User talk:Staxringold/Archive11

King Kelly
As one of the few active Old-time baseball editors, I would like to assist you if you do move forward in making this a project of yours. One thing that has been a debate in the past with this player, is how his name should be displayed. A researcher recently has called into question many things related to Cincinnati sports history including this player's name. It would be interesting to me to get this issue resolved during the process. I am sure I could get that editors help as well. Neonblak talk  -  22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Reason
Please administrater give the reason, why you have deleted my article. I have not Internet for long time that I can write an article long. After, the article is madee. I edit it on the other day.--TZX Master (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day
Hi there, Staxringold! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Userpage
Glad to see that :) Just make sure that proper credit is given to, as that was her one request for those borrowing her userpage code. TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of awards and nominations received by Alison Krauss
The list looks good. I do think that all of the awards that you mentioned that you omitted should in fact be included in the list. And yeah, they should be sorted alphabetically.  Gary King ( talk ) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's how it works. The only way to do get custom awards to be sorted alphabetically is to integrate them into the infobox itself as a predefined award.  Gary King ( talk ) 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, you're one of those long term editors who keeps creating content all without causing unneeded drama. We need more of those users. I recall when I was a brand spanking new wiki user and we butted heads (ancient history now) on the history of merit badge articles but then we came together. FYI, in case you don't know, I'm an admin, crat, CU, OS, OTRS, and sitting arbitrator. So if you ever need help let me know and I'll do what I can.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see Smc83x seems to have departed us.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Musician Awards
You did the alt incorrectly, FYI; the pipe goes inside the parameter, making it an optional argument.  Gary King ( talk ) 00:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alts should describe what is seen; so this should actually say something like "Four men; only their heads are shown".  Gary King ( talk ) 00:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Gary King ( talk ) 00:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII
Delivered for the WikiCup by <font style="color:#006600;"> ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

DYK
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. MovieMadness (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, please see your entry for another issue. Cheers, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate it a lot, thanks. Cheers! KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually thought the exact same thing and will make a ribbon once I'm done putting balks in the pitcher's article (in progress). KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Caught stealing is included in the catcher's article; I didn't think it needed to be in both places. I'm not planning on covering everything, or this turns into Baseball-Reference, which is not the goal by any means. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I blew up. I've had a difficult month. I munched the cookie and it was tasty. Went well with the soup I am making. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 22:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The updates to this article are done. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVIII
Delivered by – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk at 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal Avenue, Belfast
Been out for a week, so in answer to your question Wikipedia has no established rule regarding publishers' stamps on photochrom in terms of featured picture criteria. In all cases, no digitized version of the image without the stamp is known to exist. Sometimes a Wikipedia editor erases the stamp during restoration; if the lower left foreground is grass or sand that's easy to do and the effect is cosmetic and minimal. In this particular instance it would require reconstructing part of a human figure, a cobblestone street with a curb, and part of a horse carriage. The likelihood of introducing significant non-historical elements made it inadvisable to alter that part of the existing scene. Hope that explains it for you. <font face="Verdana"> Durova 299 01:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gold Glove batterymates
OK, so I did some research, and I added the Gold Glove battery pairs to the Rawlings Gold Glove Award article. However, the Fielding Bible is likely necessary to reference the table's lead paragraph, and I don't own it. Might I impose on you to add a few references about the links between catchers and pitchers in fielding and the running game? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of the largest single day Jeopardy! prizes
I encourage you to replace the dispute tag you removed without consensus on 19 August. Had the AfD-closing administrator felt there was consensus to remove it, she surely would've. Her notes clearly indicate her train of thought while she removed other dispute tags one-by-one. The point of an AfD that closes "no consensus" is that there is that the arguments to keep it have been no more persuasive than the arguments to delete it. You've staved off deletion, but you haven't really answered in the affirmative that the article is actually notable. For the benefit of future DYK nominations you might make, please note that, although you were ultimately successful in getting this DYK nomination through, your actions likely violated WP:DYKAR rule D5. You can't take off dispute tags by yourself. You need proof of consensus, either on the discussion page or in an AfD. All you have right now is proof of "no consensus". So please, replace the dispute tag you removed. It's the fair thing to do.  Czech Out  ☎ | <font size="+1">✍  19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you don't see why your actions were inappropriate. The first three words of the AfD nomination were "Article is unencylopedic." The first four words of your rebuttal were "Article is not unencyclopedic."   The closing admin deemed that the AfD discussion produced no consensus on that matter.  Hence there is no consensus on the issues described by, and no consensus, therefore, to remove the tag.  This is the problem of a no consensus close.  "No consensus" doesn't give the power to revert even (or maybe especially) dispute tags.  Yes, the article remains listed on Wikipedia, but you get no clarification whatsoever on most issues that brought the AfD nomination in the first place.   Due to a desire to avoid edit wars (per WP:NOCONSENSUS), the closing admin did the appropriate thing here by leaving the unencylopedic tag up.  Thus I ask you again to please reconsider your decision to remove this tag without consensus.  If you wish at a later date to gain consensus by holding a new AfD, or perhaps by having a deletion review change the outcome of the most recent debate, fine.  Until then, though, please respect the outcome of the AfD as it currently stands.    Czech Out   ☎ | <font size="+1">✍  18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Morgan Peck
Hi Staxringold. I thought that this article would at least need an AfD prior to deletion, especially seeing as there is media coverage of her pageant win. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alison Krauss
Hey, I reverted an edit that dropped several albums because they were not "studio" albums. I really feel like a "full" list is better. I also see no discussion on the talk. Have you any past consensus on this? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured_picture_candidates/Southwest_Jet_Landing
Just a heads up: it looks like you forgot to add this to the August archive after you closed it. I took care of it, so everything should be in order. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Possible vote stacking
Is it possible to have a more experienced then myself review this AfD? Users Nokiki and Ikip have edited said page, so I can understand why both would wish to keep it. But users Downloaderprof and Sojourner666 talk like experienced editors, yet only have a handful of edits to their name! Equazcion is suspicious too. Dynablaster (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

FLC
Yes, I'm sure about it; it's the proper verb usage in this case. On another note: can you take a look at the topic box here and see if it looks complete? Thanks. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I put the Babe Ruth Award with the WSMVP because they are related, but I can move it; whatever is good. I'll add the TSN award too. Thanks. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do we do about the Comeback Player of the Year? First, I think the TSN and MLB awards need to be merged, since one essentially supplanted the other. Second, it's not on the B-Ref page. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The MLB one will never get past FL with duplicated info like that. It's going to have to be a "peer-reviewed list of limited quantity" per the FT criteria, and the TSN award will have to be improved and included as well. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Blue Cheer
Many thanks for addressing the vandalism on this page. The dispute as to the ownership of the band name keeps appearing and getting blanked, when the real concern here would appear to seek more citations for some of the assertions made. The issue is obviously highly relevant to this band as it is to other bands from that era (such as Moby Grape, Eric Burdon and The Animals--to my surprise, Eric Burdon doesn't own "The Animals" name.)

Many thanks again.

Dreadarthur (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of New York Mets managers/archive3
I've responded to your comments; I appreciate your review. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

MLB All-Star MVP FLC etc.
I'll come back in a day or two to look it over. I saw you mentioned the 1998–99 NBA lockout article, which is a long-term project of mine in FAC terms. If you get some spare time, could you please offer a few suggestions for improving it? I could use all the help I can get, especially from those who have featured article experience.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea. There is a mention of the attendance decline in the Aftermath section, but it is brief and could use more details. I'll get on it this weekend, when I have some time off from college and can look up some good sources. Thanks for taking a look.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bratz 2: The Movie revert battle
Although I see a lot of warnings in User:Spears154 talk page history, I do not see any problem with his or her removal of unsourced content from Bratz 2: The Movie (which I've now deleted). No need for the revert battle between you two.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion) My problem was PROD'ing an article AND removing all the content. The entire point of a PROD is to seek community opinions on an article, taking matters into your own hands is counter to that idea. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the problem because User:Spears154 didn't nominate the page, User:SummerPhD did.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary in completing the PROD says it all. "Nominated for seven days with no objection." I have absolutely no issue with that article being deleted, it was silly and very unsourced. But removing all content 12 hours after the PROD was first posted (as Spears did) is not the correct process, waiting 7 days (as you did) is. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally agree but blanking isn't deletion and it seems to me that an AGF interpretation of what Spears did is simply an application of WP:PROVEIT for which there is considerable precedent, especially where there are few if any real ghits for this movie.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit, that at first I thought you had made all three reversions, but my point really is that this isn't within the definition of vandalism. It may be that we just disagree on this point and it's really pretty minor (particularly considering the deletion).  You know my thoughts.  I'm a little concerned about the rollbacker who followed your lead though.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong
Hello, could you please explain your understanding of how that title might violate the neutral point of view? I understood that the only metric for judging this is in fact where the weight of reliable sources on the topic fall. Are you aware of the that "persecution of Falun Gong" is a standard descriptor across academia and media for describing the actions of the Chinese Communist Party against practitioners of Falun Gong in China? There is evidence of widespread use of torture, labor camps, beatings, psychiatric abuses, media vilification, etc., which are all persecution as defined by wikipedia. The sources that discuss these things often use the term "persecution." This presents the question of whether wikipedia editors are to override reliable sources, or go with them. I thought it was supposed to be the latter rather than the former. Here is some information for your reference, some of this is just copied from what other people have said.

The word Persecution is used by almost all available reliable sources when referring to this human rights crisis in China. To point out just a few: Schechter, Ownby, US Congress Resolutions, Amnesty International Reports, HRW Reports, Kilgour Matas all clearly and unequivocally state what is happening in China is a large scale persecution. The Congressional Executive Commission on China, 2008 Annual Report notes: The central government intensified its nine-year campaign of persecution against Falun Gong practitioners in the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games. Chinese government persecution of Falun Gong practitioners contravenes the standards in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.. Publicly available documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong.
 * A few more sources: House Concurrent Resolution 304, House Resolution 530, House Concurrent Resolution 188, House Concurrent Resolution 218 and House Concurrent Resolution 217 [emphasis added].

What is your understanding here? Why is it biased to say persecution when the reliable sources on the topic say persecution? It seems like it would be a euphemism to use some other word. The reason for doing so is not clear to me, either use normal logic and the ways people talk, or in terms of wikipedia policy.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Love the picture of apocalyptica, I used to listen to their stuff regularly. NPOV says: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV"." -- later it says, in the subheading "A vital component: good research": "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources." Isn't the question of neutrality, of what is a neutral way of describing something, left to the mercy of the reliable sources on the topic? This is the fundamental issue. I contend that by ignoring the status of reliable sources on the topic, this is in fact wikipedia editors giving more importance to their point of views than that of reliable sources. Your point of view is that "Persecution of Falun Gong" is not a neutral point of view. Let me ask this: if the CCP admitted that there was a persecution of Falun Gong, would you still think the topic violates the neutral point of view? If the answer is yes, then we should talk about due weight. If the answer is no, you'll have to explain that. The three things I raised in this note are: direct quotes on NPOV which appear to not fit in with what you said; isn't the status of reliable sources on the topic what we should go with? why is the POV of wikipedia editors more important than the POV of wikipedia editors?; if the CCP admitted that there was a persecution, would it still be a biased title? --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea you are raising is that it would be biased to call it a persecution, and that it would be unbiased to call it "treatment," for example. The implication by saying that one name is biased is that it doesn't take into account other ways the issue may be understood or viewed. For example, one would presume 'treatment of Falun Gong by the PRC' would include the many different ways the CCP has treated Falun Gong, right? So in that case, calling their treatment of Falun Gong a persecution up front would be biased--this is basically what you mean, right? Then we just need to ask: in what other ways does the CCP treat Falun Gong (according to reliable sources)? I'm not aware of any documented evidence of any other comportment toward Falun Gong than persecution post-1999.

It's unclear to me how calling a spade a spade is biased. The holocaust article is not called "Nazi treatment of the Jews" and the Rwandan Genocide article is not called "The treatment of Rwandan's Tutsis by the Hutus." hmm, let's see, you wouldn't need to call it "World War II", you could call it "World Conflict II", and just about any other article title that included some hint of violence could also be given a euphemism and censored. In your understanding, how is this change different from the two above (the WW2 is a bit of a joke, but the others are similar)? Of course, please also let me know if you agree with the two above, or similar titles, because that would be a consistent stance that I might even respect. Just want to nail down the logical consistency in your thought processes. Definitely not a personal challenge. Just feeling a need to get the argument in order. The only other thing is that, if you didn't agree with those two changes above because they are established historical incidents with massive amounts of evidence, then that would also lead into another argument about whether what is happening in China is a persecution or not--and there seems to be a consensus that it is. please let me know. Thanks.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ella Simms
Fictional characters are not eligible for deletion under CSD A7. The article was mostly a copy-paste job from other websites, so I deleted it as a CSD G12 copyright violation. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball awards FT and inclusion debate
It continues at WT:MLB. Please come join us again. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 23:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Mariano Rivera

 * This seems to be becoming a daily occurrence. :-) --jjron (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MLBROY
Unfortunately, I just don't have time at this very moment; I just jumped on the referencing bandwagon for the list of HoFers, which is currently in rescue mode, and I'm still trying to figure out the next step for the awards topic. I have to get going on the Babe Ruth Award too when I get some time. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AH! I certainly think that the article would benefit, though I don't deem it absolutely necessary. The article we are referencing is List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, which is at FLRC right now. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having records wouldn't hurt the article, per se, but it's very thorough as it is now, and holding a record isn't necessarily going to be related to having won the ROY (i.e., most strikeouts by a batter, most losses by a pitcher), so I think we're good. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXX
Delivered for the WikiCup by <font style="color:#006600;"> ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election
Hi ! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers,  iMatthew  talk   at 19:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FSC candidate
Heya pal,

I noticed that you participated at Featured_sound_candidates/Livery_Stable_Blues. Since your support vote, an edited version of the file that removes hiss from the from file, has be suggested as an altenate version. Please return to the the FSC to see whether or not you support the editted version or not. Sedd&sigma;n talk|WikimediaUK 01:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you look again? I took the comments into account and re-mixed the edit with more of the original. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 205 FCs served 01:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Hillary Clinton II
Due in part to your comments I went back and reapplied the denoise filter with a proper mask around her face so no detail is lost in that area of the image anymore. Please reevaluate your comments based on the new modification if you don't mind. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 15:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FP
Congrats --Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 01:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA
You know, I never thought myself qualified to be an admin. I haven't done any of the admin coaching/new admin school or any of that stuff. I appreciate the thought from those who added me to the list, and I especially appreciate your willingness to nominate me. I've never considered holding the mop until now, but that's probably because this is the first time anyone's brought it up in any way that would make me think I was qualified. In the past, I have noted to other users that I wouldn't accept a nom, but I could probably be persuaded to think about it in the future. Maybe. At that time, I would be happy to accept your nomination, but not until I feel I'm ready. I appreciate your thought and consideration. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)