User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

re: your Content Review request

Good evening. I am trying to process your Content Review request. You asked to see the content at the time of the deletion discussion but I'm unclear on exactly which page(s) you wanted to see. The deletion discussion covered a number of pages. Please leave a note on my Talk page and I'll temporarily undelete the ones you need (though it may take a few days since, given the subject matter, that's not a task I can do on my work computer). In the meantime, I've posted the 6 July 2006 version of Playboy Cyber Club to User:TonyTheTiger/temp. Please add {{db-userreq}} to the top of the subpage as soon as you no longer need it. Rossami (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I will try to get those to you tonight. I don't know what you mean, though, by "a reincarnation" of the page. That page has only been deleted once as far as I can tell. The version I copied for you was the last version prior to it's tagging for deletion. The page had history but a lot of that history, if I remember correctly, was reversion of vandalism.

By the way, I have to tell you that I don't see any evidence that the deletion decision was made on the basis of prudery or morality. Rather, the deletion discussion seemed to me to focus on what level of detail is appropriate in an article about a commercial entity. Everyone would agree that Ford is appropriate to cover in the article. Pretty much everyone would also agree that their Cleveland Engine Plant No. 19 is not appropriate for a stand-alone article (though it may deserve a mention in the larger article). By the same token, Playboy is well covered but this one product (or marketing campaign depending on how you look at it) was thought not have enough behind it to justify a stand-alone article. Remember that topics have to be able to draw a critical mass of informed reader/editors who will ensure that the article is well written, neutral, verifiable and protected from vandalism. Articles which are on topics of too-narrow interest get deleted or merged. That's true of all fields of knowledge. From the evidence I see, that appears to be the primary principle which was applied during the deletion discussion. But by all means, please continue your research. Happy editing. Rossami (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I copied them all in Thursday evening. They are all appended into the same /Temp page (separated by header rows that start "Deleted content from ..."). Did I miss one? Rossami (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any with other deletion discussions. The one I mentioned was validly re-deleted under speedy-deletion criterion G4. Sorry for not specifically notifying you. I'd assumed that you'd have watchlisted the temp page. Didn't think you'd want a superfluous note. Bad assumption I guess. Rossami (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not close that discussion nor did I speedy-delete the category. Not sure who did and unfortunately don't have time to research it this morning. sorry. Rossami (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

significant contributions

Well you do know how to pick 'em. I've been working on Hal Blaine for more than 15 years and I think most of the major pieces in the article were mine. I'm still considering adding the analysis of his work that i did while petitioning the R&R HofF to admit him [which i claim to friends was my doing] to the article. I went through the history of Willie Dixon three times before i even discovered what I'd added. Having found it i looked at it and at the time i contributed what i did, i figure [without doing the math] that my contribution added perhaps 10% to the article as it was then, so that's almost significant. [[see Rationalization, Chapter 7 of any Psy 101 text] . I have since stopped keeping track of a lot of that sort of stuff, but in 2004 it was heady business. As to where i draw the line between a minor edit and a sig con, well i guess i don't see it as a straight line. It's how i feel about the contribution when i make it rather than applying a rational, well-thought out formula to it. This sort of behavoir frequently gets me into trouble with thinking types - but that's life. And it's a good life. What was your question, again? Carptrash 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the eeeekives are open to you, and i was about to remove that whole section from my user page. It is another good example of my emotional/feling responses to stuff that happens on wikipedia. And most other places too, for that matter. I have some great resources here [under the bed, piled up in the corner, in the "Big Room" upstairs, etc.]] and hate it when folks get too nit-picky about it. However i am aware that nit picking is the right and duty of every wikipedian, so i'll post my little fit of pique for a week or two and then remove it, mumbling all sorts of things as i do it. So.... what are you interested in? You mentioned [somewhere?] the business and commercial arenas - an area that i am pretty weak in. Carptrash 18:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have photos online, on disk, published? And always there is the None of the above option, and that's the correct answer here. What i have is mostly stacks of photo albums and my personal library and files. it is not so much that i'm offering something in particular as i'm willing to look through the various different collections if someone has a particular topic in mind. I have only recently indexed my own photos [actually , about 77% of them] and I've not done it for the rest of my material. The sort of random things I've already posted are a picture at Fielding Yost, some documents at Cave Hill Cemetery and a picture at Merchant Marine that was part of a set, but i pulled one because of the chatter that it generated. I'm about to post one at litter - assuming that i can locate it. I have started cataloging my library but have a long way to go. I used to post a lot of books in the reference sections of artists [for example] but have cut back since folks started objecting if the source was not quoted in the article. When i added Medallic Portraits of Adolph Hitler to a list of books about Hitler it was removed because i'd used the WRONG format - i put author first and it should have been title first - or something - so i've just gotten a bit frustrated and have backed out somewhat. However the reason that i have all this information is so that i can share it. Is this helping? Carptrash 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My wife's family are long time Ann Arborites (her grand-mother was born there during the Blizzard of 1888 ) and the pic of Yost came down that way. I have one picture already posted - Image:GuerinChicagoPlan1.jpg - that might start work for the Burnham Plan. I think that I have one or two more from that book at the Daniel Burnham article. I think (which will often get me in trouble) that I chose some non-Chicago ones there just to get some variety, but there are a bunch more of usable paintings by Guerin and perhaps some others too. I'll look. A Mich alum ehh? So what will happen vs Ohio State? I lived in Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor for 30 years (check out my Ypsi Tower shot ). I will look at the articles you've worked on and see if anything comes to mind. Carptrash 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

well I was a bit surprised that the Blizzard of 1888 showed up in blue, and i sure didn't know that there were two of them. I'll know which one later. However i saw, and maybe photographed a mural of the Blizzard in the Nebraska State Capitol so will post that - - - if i took it. Carptrash 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) meanwhile i posted a couple image at Burnham Plan. Check it out.

MY current plan the Kvaran Plan (hmmmmmm? Not in blue?) is to add a row of smaller, but more "technical" diagrams from the plan in a gallery. You can then play around with them (or toss 'em if you wish) and come up with something that you can feel good about. But first, life calls. Carptrash 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WNBA rationale

The WNBA isn't part of the NBA. Several teams do not have counterparts in the other league, and obviously it's impossible for a player to transfer from one to the other. The two are different organizations, and their templates should remain separate. (I have no opinion on the D-League, however.)--Mike Selinker 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The NBA did own the league until 2002, but they don't any more. The Connecticut Sun, for example, has no affiliation with the NBA. There are a lot of cross-promotions, and as a season ticket holder for the Seattle Storm, I get a lot of opportunities that Sonics ticket holders get. But the two are severable, and are not run by all the same people.--Mike Selinker 03:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that that NBA and Affiliates template is way too big and links things that don't need to be linked. By putting this much info in it, you've made it less useful, because people's eyes will glaze over. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Much, much better. My only question would be whether it's better than the NBA and WNBA templates, because those more fully spell out what's going on in their leagues. But it's an improvement nonetheless.--Mike Selinker 19:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's info:

• Two teams, same owner: Charlotte, Detroit, Houston, Indiana, LA (Lakers/Sparks), Minnesota, New York, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, Seattle
• Two teams, different owner: Chicago, Washington
• WNBA team, no NBA team: Connecticut
• NBA team, defunct WNBA team: Miami, Orlando, Portland, Utah
• NBA team, no WNBA team ever: Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Golden State, LA (Clippers), Memphis, Milwaukee, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Toronto

I assume many owners have ticket tie-ins. Hope that helps. As for the pro basketball template, that may well be awfully big.--Mike Selinker 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

happy to help. Answers:

• 1. Nicknames beats cities, since you'll have to distinguish the LA teams.
• 2. I don't personally see the need for a unifying template, and think the ownership link is shaky, but I don't mind it.
• 3. Large and burdensome. I think you're connecting things people don't necessary want connected, since people are interested in the NBDL may not care about the Puerto Rican league.
• 4. There's huge changes there. Argentina, Lithuania, and others could all make the cut. I think a template is a rough place to stake out ground like this.--Mike Selinker 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't do what you just did. Everything below the D-League isn't affiliated with the NBA in any way. So no, that template's not a good idea, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 02:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Chairperson

Thanks for the heads up on your proposed merger. I happen to agree, but was afraid to get tangle in an edit war with someone who would insist on keeping Chairperson in favour of Chairman. Ohconfucius 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Winter baseball leagues

I am not sure what the significance of the Hawaii Winter Baseball league is--I hadn't heard of it till I saw it on your {{Professional Baseball}} template. I think if it's notable enough to have an article--seems to be--and the players get paid to play, then it seems to be appropriate in the Winter Leagues section of the template. I'm glad you appreciated my help with the template. Thanks for making it! Rolando (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Promontory Point article

Sure, bring up your concerns and I'll try to address them. As for not being a Hyde Parker, though... here is the view from the window that I am literally 6 inches away from as I type this. (Also, please remember to sign your talk posts! Thanks.) —Chowbok ☠ 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

About Haystacks

Apologies for not getting back to you on the haystacks; my energies are going elsewhere, and I have done very little wiki work lately. Could be I'm moving on, but if I think I can contribute again I will. Best regards, JNW 22:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony

What do you mean by "preferred variant?" Where did you find this?

AFAIK the name can be spelled with or without the cedilla. WhisperToMe 23:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this means that Wikipedia prefers to be without cedillas, though. WhisperToMe 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Professional Football template

I've made some comments on your Professional Football template, if you care to discuss them. For example, I think you should have left it as "North American Professional Football", since the majority of the world will read "football" to mean what we call "soccer". --Bdoserror 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TOC placement

Hi Tony, I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:User page. I made a version of your user page that puts the TOC to the left of the user boxes and immediately reverted it. Basically, I copied the source of {{TOCRight}}, but removed the "clear: right". Feel free to use the layout if you like it (I personally think it looks crappy). Mike Dillon 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your "Related changes" question, there is nothing built into MediaWiki that will let you ignore some links on Special:Recentchangeslinked, but there are a couple of ways you can get the same effect. The easiest way is probably to stick a <noinclude> around everything on your user page that you don't want to see in Related changes and then transclude your whole user page into another page (e.g. User:TonyTheTiger/Watch related).

Once you've done that, you can use Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:TonyTheTiger/Watch related to get the related changes for the parts of your user page that were not wrapped with <noinclude>. The other way to do it would be to move everything on your user page that you want to see related changes for to a subpage and transclude that in your user page. The drawback to that approach is that you can't be as selective about which parts of your page are excluded from "Related changes". Hope that helps. Mike Dillon 16:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I played with this a little and it's a not a perfect solution. You'll run into problems if your user page links to subpages without the full article path. This will also be a problem if you move the parts you want to watch into their own subpages. The technique works, but it cannot be done with just the <noinclude>; you need to account for subpage links as well. YMMV. Mike Dillon 18:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So, the two ways of doing what I'm talking about are like this:

1. The first way I mentioned was to put <noinclude> in your actual user page around stuff you want excluded from the desired "Related changes" view. You then include the user page into User:TonyTheTiger/Watch related. (i.e. {{User:TonyTheTiger}})

   By doing this, you can use the "Related changes" link on User:TonyTheTiger/Watch related to see the related changes of everything on User:TonyTheTiger (except the stuff you put in <noinclude>, since it isn't included in User:TonyTheTiger/Watch related).

2. The second way is to break your user page up into separate subpages like User:TonyTheTiger/Templates Created and User:TonyTheTiger/Articles Created and somehow watch those. You would reconstruct your user page by including the subpages in User:TonyTheTiger, in addition to other stuff you don't want to watch. You would then include only the subpages you want to watch into User:TonyTheTiger/Watch related and check related changes as above. (i.e. {{User:TonyTheTiger/Templates Created}}{{User:TonyTheTiger/Articles Created}})

Let me know if you have any questions. Mike Dillon 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:TonyTheTiger/Watch_related. I believe this is what you want. The trick was to not put the <nowiki> and <code> on User:TonyTheTiger/Watch_related. Those were just there to make the wikitext display nicely in my comment, not to be copied to the page; you were only supposed to copy the visual representation of the template call ;) Mike Dillon 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend using <noinclude> on Cyber Girl of the Year, since main namespace articles are not generally transcluded. You'd have to stick it around pretty much everything in the article, especially any categories. There may be a legitimate reason to do this, but I don't think that facilitating a personal watchlist is one of them. I'd recommend maintaining your own list of the Cyber Girls on User:TonyTheTiger/Watch related itself. Mike Dillon 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As noted at Wikipedia:Transclusion, putting a colon in front of the article name forces the transclusion to come from the main namespace. As for transcluding a section, I believe this has been recently added to the MediaWiki software, but not yet rolled out to Wikipedia (and I suspect it never will be). I saw it in the Wikipedia Signpost (cf. Labeled Section Transclusion). Mike Dillon 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I changed your user page to use {{TOCright|clear=none}}, since a "clear" param was added today. Mike Dillon 16:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Profootball template and CFL

I've removed the {{profootball}} template from the CFL page, because that template does not relate to the CFL. You'll notice that the CFL has been removed from the template too. In the discussion page for the template, someone pointed out that CFL is not a type of American Football, it is its own code, though it is similar. Therefore it doesn't belong on the template, and vice versa. --Bdoserror 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, now I see you re-added CFL to the template. I think this issue needs to be resolved on the template, about whether the CFL belongs there. Personally I'm with the person who said it doesn't. --Bdoserror 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I included it based on personal conversations with non-NFL pro football prospects who rate it as about the 2nd best non-NFL job opportunity for pro football job seekers. The rules are slightly different and thus moving it down to an other category is probably the best thing to do in my opinion. TonyTheTiger 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You should probably put that discussion on the discussion page for the template and let the others discuss that reasoning too. Get the ol' Wikipedia consensus on the template. --Bdoserror 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:20061121 108 N. State Street.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:20061121 108 N. State Street.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nunchuck User Box corners

JC,

I was attempting to dazzle the wikipedia world with my multifaceted user box skills and you just erased all evidence from the face of the wikipedia earth. What do you have against user boxes with rounded corners? I believe they may be safer for young wikipedians. TonyTheTiger 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignore this comment. I realize you did not change my borders. I am in MSIE instead of Firefox and can not see all my good work. TonyTheTiger 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Confusions occur... and life goes on. Hope you're having a great day, otherwise : ) - jc37 03:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

alternate spelling

Hi, it is not necessary (may even be seen as bad form) to add hatnote links to alternate spellings of names on articles that are already fully disambiguated. That is, it is very unlikely that a user would randomly get to that particular page intending to look for the generic alternate spelling. Soem editors even object to including otheruses on such pages. older ≠ wiser 12:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1289 Grainstack at Sunset, Meule, soleil couchant, 1891, Oil on Canvas, Museum of fine Arts, Boston, MA.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:1289 Grainstack at Sunset, Meule, soleil couchant, 1891, Oil on Canvas, Museum of fine Arts, Boston, MA.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Claude Monet Haystacks 89.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet Haystacks 89.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Claude Monet. Haystack at the Sunset near Giverny. 1891. Oil on canvas. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA, USA..JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Claude Monet. Haystack at the Sunset near Giverny. 1891. Oil on canvas. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA, USA..JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)