User talk:The Ink Daddy!/Archive 1

Jerold Hoffberger

I have repaired the changes you have made to the references sections of this article once again. Please read Wikipedia:Layout and Wikipedia:Citing sources before you attempt to rearrange the sections at the end of any other articles. Thank you. Rklear (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Phillies

Then provide references for that particular fact. In addition, being repetitive doesn't help us at all; the words burgundy and maroon can be acceptable substitutes for the word "crimson," so there's no real problem. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Ted Uhlaender

You are welcome. Not let's see if it will inspire his daughter Katie to win gold in women's skeleton at the FIBT World Championships 2009 in Lake Placid, New York this weekend. Chris (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Renney

No worries at all! And thanks very much, I appreciate it. The article really was in terrible condition eh? One of many for sure. Hopefully we'll see each other working on some other articles. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYT citations

Hi The Ink Daddy!

The "?ref=obituaries" suffix to links in NY Times URLs is appended to the main article URL when a reader clicks through a link from the obituaries page of the Times (analogously to the way "?hpw" or other suffixes may be added when a user clicks though the main page). Since those circumstances are not the case when following a link from Wikipedia, it is not best practices to include them in references.

Regards, Bongo matic 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nick Adenhart

Re your message: I removed the links per the external link guidelines. I believe that most of the material covered in the links is already covered in the article. You are welcome to add any missing material from the article using those two articles as sources. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Yes, I read the articles, twice actually. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Les Keiter

Thanks for your compliment. Hopefully I'll be able to add and update additional info to the article as time permits. Wxkat (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

How am I a vandal. I'm only taking out the mass amounts of false information in the various articles! I do not deserve to be blocked. I am never malicious. Delicious yes. Malicious: NO WAY JOSE ALLDAY!!--Bulbakuki (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. AM callsigns never have a suffix

I noticed you renamed the articles for WJZ (AM) and WBAL (AM). AM stations in the US never have an -AM suffix legally, and Wikipedia follows the legal callsign for article names: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#North America and North American call sign. Some stations legally have a -FM or -TV suffix, but most do not. When a station needs to be disambiguated on Wikipedia, it gets an (AM), (FM), or (TV) on the end of its article name — the disambiguation could be because of other similar callsigns (WJZ (AM) vs. WJZ-FM/WJZ-TV) or because of some other word (WHOI (TV) vs. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution). (AM), (FM), and (TV) on the article names are only for Wikipedia's own disambiguation purposes — they represent stations do not have the suffix on their legal callsign. A good example is disambiguation page WJZ, which gives several examples of Wikipedia article names for stations that have carried "WJZ" as part of their callsign. --Closeapple (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Boe

Thanks! Feel free to add/modify anything. Zagalejo^^^ 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Zobrist

Sorry I didn't mean to offend or anything, and you're right I didn't read the article. My bad. But while I have no way of getting the source for this, Joe Maddon himself said that it was taking Gorilla and putting a Z at the front of it. That's where I heard it, I have no link for that cause it was on tv. But anyway, apologies.JesusFreak89 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)JesusFreak89[reply]

Do NOT restore removed comments on other users talk pages

Do not restore removed comments on other users talk pages as you did at User talk:Neutralhomer per WP:Don't restore removed comments. Powergate92Talk 05:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, wp:blanking allows an editor to remove almost anything from the editor's own user space, except certain admin flags and, for example, an IP shared-user template. Removing the message is an affirmation that the message is understood, whether the editor agrees or not.

While Neutralhomer may have been too fast on the revert, it is essential to wp:assume good faith. Neutralhomer did not abuse you verbally, though that editor clearly felt the edits were not appropriate. Please pay other editors the same courtesy.

All the best, and happy editing! - Sinneed 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you wrote:

I apologize for having overreacted, and I'm still learning the finer points of Wikipedia etiquette. I also feel the need to explain my side of the story. I had been working hard adding a section to the "Loyola College in Maryland" entry about its name change, which included three references. I later discovered that Neutralhomer had eliminated all of my contributions. What infuriated me was the comment he left: "No references given to back up name change." My understanding of what an editor is supposed to do is, first and foremost, scan the entire entry before executing an action. In this particular case, find where the name change is discussed and check the references provided if they're relevant and legitimate. Considering his comment, which was rash at best and definitely callous, I felt he didn't do any of this. If Wikipedia is to improve its credibility and thrive in the future, editors are expected to operate as professionally as possible, which I strongly felt Neutralhomer failed to do. Thank you very much for your time. [index.php?title=User:The_Ink_Daddy%21&action=edit&redlink=1 The Ink Daddy!] (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

All of have had our work reverted, I should think, and know how very frustrating it can be.

Please don't overstress over the error of someone hitting a bad revert button, nor of snapping at someone for doing it (but do caution them courteously if it was a bad revert, everyone needs a chance to learn)... the idea is that if one does something, and gets a warning, that one has learned from the mistake and won't make that particular error again...we wp:assume good faith.

There is an entire community in WP, and I swear it has a kagillion rules, but as long as we each make a wp:good faith effort to treat one another reasonably and try to improve the encyclopedia, I think we'll keep it moving toward "better".

On the credibility with the world thing... WP gets a steady bad rap... but I keep finding words from it (some right, some wrong) in very reputable organs of the press. The 1st time I saw my words coming out of the printed "mouth" of a major global news source, I laughed hard... it wasn't some of my best work. :) All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 03:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

:) That was most kind of you. - Sinneed 04:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Fleming

That's a good, informative factoid. Good work. Ravenswing 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary citations

First, it is customary to sign your usertalk messages with four of the ~ symbol. Possibly you are unaware of that, or maybe you “forgot.”

You’ve also given me quite a lot of well-meaning but unreferenced advice. Please tell me where I can find the Wikipedia page which states that the obituary citations I placed on Peter Graves (and others) are wrong. You wrote that you HAD to remove them, as if compelled to do so. What sort of confusion or deceit would have resulted from leaving them as they were?

Are you designated by Wikipedia as a person of authority who can admonish and dictate to others, as well as remove their work if it displeases you. If so, that’s another thing you forgot to advise me.

In the absence of being shown that my citations are contrary to Wikipedia policy, I will continue adding them as I have. I have no objection to you adding the links to the obituary citations I enter. In theory the citation remains forever, while the link is good only as long as the newspaper chooses for the obit to remain online, which usually isn’t more than a few weeks. After that, users who click on the citation will be frustrated and disappointed to find it’s a broken link.

I sincerely hope you and I will not get into a dispute that has to be resolved by Wikipedia’s administration, which is what will happen the next time you delete one of my informative citations. Good luck in your own endeavors to be constructive.Aardvarkzz (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Donnelly

I need some serious help. I have been reverted, justifiably, and need some guidance. Can you help fix my edits? I am only going to do a little bit at a time to minimize the damage I do.--Colemcginnis (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to check out the page one last time. I believe I have made progess on my editing skills and think that you will be pleased with some of the additions to the page: images, infobox, references. It could still use some major expansion, and I would appreciate suggestions to that end. --Colemcginnis (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Big Ten logo discussion

You recently contributed to Big Ten Conference. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Talk:Big_Ten_Conference#Which_new_logo_version.3F. Thank you. Levdr1 (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Garros

Hi-- I'm contacting you because you've shown an interest in the Roland Garros article in the past. (And thanks again for the Barn Star!) I nominated the article for GA status, and it got a totally weird review from somebody who is not a reviewer. (I'm aware that you don't have to be a reviewer to do a review, but check out his block history on his talk page.) None of the criticisms seem fair to me except the last one, which I fixed. I haven't been doing this long enough to know what to do next. (I did make some comments to the review on the RG talk page.) Is there a way to get someone else, a real reviewer perhaps, to do another review? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you that KnowIG has some serious diplomacy issues. He should be more constructive with his critiques. At this point I can only give suggestions about improvements, using his Good Article review as a guideline.

The lead section: According to the Manual of Style, the amount of paragraphs depends on the length of the article based on number of characters used. It can range from one to four. An oversight on KnowIG's part. Beyond that, the lead in its current state fails to answer one major question "What is the one characteristic that makes Stade Roland Garros unique?" In other words, it needs to be pointed out that it is the only one of the four Grand Slam venues that features clay courts, in contrast to the grass at Wimbledon and the hard courts of the Australian & U.S. Opens.

Playing surface section: If possible, a diagram showing the composition of the playing surface would be helpful. Otherwise, the text is good.

Court Philippe Chatrier section: The text is good.

Court Suzanne Lenglen section: Even though the text is mostly good, the point about the underground irrigation system needs to be expanded.

Court 1 section: The text is good.

Tenniseum section: The text is good, except that the last two sentences about tours & entry fees should be removed. They make the article read like a travelogue.

Expansion vs. Relocation section: Exact dates, or at the very least the month & year, would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise, the text is good.

Location section: The information should actually be incorporated into the lead. The exception is anything pertaining to transportation to the facility, which should be removed because we're not dealing with a travelogue.

–KnowIG's contention that there's "too much player info" is wrong. There was a need to explain why Suzanne Lenglen's name graces the secondary court as oppose to Mary Pierce's, and that upsets & bizarre occurrences tend to happen on Court 1. That's what makes it unique!

–The one glaring thing that is missing is a short history section. The origins of the facility, mentioned in the lead, need to be expanded. Also the fact that it was used as a Nazi concentration camp during World War II must be included. The first comment on the Stade Roland Garros talk page has a link to an article that is very useful.

–KnowIG's evaluation of references & reliable sources is on target. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments. So what happens next? Let's say I make the changes and nothing happens, or this combative guy & I reach an impasse -- do I then renominate the article? Or contact an admin? Again, thanks for your help -- I've never done this before. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a novice at this, too. Currently the article is on hold, with the expectation that improvements will be made. Once that's done, it's to undergo another review. Even though there's a chance that it might be performed by another reviewer, I'm one who subscribes to the worst-case scenario and expects it to be KnowIG again. Whoever it is has to make a final pass-or-fail judgement because the list of nominees is backlogged. When that happens, the whole process starts over again if you choose to renominate...hopefully, with a different reviewer. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll forge ahead as time permits.

Though, when you look at some of the truly mediocre articles (exhibit A: Lady Gaga) that have GA or even FA status -- and then you look at some of the pathetic stuff written by people who are criticizing your writing -- you wonder about the legitimacy of the whole process.

A better alternative might be finding existing FAs or GAs that have deteriorated in the interim, and resuscitating them. I recently did that with D.B. Cooper -- much less frustrating! But thanks again for taking the time to reply. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NCAA Division I conferences

Ink Daddy, hello. Just wanted to drop you a quick note and let you know I reverted a series of edits that you made on March 11 to add Category:NCAA Division I conferences to number of articles, such as Western Athletic Conference. Such articles roll up into categories such at Category:Western Athletic Conference, which in turn roll up into Category:NCAA Division I conferences. Generally speaking, to avoid over-categorization, an article or category should not be categorized under an a given category and its parent category. Thanks and let me know if you have an questions or comments about this. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kansas City Royals Baseball Academy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kansas City Royals Baseball Academy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. BigDwiki (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & DC Meetup 26!

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really.

FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]