User talk:KirinX/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! HighInBC 00:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wikipedians/Photographers
Perhaps this will interest you: Wikipedians/Photographers. HighInBC 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Emily Carr Gravestone.jpg
Nice image. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gallery
Here is your gallery User:KirinX/gallery and here are all the images your tag is on. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
Userboxes, have fun. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:BC Legislature Buildings.jpg
Nice one. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Randy Johnson
Good job with keeping your eye on the Randy Johnson article. Too many people like to make changes based on speculation, and I like how you've been policing that article, as the trade is still not final. Milchama 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Account
I don't need an account, I've used them before and have no need to edit on an account again. I don't plan on editing much longer and will likely quit soon, I just wanted to clean up a few problem areas before I stop editing later today. 69.208.78.151 19:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki naming conventions
Please note that bird species names like Sparrowhawk (Eurasian Sparrowhawk) are always capitalised on Wikipedia, thanks, jimfbleak 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why, it's not correct. "Eurasian Sparrowhawk" should be, but if you just say "I saw a sparrowhawk".  I would like to see the actual statute on Wiki policy that determines this decision, as I feel it is incorrect, and mostly just a construct of ornithologists. -- KirinX 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It says The name of a group of species is not capitalised; birds, thrush family, kingfishers, turtle doves, marsh harriers., that seems to be in line with what KirinX is saying. However, in this particular instance, the bird may be better referred to as it's proper species name`. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, I do believe you've vindicated me there HighInBC. It should be changed to lowercase, or the full species name should be in its place, properly capitalized.  In order to appease both sides of this argument, I'm going to just put the full name. -- KirinX 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

208.6.1.26
Hello Kirin - the abuse from 208.6.1.26 - which you have previously observed - has continued in recent edits to the Bastille article. Could you please do the necessary to block this user from doing further damage? Thanks! 83.154.84.14 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on user talk page. -- KirinX 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

141.224.228.13
Hi. User 141.224.228.13 vandalized another page (Bill O'Reilly), after your final warning. Please block this user. Thanks.--Info999 09:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, KirinX, when did you become an admin, congrats! High InBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm too darn diligent with the vandal patrol some nights, I tell ya... -- KirinX 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Feb/March
Damn! Mind not in March yet..... Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 15:26 2 March 2007 (GMT).

Blue Jays picture
Hi. I uploaded my best undetermined Blue Jays picture to Image:Blue Jays 1.jpg. It's not a great view of any of them but it's the best of the remaining miscellaneous pictures I got that day. Troy Glaus has a distinctive look so I made the call on him. Let me know what you think on the other three. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rogers
I know that the Jays are officially owned by the media conglamorate, but is it not Rogers himself who has managing control? Obviously you know the Jays well and would be knowledgeable on this than me, but I thought that this team was run in the same manner as the Braves, where Time Warner officially owns the team, but Ted Turner runs it. That's the reason that I thought they should be listed together, since somebody within the corporation, even if it isn't Rogers, is the person in charge of the purse strings. Tell me what you know about this. Mr. Vitale 05:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In essence, Ted Rogers is referred to as the owner only in the sense that he's the head honcho of the whole Rogers universe. He's certainly acknowledged by the media as owning the team, but in reality, he is merely the chairman of the board of directors of Rogers Communications, as well as president of the company. The Blue Jays are run as a subsidiary of Rogers Communications Inc. (a publicly traded company) and the budget of the Blue Jays is subject to the approval of the Rogers board of directors, who are likely to try to make Mr. Rogers as happy as possible, but only within realistic financial limits.


 * I hope this clears things up for you. Ted Rogers is more a symbolic owner, since it sounds a bit cold and impersonal to have a sports franchise owned by a company set up by a corporation. But I'm sure you'll find that is how almost each and every sports team does it.


 * You'll find that the Atlanta Braves aren't owned by Ted Turner, but by AOL Time Warner. -- KirinX 06:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok well, your a fan, so you have the real scoop. I just know that media outlets always call Rogers the owner. But I wouldn't agree with you most are run in the corporate way of the Jays. A lot of teams are run as family organizations or partnerships between a few investors. In fact, in the NFL, I don't think there's a single team that's owned by a corporation. And in the MLB, I believe only the Jays, Braves, and Cubbies are run this way. Mr. Vitale 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure a lot more clubs are run that way than you might think. While many clubs are bought by eccentric rich businessmen, it's almost always through a front company, with its own set of directors, managers, advisors.  It's becoming less and less common for said eccentrics to ever have anything to do with running the front companies, let alone the ballclubs themselves.  And given the impact of owners like Steinbrenner, Peter Angelos, Tom Hicks, et al, the less, the better.


 * But back to the topic at hand, there are reliable sources to find out the official ownership of each MLB club. Just so you are completely satisfied, here's a news release from the day after the sale. -- KirinX 08:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Manny Acta
Hi! I noticed you reverted my changes to the Manny Acta page. You used WP:TRIV as your reasoning but you seemed to not actually adhere to that guideline. Please note the sections that say:


 * Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors.


 * and


 * Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again.

You simply reverted the section by returning the individual bits of trivia into the article, but you did not integrate the individual bits of information. Now, I admit a trivia section is certainly not ideal (it should be avoided) but it is much better than having random bits of trivia dispersed as single sentences throughout the article. In other words, avoiding these lone bits of trivia is more important than avoiding the trivia section.

I made the trivia section because I wanted to improve the readability of the article and I did not want to ruffle feathers by simply removing the information. However, I guess I will not worry about ruffling feathers and just move the trivia to the talk page so that others may verify and expand on it before it is placed back into the article. Thanks! - Ektar 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope I didn't come off as too truculent in my response. Obviously, I too was unsure of how to go about dealing with the "trivia" and I hope moving them to the talk page doesn't seem too drastic. - Ektar 04:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Moss image
If you believe an image is inappropriate to an article, please discuss the reasons for removing it, rather than simply deleting it from an article. The "ant on moss" picture is the only one on the page that gives an indication of scale and typical size of mosses. Until another such image is provided, it should stay. --EncycloPetey 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See my reply at the Moss talkpage. -- KirinX 06:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player stats
Well, most of them, in fact, all I've done so far have been in official games. So I don't see the reason to worry there. Soxrock 02:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I merely wanted to voice my concerns. -- KirinX 02:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech
Regarding your comment: Not at all. In the real world, I enjoy freedom of speech. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While my comment was entirely light-hearted in nature, I'll add a serious note: I enjoy the structure of Wikipedia as any user can make a direct difference. Don't like something?  Make some proper consensus and change it.  No career politicians to ignore or push out of the way to actually accomplish something.  And a lot more Wiki editors have a "Star Trek mentality" than a "congress mentality", thank goodness. -- KirinX 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at this attempt to establish consensus, then come back and tell me again. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that there weren't folks out there who want to tell everyone to do, they just tend to stick more to their little corners (particularly, policy debates that would enable them to push their agenda, right or wrong). -- KirinX 16:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy affects all of Wikipedia. You may want to read the entire thread and related links at Chairboy's talk page. It's kind of a meta-debate thing. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that policy doesn't affect all of Wikipedia, nor do I see anywhere I might have implied that. I didn't say that they control policy on Wikipedia either.  It is a community, and the consensus is what is achieved by that community.  Read more carefully before you reply.  I abide by community consensus, I have no real desire at this time to be a part of the process of achieving that consensus regarding the topic you are so passionate about. -- KirinX 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood "...their little corners (particularly, policy debates...". I'm not really passionate about that topic, but it's one of many examples of how consensus depends on the good will of the participating users to actually reach and respect consensus. And I'm not in the least canvassing for your input on that talk page. Have a nice day. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bah, that is nothing, check out this: Talk:Muhammad/Mediation/archive. It has way more straw polls and wiki lawyering in it! HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Frack me. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input
Thank you for your input, it shall certainly be taken into consideration. --68.207.117.147 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Also that was not a legal threat, that was simply a statement of what can be done. If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.


 * I was not threatening to sue him, I was simply telling him that I rather not be harassed by him anymore. Also to be clear I am not threatening you with anything, but I would simply like for you not to speak to me again. This is why wiki will never be a reliable, useful, legitimate source for anything other than documenting television shows....the users oh and plagiarism. Like in the Annie Oakley article which I addressed today and of course no one cares. Because it is wiki. --68.207.117.147 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Also to be clear I am not threatening you with anything, but I would simply like for you not to speak to me again." ... While in itself a perfectly reasonable request, firstly, you do have the right to ask me not to speak to you again. However, I have the right to ignore your request, as this is a public website, to which you do not own the rights, even to your own talk page.  Secondly, I have the rights to reply to messages you have left me, or for any reason that might require me to warn you for actions taken against Wikipedia policy.  Same as you have the right to do similarly.  Thank you and good day. -- KirinX 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Legal threats is something we block on sight for. And yes, that was a legal threat. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam links on talk pages
KirinX, I just tried to post a detailed message explaining why I left those links at User talk:72.136.61.175‎ complete with examples, etc. -- and then my browser crashed.

I don't have time at this point to start all over again on a thorough explanation, but for now, I'll just say that "breadcrumbing" spam links on spammers' talk pages helps us to track spam at WikiProject Spam. I've reinserted the links for now, but if this still concerns you, feel free to revert me. --A. B. (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have to take a close look at WikiProject Spam to understand fully, but as long as it's been determined helpful to somebody, I suppose it's OK. My concern, however, is that posting the spam link in plain sight on the user talkpage is no better than the original spam due to the fact it'll still show up in searches, which is reason enough for spammers to continue spamming. -- KirinX 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, like putting a tracking tag in a migratory bird. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly -- that's a great way to put it. I'll have to remember that one. --A. B. (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no advantage given to the spammer when we "breadcrumb" his/her multiple sock pages:
 * Article readers don't normally look at user talk pages
 * If a reader does stumble across one of these talk pages, they'll hardly see the link in a positive light given spam warnings that appear with it.
 * Links on talk pages have always been tagged by our software as "nofollow". That is, search engines do not use them in their page rank calculations. (nofollow was also recently implemented on a temporary basis for links on article pages).
 * Search engines do see these links, however, which can lead to some consternation on spammers' part. For example, a Google search on journeyeast.org+wikipedia finds our spam discussions of this domain in the top results; see the domain owner's response.
 * --A. B. (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeking community input re standardizing baseball roster pages
Hi ... I'm leaving you this note because you recently made edits to one of the Major League Baseball roster pages. I've made a proposal for standardizing the format, structure and content of these pages here and would appreciate your input so that we may reach a consensus. Thanks. --Sanfranman59 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV re: Jonathanbud
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. KirinX 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User was given final warning at 22:41. I sent in a report after vandalism around 23:30.  This is all in accordance with protocol, and User:Natalie Erin issued a block. Michaelbusch 23:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I specifically checked to make sure that the user had not vandalized since their final warning before posting to your User talk page. I maintain that this user was blocked improperly, and now, what is more, the user's contributions seem to have disappeared, so I cannot prove it.  This user had received three warnings from three contributions, and was subsequently blocked without having made any further edits. -- KirinX 00:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are mistaken about the time-stamps. If you have a problem with the block, ask User:Natalie Erin.  The user's contributions have disappeared because the vandalism was repeated re-creation of an inappropriate article.  It was presumably speedied between my putting up the AIV request and your looking at it. Michaelbusch 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could be my mistake, wouldn't be the first time in my life. But I'd rather fight for policy than against it, so these things happen from time to time in the course of vandal patrol.  As much as I love nailing vandals, I like to make sure people are still getting a fair shake from other patrol members and admins too.  I just wish timestamps didn't change formats between pages (local or UTC, not both.. sigh). -- KirinX 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology For Copyright Violation
I did not realize that the information posted was a copyright infraction. I had put it's source (website and author) so I thought it was OK. Could you clarify me on the procedure for the information. Thank you, Redsox04 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at user page. -- KirinX 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How Do You Upload Images?
How do you upload images? Redsox04 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at user page. -- KirinX 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

how can you become an administrator?
how can you become an admin.? Redsox04 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, replied on user page. -- KirinX 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Josh Hancock MLBretired infobox colors
Cory Lidle, Gabe Kapler, Darryl Kile, Troy Percival, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Laker, Tim Salmon, Jason Grimsley, Brad Radke, Steve Karsay....I can go on.RobDe68 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of that list, only Cory Lidle is dead. I am not suggesting changes to all retired players, just ones who died WHILE ACTIVE. -- KirinX 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Several points here. 1. Every player listed above, including the dead Cardinal that you seem to have overlooked, has a "MLBretired" infobox. There is no "MLBdead" infobox. 2. As I've noted already, not only is there another dead guy in that list, he's a former Cardinal. 3. As I said on the talk page, I think a review of WP:NOT is in order. Especially regarding opinions and soapboxes and such. 4. The "no color" infoboxes are there for a specific reason and it ain't to note "dead guy". Think 'free agent'. 5. I'm sure there's more points but I'm tired. Cheers,RobDe68 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how holding a contrary point of view to yours is a WP:NOT violation, which part of WP:NOT is at issue here? This is a content dispute, no need to accuse policy violations till they actually happen. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RobDe68, I have said this enough times already, now I am angry. I have already given up on my argument, I obviously did not plan out my issue well enough, and as such, I am being flamed and incessantly bugged by people such as yourself, re-hashing things that I have already agreed to, or at least conceded to. Just leave me alone already, I am not pursuing the matter any more. -- KirinX 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * People such as myself are only discussing the issue as ordered to in the edit summary ("it is YOU who must discuss, give reason why they should stay" ring a bell?). People who are then angered by such discussion, whether they consider them to be flames or not, maybe should not demand such discussion. After all, I was only minding my own business and reverting an artical to standard form.RobDe68 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)