User:Zzyzx11/Archive23

Tony Corrente
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ9ir9wZLP8 -- video evidence of the edits I was trying to make about the call being controversial. Is this acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.139.158 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, no, as the opinions are made on-the-fly by the FOX commentators on the telecast, and the YouTube video itself is technically a copyright violation (remember those messages about the broadcast cannot be reproduced without the expressed written content of the NFL?).


 * Keep in mind that one of the reasons why that the strict biographies of living persons is in place is because of negative publicity Wikipedia gets such as the Seigenthaler incident.


 * It is better to wait until more reliable sources are available by both the Tampa and national media, not to mention statements by the league itself and the regular "Official Review" segment on the NFL network. Remember that there is no deadline since Wikipedia is always a work in progress. (Of course, there have been a lot of questionable calls made during the regular season, and if there is no long term impact such as a rule change or affecting a playoff game, your addition may be eventually removed in the off-season). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.139.158 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NFL.com has now basically posted the same segment at http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/09000d5d81434202/WK-10-Can-t-Miss-Play-Controversial-Review. Therefore, I'm going to restore your edit, clean it up, and remove the protection for now. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I was just about to post the same link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.139.158 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Unfortunately, I might have to lock the article again since there have been others who have not been as reasonable and thoughtful as you. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Monument
This edit commented out the Washington Monument event, but you kept the Washington Monument picture, without the event to go with it. Art LaPella (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I forgot to change the image. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Cleveland Browns helmet rightface.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cleveland Browns helmet rightface.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline to participate, as for the past several months I've avoided all discussions where the community tries to play armchair intellectual property lawyers regarding such gray matters, especially in the frequent debates about the use of sports logos. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On this day... October 17
You can avoid a redirect by linking "struck" with 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake rather than Loma Prieta earthquake. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Icons on San Diego trolley article
I will attempt to find a free alternative of change Ethe color of the text rather than use the icons, I just thought those icons saved space and made it more readable--Koman90 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

En dashes
Hello! Why do you keep reverting the en dashes to HTML code? The actual unicode character became our preferred format when MediaWiki began supporting it (quite a while ago). It isn't worth the effort or overhead to edit pages specifically for this reason, but it's sensible to update individual pages that are being edited anyway. —David Levy 02:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have been editing with the help of a separate text editor, especially since I was aware that some might complain about that now-failed "Halloween-themed" version, and thus had "the correct version" saved on my desktop. So I have been cutting and pasting from the editor to the browser frequently. Since the changes back and forth between en dashes and HTML code are minor, your changes were not properly transferred with my edits. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for the explanation. (:  —David Levy 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Guru Nanak Jayanti: 2 Nov, On this day...
Today is Guru Nanak Jayanti in the Sikhism (one of the biggest Sikh festivals, Indian national holiday), Shouldn't it be included in On this day...- ReferenceReference-- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:St Louis Rams helmet old.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:St Louis Rams helmet old.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:St Louis Rams helmet LA.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:St Louis Rams helmet LA.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 13
Hi Zzyzx11, Re:. This came up at WP:ERRORS; we couldn't find any guidance on what tags are OK for a bolded article, and which ones weren't. Since you unbolded it, it looks like you might know the answer. I read Selected anniversaries, and it was pretty fuzzy. Are the criteria spelled out a little more concretly somewhere, or is it just a judgment call whether the article is "relatively complete and well formatted" or not? Thanks, --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is more clarified on the first question of the FAQ on SelAnnivTalk, which is trancluded on all of the 365 talk pages of the OTD templates. In my 2+ years of regularly maintaining those OTD pages, I, as well as the other admins who have regularly maintained them in the past, have been consistent in unbolding any article that has at least one of the cleanup tags listed on either WP:TMC, WP:CTT, WP:TM/D, WP:TMAIN, and of course WP:TDEL. And No footnotes is one of those cleanup templates.


 * I know that there are some that have never agreed with that, but IMO it is really the only objective criterion to fall back on when in doubt. It is a challenge to balance all of the other subjective criteria on a regular basis, such as being limited to only show 5 or 6 events at a time; trying to judge what events are "the most important and significant" since one person's top five is not necessarily the same as another's; and trying to find a varied array of topics so it does not seem regularly biased toward one region of the globe, one particular topic, or even one century. And of course, it doesn't help matters when there are those who sort of treat this like DYK: they have significantly improved an article on a particular moderate-to-great historical event, and they then want to also have it showcased on the Main page. So an objective general rule, derived from other Wikipedia guidelines, saying "a well-written article does not have any cleanup issues", helps. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info; that approach makes sense, and is pretty straightforward. I sounds like this is kind of de facto procedure, but if you try to change Selected anniversaries o reflect this clearer explanation, then some people disagree on principle? Anyway, thanks for the quick response. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go far and say it was defacto. Ever since I have been here editing Wikipedia, my understanding of "a relatively complete and well-formatted article" has always been one that follows MOS:BETTER, and that it does follow WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:POV, and the other policies and guidelines. A cleanup tag on a page indicates it does not follow at least one of those guidelines, right? Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd more or less agree. To me, "relatively complete and well-formatted" is a slightly lower bar that meeting everything in MOS:BETTER, or having no maintenance tags, but I'm happy to defer to common practice on the Main Page.  Anyway, at this point, I'd agree that the article in question doesn't meet even my lower standard for bolding.  Thanks for the comments, this had been useful. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries/November 18
For the 10-year anniversary, it seems apropos for the Bonfire picture to be on the main page. Respectfully, I'd like to have that image instead. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, File:Bonfire-Daylight-Recovery.JPG does not look good on a thumbnail scale – and it is a borderline low quality distorted image at its current 924 x 564 pixel size. It looks like someone took a very poor screenshot of it from the original PDF file. Unfortunately that cited source link is currently dead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about File:2007-SBF.jpg instead? — BQZip01 —  talk 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Using File:Aggiebonfire2005.jpg, the same one used on Today's featured article/December 22, 2007. Gives us two extra arguments to others who may want to remove it: (1) it has been previously posted on the Main page, so there was no problem before. (2) It was directly created by a regular Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons user – instead of something coming from Flickr, whose users can change the licenses of their choice at any time (which is one of the reasons why the Wikimedia Commons has a whole review process of Flickr files). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good option. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Ecole Polytechnique Massacre

 * Moved to WP:ERRORS for a wider forum and audience. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine-Arab Wars in Dec 23rd anniversary
There are 6 events, all of which are within the last 400 years. 5 of which are within the last 200 years. 3 of which are within 60 years of this year. That says nothing of the word "variety". We have currently an extremely monotone set of facts because they are all more or less in modern history. Something like the 962 AD or so fact I was adding will give the list more variety.  Gabr-  el  05:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. I was merely answering your basic comment of "no explanation for the removal of this fact". If you had actually wrote in your edit summary the reason you stated just now, I might have merged the backup listing to the one you added in the visible section instead of the other way around.


 * Now that I looked at the page history in greater detail, it seems that back in April 2008, I did have you clean up that article before agreeing to add it.


 * But when I did the regular annual update on December 21, 2008, I cannot remember exactly why I decided to move it out of the top 5. But I believe it is because there are other factors of "variety" than just what century they occurred. As I recall, I think my first priority was getting the 185the anniversary of A Visit from St. Nicholas and the 120th of Vincent van Gogh, since multiples of 5 are traditionally a big deal. Then 1972 Nicaragua earthquake came to be my next choice since we rarely had anything from Nicaragua. Then Rutan Voyager became my fourth choice because aviation is also an infrequent subject posted on OTD. But when it came to the fifth choice, I believe I decided to eliminate Byzantine-Arab Wars because wars and battles do in fact dominate OTD, and a subject like establishing a colony like Plymouth Colony is not featured practically every week.


 * Then over the course of the day on December 23, 2008, User:BorgQueen decided to show transistor as the sixth event to balance the Main Page. I suspect he chose that instead of Byzantine-Arab Wars because that is another topic that is underrepresented on OTD as well.


 * So to sum up, Byzantine-Arab Wars most likely got relegated to backup status instead of the other ones because its main strike was that it is a subject that is overrepresented on OTD. Unfortunately (and I suspect you might not agree with this), there are a lot of people out there who would prefer to see underrepresented topics on the Main page than another war/battle from history, whatever century it occurred in. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith? Which of my assumptions have not? I asked an explanation and you have given a satisfactory one. I am of course, disappointed, perhaps because of my own personal interest and work I put in to it. Thank you for taking time to give it. Consider it settled.  Gabr-  el  20:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Greatest Game Ever Played (disambiguation)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Greatest Game Ever Played (disambiguation). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/The Greatest Game Ever Played (disambiguation). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Match Game
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fairly familiar with the three revert rule since I'm admin myself. Of course, since you were the one who reverted my edits first, as well as your sock puppet User:WikiLubber, I'm fairly sure that another admin will block you first before me, who's trying to enforce something like MOS:HEAD - "Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones that link only part of the heading; THEY WILL cause accessibility problems". Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not Sottolacqua's sock-puppet! I was only assisting him! WikiLubber (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an admin, you can use wp:checkuser to verify that User:WikiLubber is not my sock puppet. Also, as an administrator, I'm sure you're familiar with No personal attacks. The 3RR warning was related to the edits apart from MOS:HEAD you've been making. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I haven't done either vandalism patrol or WP:3RR patrol (or any serious admin duties on a regular basis) for the past few years (since I've suffered burnout in the past. One of the indications in the past to recognize a sock puppet was that both the sock and the meat puppet never used edit summaries when reverting, which unfortunately you both did at the start. And incidentally only these users have CheckUser permission, so I was going on a hunch. Thus, I think I overstepped a bit today. Sorry for any trouble. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to get this in since it basically reflects my feelings on CheckUser: even if I had permission to use the tool, I wouldn't need to use it anyway. Based on your previous comment, I know exactly what the results will say, because CheckUser is NOT magic wiki pixie dust. In other words, it's too easy to beat CheckUser, which makes it not really worth the privacy concerns. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would have taken the time to do some research instead of making reckless accusations about sock puppetry, you could have checked both of our talk page histories and contributions and seen several conversations between the two of us, plus noticed a recent instance where I requested administrator intervention against edit warring involving User:WikiLubber. Instead, you took the low road and then gave a weak excuse of "burnout" from previous years for your actions. Since you're so burned out, perhaps you should take a break from editing altogether. Sottolacqua (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what gets me into trouble AGAIN is trying to edit late at night (in my time zone) in the main article space on a Saturday night/Sunday morning on what could be contentious edits, and then getting frustrated on being reverted. Unfortunately, I'm still too involved in doing the uncontroversial maintenance of the On this day templates to take a break all together. So again, apologies for my stupid wild accusations, and I'll try to limit myself to non-controversial edits in the main article namespace. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 NFL season
What do you think of that new standings key they just put in there? Seems a bit excessive to me; either way, if tradition holds true, all of those templates will be removed and replaced with tables with tiebreaker references, like 2008 NFL season. It's just that now we have three different standards for the standings templates - the 2008 NFL season method, the Template:2008 AFC East standings method, and the Template:2009 AFC South standings/2009 NFL season method.  Pats 1  T / C  14:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated elsewhere, there is no regular standard. Because normally such sections, keys, colors, and other indicators describing current playoff clinching scenarios would not exist in the long term. It is only that in December users feel compelled to edit these pages as if it were an up-to-the-minute sports news site. And since these types of sections and keys get deleted once the playoffs begin, another different ad hoc layout appears once the next December rolls around again. I mean compare the 2009 NFL season article now to what 2008 season article looked about this time last year,, or even the 2007 article.


 * Also, as I stated on Talk:2009 NFL season, the eight individual standings templates are currently there instead of the normal table w/ tiebreaker references is because someone thought it would be best to replace the regular tables with these templates to "make life simpler for everyone" when they are updated each week during the season. This then naturally makes these templates another magnet for those who want to give up-to-the-minute playoff scenarios. Of course, the "make life simpler for everyone" reason becomes non-existence once the season ends, and thus these eight templates also then become static when the playoffs begin.


 * So basically, I am currently not interested whatsoever in any type of standard that is only going to show up every December. Because in the long term, the only thing encyclopedic to save is "who were the six playoff seeds in each conference at the end of the season". The other stuff is just basically WP:RECENT, which is not really worth edit warring over. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can, however, explain that different standard for Template:2008 AFC East standings. A user made that change for the sole purpose of putting those eight templates on to the 2008 NFL season article. But this was reverted back because the footnotes for the tiebreakers were erased by that edit. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Old Page Recovery
Hi,

Some time ago you deleted one of the pages i posted to wikipedia located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fabes

I understand why it was deleted, but some of the information I posted was for personal reasons and I would like to know if I could obtain the page for personal use. I know admins can see deleted pages and was wondering if you could do me a favor here.

Let me know.

Thanks in advance,

Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Fir3 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

inforoad template
Do you remember what articles were "broken" by this modification ? or point me to someone who remembers? I'm wondering because I would like to make a modification affecting sign size. Thanks. stmrlbs | talk 01:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles. More specifically, any route marker image whose default normal size was not a thumbnail. Somehow that "browse_size" parameter was poorly coded so it actually would generate image syntax that did not specify a size. So for example on the infobox of the Highway 2 (Ontario) article, File:Ontario 3.svg would show up on the bottom browse row in its original 289x289px size instead of the small 20px thumbnail. At the time, I was too busy to try to debug the templates, so I reverted all of the modification that were made.. Hopefully you have better luck. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks. This helps a lot.  stmrlbs | talk  02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Zzyzx11! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Steve Hartman (sportscaster) -


 * I would prefer to revert all the way back to my original stub, but I know that others will be pissed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)