articles not on our watchlists and caused some havoc. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I filled out one of those sock puppet form things...how long does it take for someone to look over it and decide whether or not to take action?--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I don't venture there too often. I think it can get quite backed up though. Admins are limited in what they can do without checkuser permissions. I can spot a Liebman sock w/o trying - Roitr as well - but the rest are challenging and dangerous to deal with sans prior knowledge. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference?

Do you have a reference for this statement? Jeepday (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Their own website [3] says "The Wall Drug Store got its start during the Depression years by offering Free Ice Water to thirsty travelers." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it as a reference. Jeepday (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Misc page for deletion

I hope my edit is not considered disruptive. I just thought the tool provided would be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.248.49 (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: Don't touch the above. It's about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hah, hah!

Cool user page. It pretty funny too. Basketballone10 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:3RR sign.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:3RR sign.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add "PD-self". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cincinnati

Please provide a verifiable source for your assertion that the Cincinnati Red are not descended from the Cincinnati Red Stockings. That descent is widley held "common knowledge." See the Reds timeline at http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/cin/history/timeline1.jsp Pzavon (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

STOP

stop vandalising cincinnati ohio we have all found that your continued edits are wrong. What you are doing is vandalism.meckstroth.jm (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

wrong

see reds.com's history page I think that shall shed some light on my point of veiw. Since the team is stating what I said is true,(talk) 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cincinnati

The wording I have makes more sense and I don't say the mlb started in 1869 I say they are the first mlb team and cincinnati was home to the first profesional baseball team..meckstroth.jm (talk) 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the current Reds not starting until 1882. However, I must point out (although I am not going to change the year) the current Reds take their name and some their traditions from the original Red Stockings. So there is a connection. --Cincydude55 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a connection of city heritage. It's just confusing because there was relatively little time that passed. No one claims the 1962-to-date New York Mets are the same team as the 1880s Mets, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

what?

what do you mean "The current team dates from 1882, not 1869 or 1876" that was never sated in the text that we are arguing about, so when you reverted something have a good reason don't make up ones - User talk:72.49.88.101 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your version is almost correct, but it's too wordy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User RfC on CC

Thanks for the comment, but this in a section designated for me to write in. You are correct that they shouldn't have been in comments, but in the future, please leave me a note on my talk page or this one's talk page. I know there was no malice intended. Thanks for the honest feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem! :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

mediation

Yeah, I already accepted. CC hasn't. But more to the point, it is not just the content, but his behavior. I invite you to read all the edits in the hostility section. IMNSHO, he is trying to get his way (inconsistent with policy) through bullying and threats. He ran into me and, quite frankly, I wasn't some rank amateur Wikipedian who just caved into his demands. His intentionally malicious characterization of me (like claiming I use my position in the Air Force to justify my edits...that is a crime for me to do so BTW) is extremely damaging to my reputation. Since there is no retraction of such comments, I see little recourse other than to seek admin assistance in stopping this abuse. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, if I use my position in the Air Force for personal or financial gain, it is illegal. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack Larson

Jack is convinced Reeves took his own life. He's told me that a number of times, and he swore to me that he's never doubted it, no matter how he's been portrayed or his remarks misunderstood. There's a 2003 interview with Jack at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9082219842800579949&hl=en. He says the same thing there, about 30 minutes in, that he believes it was suicide but that almost everybody else he knows disagrees. Hope this helps. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

cubs article

Well, Shadow Jester apparently feels that it is too long and most of the content regarding franschise history belongs in the main article History of the Chicago Cubs. I have been discussing this with him for weeks and, although I am not really happy with our agreement I am going to re do the History page and make it more through and edit down that section of the cubs page, while adding a small snipit on wrigley itself. It will take me a while, and any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the question. for all i know someone undid my deletions, but it is alright as I got sidetracked by my personal life mid-revision. Wjmummert (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Cincinnati, Ohio, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Just as a note, even though you may have specified it in the edit summary, be sure to add a inline reference pointing to the specific page that it is located on, to avoid original research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor apparently knows nothing about the subject. In any case, the Reds' own website uses the expression "Cincy" frequently. [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)