This sentence has been removed. It was previously moved, and can still be found, in the aftermath section. This sentence does not belong in the introduction to the article... it is minutiae. The introduction is a place for broad information about the incident, not the insurance disposition of the plane. Thanks.
I was debating whether I should upload the approach plate or not for that article. I was thinking the approach was becoming more relevant after learning of the weather and hearing the controller audio. One minor nitpick, the chart you uploaded expired before the crash. The chart effective dates suggest it is still valid but they omit the time the charts are effective on those dates. The chart expired that morning at 0901Z (4:01am EST) and was not valid at the time of the crash. I don't think there were any changes on the new chart so I'll leave it up to you whether it is worth adding the 0901Z 2/12/09 to 0901Z 3/12/09 chart instead. Skywayman ( talk) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction on Bob Clarke. I was unaware of the distinction. I corrected the link because Wikipedia has his entry under "Bobby Clarke". ( Smel4727 ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
While researching for the History of Albany, New York article I do recall coming across info on the Domine's widow while living in Beverwyck. Google books has Albany Chronicles by Cuyler Reynolds published in 1906. If you havent used the google books website before its pretty easy, just search for the title and once you bring up the book, it will have a "search in this book" search field on the right side, type in her name and itll list every single page with her name on it and her name will be highlighted in yellow in every instance it shows up. Camelbinky ( talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to clean up the Mike Emrick article. I know it needs some work (namely verifying some of the information), and I ran out of time earlier when I was rearranging some of the info, but now it's more accurate and easier to read. I appreciate your picking up where I left off. sme3 ( talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a complaint about your consensus-defying behavior at WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Cirt(
talk)
14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)I must admit that I am quite surprised by this action of "blocking" my access to editing Wikipedia for any length of time without so much as a warning or seeking my side of the issue. (According to the time stamps User:Cirt blocked my account just five minutes after User:Baseball Bugs (age 13) posted his "complaint" about my supposed "disruptive editing.".) If Cirt had instead taken the time to review my record, he would have found that I have made over 4,300 constructive edits on Wikipedia since September, 2006, and contributed 111 image files, without ever once being accused of "disruptive editing" (or any other misconduct) except by User:BaseballBugs in the instant case. The vast majority of my contributions have been to add information and research (I am also a professional historian and the author of four published book) to articles about subjects which interest me (see my user page for a listing and my background) while my deletions or reversions have been limited almost exclusively to obvious vandalism made by unregistered (IP) users, changing material that I has previously contributed myself that I later decided to change or update, or to make reversions of the deletions of my own contributions which were made by others without providing any reason or justification for doing so. The last of these best describes the edits and reversions in the instant case.
As has been noted, this all revolves around the contention and apparent belief by some that the winning of
Major League Baseball's annual "World Series" tournament also automatically entitles its winners to adopt for themselves that they are also entitled to be considered as the exclusive and internationally recognized title of "World Champions of Baseball." Despite the views of BaseballBugs, this is by definition an impossibility. Official "world championships" in all organized sports are determined only by competing in international tournaments which are sanctioned, administered, and regulated but the several International Federations which govern those sports. In the case of baseball, that is the
International Baseball Federation which was founded in 1938 and is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. No other organization -- including a privately owned, for profit corporation with self limited membership such as "Major League Baseball" -- is recognized as having the authority to sanction "world" championships and determine their winners. Also such championships in team sports may be competed for in these international tournaments only by national teams organized and certified by each country's National Federation for that sport, This, of course, excludes privately owned and financed professional teams.
As this distinction did not seem to be clearly made in the intro to the
World Series article I added it early on April 25, but it was almost immediately reverted by BaseballBugs with the only reason given being an unexplained claim of "editorializing." As no explanation was given, I restored my edit with a notation that it was "not editorializing" followed by "see talk" where I then gave a full explanation of my reasons for its restoration. This, however, was then almost immediately reverted for a second time by Baseball Bugs with the only new reason given being a rather cryptic: "It is what it is." I then wrote a new edit to which I added a reference to the 2009 "World Baseball Classic" international (16 countries) tournament recently completed under the sanction of the IBAF, however Baseball Bugs again reverted for athird time (which would seem to be a violation on his part of the "Three Reversion" rule). I explained again in talk why I felt that this distinction needed to be made to which he responded that "It is not your place, as a wikipedia editor, to decide that this is not a "world" championship and to use a wikipedia article to try to editorialize on the matter." and accused me of being "disruptive."
I then rewrote the contribution again to delete the discussion to the "World Baseball Classic" (about which he had also complained) and asked him to respond to my argument (see above) that it is impossible for a privately owned and operated baseball club winning a "World Series" (which is a tournament limited exclusively to the 30 member clubs of MLB) to then declare itself the "world champions of baseball" without competing for that title against sanctioned international competition. The only affirmative "argument" which he advanced in answer to that question was that "Major League Baseball itself calls the World Series champions "the world champions". Those are words straight from Bud Selig's mouth." I then explained to him in talk that as Mr. Selig is a paid representative and member of the management of MLB, his statement must be treated as being self serving as an encyclopedic source and thus not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on independent sourcing. As such Mr. Selig is not a disinterested or objective voice to support Baseball Bugs' contention this is a sanctioned world title. In an attempt to assuage his concerns, I then rewrote may entry as a footnote which Baseball Bugs reverted again (for the fourth time in less than 24 hours). When I restored the footnote and attempted to again explain the reasons supporting it, the entry was reverted (for a fifth time) and Baseball Bugs filed his "complaint" against me for alleged "disruptive editing" to which User:Cirt responded by unilaterally blocking me just five minutes later. (For this reason I was and have been unable to post my further comment in the World Series talk page on why I had restored it.)
Baseball Bugs claims that "consensus" had been reached that the "World Series" and the "world championship of baseball" are the same thing (the falsity of which is the only point that I intended to address in my edit). A review of the section of the World Series talk page discussing this issue, however, hardly shows that to be the case. While I am not currently able to edit the talk page to add further comments there, Baseball Bugs has since advanced a second affirmative reason as to why they should be considered as the same, to wit: "That's where the money is" ("The players with the highest level of talent want to come to the USA because they can get the big bucks. HUGE bucks. This is a profession. It's about money.") Of course the players in the NHL, NBA, and NFL are also the highest paid professional athletes in their sports as well, but none of these leagues have ever claimed that their playoff champions are also the "world champions" in their respective sports. How much players are (or are not) paid to participate professionally in a sport has nothing whatever to do with whether or not they win championships.
One additional word of explanation. I rather suspect that part of Baseball Bugs' real reason for "complaining" about me as an "editorializer" might well be that I had objected to his own earlier overt edtorializing on Wikipedia by his repeated attempts to introduce his own personal religious POV that miraculous devine intervention should be used to explain the successful outcome of the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in the North River section of the Hudson River last January rather than crediting that to the plane's aircrew, their training, and experience as being responsible for saving the passengers' lives in the accident.
While I do not claim to be an expert on baseball (professional ice hockey is my field), I will seek to get a more official detailed explanation of the real MLB position on this matter (and Baseball Bugs' expressed views on it) when I see my old high school classmate for four years (1960-64), Dave Montgomery, at out 45th Reunion Dinner next week at
Citizens Bank Park. As the longtime President of the Philadelphia Phillies, the current MLB "World Series" champions, I think he can speak authoritatively on this subject.
I would have much appreciated the courtesy of User:Cirt's both first reading the comments that I had already posted on the article's talk page and then contacting me before unilaterally blocking my access to editing without warning or explanation just five minutes after Baseball Bugs' made his "complaint" that I was being "disruptive." Doing so in this manner hardly seems like due process or investigating to me, especially in the light of my otherwise spotless record on Wikipedia, Baseball Bugs' own five reversions of my contributions in less than a day, and my extensive use of the talk page to state my reasons for my various edits whenever I made them. For this and the other reasons stated above, I therefore request that my account be immediately unblocked and that the blocking be expunged from the record of my account as inappropriately applied without investigation or due process in the first place.
The block has already expired. Cirt ( talk) 14:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In the future please take care to observe WP:3RR. Cirt ( talk) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, see [3]and [4] - posts from four days ago now archived from your talk page. Cirt ( talk) 23:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As reading on your user page, it seems you may be interested in helping with the article List of United States airmail stamps. I am building the page myself and would greatly appreciate any help I can get. The references on the bottom of the page will provide any information you need. I have pasted them here for convenience. Thank you in advance! :-D
Jonverve ( talk) 14:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that your image may have more context if used in the article Citizens Bank Park instead. By moving the Cira Center image out of the section that mentions the 2008 World Series, context for that image is lost. I will likely move the images within the next 24 hours or so. KV5( Talk • Phils) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
i think we should wait till after the season ends to add the new teams to the timeline . Warriorshockey1 ( talk) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you revert this to the lower-quality version? Better quality is always preferred for public domain images. -- NE2 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading File:Jefferson Davis CSA Postage Stamps 1862-63.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions pageor me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Pullman's Palace Car Co. Stock 1884.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions pageor me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading an image or media.
Whilst, the image or media appears to be licensed, It would be helpful if you could confirm the photographer, author or copyright owner of the media concerned, has granted release under the licenses shown. You can do this by getting them to make a formal release,or by confirming any permission you obtained, by writing to the OTRS permissions queue as detailed in WP:COPYREQ.
If you have already approached OTRS, then please get an administrator with OTRS access to update the image information to confirm this. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I will assume from having read the previous message you know what's needed, so will only list affected images in compact form below. If any restorations have archive reference numbers, that something worth mentioning in the source section. It helps researchers find them in your museum, archive and library. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
List of items needing updated/expanded details:
*
File:Wells, Fargo & Co. Display Ad 1868.jpg missing description details, better source request. Done
Many regard aircraft as ships of the air, air-craft, and therefore far from gender neutral.
I'm not necessarily including myself.
Varlaam ( talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder: you guys need to knock off the reversions, you're both well past 3RR and someone's very likely to bean you for it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good day to you, I am working on getting some of the Medal of Honor articles upgraded to GA or better (theres about 150 our of 3000 Medal of Honor recipients that are doable at this time) and I was going to renominate the Charles Lindbergh article for GA but when I did a page analysis I noticed you edited that article around 555 times. WOW. Well done. Since you have done, by far, the most work on this article I wanted to talk to you first. Please let me know what your feelings are about submitting this article for GA review. I will be away from my computer until at least Sunday night so if I don't respond right away thats why.-- Kumioko ( talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 ( talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. Jay32183 ( talk) 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I submitted the Charles Lindbergh article for peer review. Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on many ECHL articles since I joined Wikipedia a few years ago and am in the process of petitioning WikiProject Ice Hockey for a separate ECHL task force. As you are an avid hockey fan in general and have made many edits and contributions to relevant articles, I felt that you would be qualified to help with the task force. I am asking ten other Wikipedians and am hoping for at least five commitments before I petition the WikiProject. Would you be interested in joining this potential task force? Rik ( talk) 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for the nice note you left on my talk page. It's fun to meet another Wikipedian with similar interests. Your web site about the B&ML looks very interesting; I look forward to spending some time reading it.
If you're able to visit Portland while in Maine this summer, be sure to check out the Kotzschmar Organ summer concert series. I'll be at the Felix Hell concert. He's great!
— BMRR ( talk) 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For sourcing [5] :). The text is also at a much more relevant place. -- Luk talk 09:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You are wroting 'item covered elsewhere', but didn't seen until other editor '128.189.195.157' he put back. So, you wroting something incorrectly. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going through some of the articles I have been working on for a while to see which ones where ready to submit for various things (FA, GA, A, peer review, etc) and I think this article is well beyond the requirements for GA so I was going to submit it. Before I did though I wanted to run it by you since you are the number 1 editor by far. I will already left a message on Bzuk's page since he is #2. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You really need to stop edit warring on this article. You are currently opposed by three different editors, which puts you on the wrong side of consensus. Discuss and build support for your argument. You are risking a block if you continue to battle over a word. Reso lute 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Long time no talk, btw, nice job on the Boeing 314, one of my (and obviously) your favourite subjects. Note, I still write in Canadianisms, and I long ago, discarded the Harvard comma as redundant in a list, but I do see your point, and many other authors/writers are still hanging onto the earlier convention. FWiW, what's your latest project? I am getting geared up to do another book but contemplating the amount of research required is daunting. Bzuk ( talk) 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
Conceded. There were, nevertheless, nonstop flights (Alcock & Whitten-Brown come to mind) before Lindy. His record was for a solo. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Mustang6172 ( talk) 02:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have to edit war everything? I was actualy reverting someone elses change back to the original. When the debate about the head office came up in the hockey project recently it was found that in the coyotes bankruptcy filings that the NHL actually was calling the head office to be in Montreal. To be exact 1800 McGill College Ave, Suite 2600. The head office they may work out of could be NY. But the legal entity is registered to Montreal. But none of that mattered, information in such lists through all our other infoboxes is alphabetized.- DJSasso ( talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"The NHL is an unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs, including the Phoenix Coyotes. The NHL'sheadquarter offices are in New York, New York. The NHL has other offices in Toronto. Ontario and Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Each Member Club operates a professional hockey team in North America. The NHL teams are located in a diverse group of cities throughout the United States and Canada."
== NHL head quarters == You should take your proposals to the NHL talk page. -- GoodDay ( talk) 18:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the reassurance (at DJ's page). GoodDay ( talk) 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) == Transmoutain Railways == Beg to differ, but the Pakistan to China Railway which is 1100km long through extreme mountains is as significant as an Ocean to Ocean Railway. You didn't ask to delete this. You should put it back. Similarly with Myanmar to China. Tabletop ( talk) 04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) :If you are interestied in starting a new article called "transmountain" railroads to cover such lines you are free to do so, but the two proposed (not even built) railroads you added do not meet the definition as stated in the intro to the Transcontinental Railroad article which reads: "A Transcontinental Railroad is a railroad that crosses a continent from "coast-to-coast." Terminals are at or connected to different oceans. Because Europe is criss-crossed by railways, railroads within Europe are usually not considered transcontinental, the Orient Express perhaps being an exception." Inland mountain railroads, no matter how difficult to build, simply are not "transcontinental" railroads whether or not they are as "significant" (which is a subjective term) as an "ocean to ocean" road. Centpacrr ( talk) 05:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Centpacrr,
I wish to contest your deletion of
1. I believe this image enriches the article by adding the formal aspect of Military Mail franking (by "formal" I refer to the official triangular "stamping" versus improvised hand-written remark). Since this aspect is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, it might be constructive to open a new section dedicated to this use rather than deleting the relevant image.
2. If the image caused undesirable shifting (which I missed) there are other ways to overcome the undesired result, like adding a new section, or moving the image into a newly formed gallery.
3. Any significant change in an article should be justified. "displacing several existing images and forcing them away from the sections of the article relating to them" is not a sufficient justification for a total deletion, especially because you did NOT object to the inclusion of the image in the article, but to its location.
I would appreciate it if you reconsider your deletion.Etan J. Tal 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal ( talk • contribs)
If ya wanna use American spelling, that's fine. If ya wanna has the USA flag above the Canadian flag (in the Infobox)? I don't mind. Neither will overly effect the article, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 20:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk ( talk) 20:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for that -- I'm a little perplexed how I could pull such a move -- both the file names and descriptions are clear and there are no confusing circumstances. ???? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with making a distinction between cable an broadcast, but the phrase "national over the air television" is just ridiculous, especially considering the (lack of) context in the sentence at
Mike Emrick. I'm not going to counter revert because I trust you to come up with a better edit yourself, which addresses your own need to make the "over the air" vs. cable distinction and my own criticism of your language. Thanks.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law)
05:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, why was railroad reverted to road? -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're gonna OWN so much, so quickly [6] here, at least make sure whatever you're watching so aggressively has a proper introduction section and otherwise conforms with the MOS. thanks // Fra nkB 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that editor's experience on Wikipedia, it's highly suspect that he would be so inclined to remove something that is clearly granted an exception under WP:Peacock, let alone make an argument against it. Did he just magically miss the last section of the article? ...Or perhaps he's not as skilled as I thought; maybe he's just a terrible editor. Luminum ( talk) 07:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
See: my response. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC).
Sorry about the dates, coffee not kicked in yet! Well spotted. Mjroots ( talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
This sentence has been removed. It was previously moved, and can still be found, in the aftermath section. This sentence does not belong in the introduction to the article... it is minutiae. The introduction is a place for broad information about the incident, not the insurance disposition of the plane. Thanks.
I was debating whether I should upload the approach plate or not for that article. I was thinking the approach was becoming more relevant after learning of the weather and hearing the controller audio. One minor nitpick, the chart you uploaded expired before the crash. The chart effective dates suggest it is still valid but they omit the time the charts are effective on those dates. The chart expired that morning at 0901Z (4:01am EST) and was not valid at the time of the crash. I don't think there were any changes on the new chart so I'll leave it up to you whether it is worth adding the 0901Z 2/12/09 to 0901Z 3/12/09 chart instead. Skywayman ( talk) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction on Bob Clarke. I was unaware of the distinction. I corrected the link because Wikipedia has his entry under "Bobby Clarke". ( Smel4727 ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
While researching for the History of Albany, New York article I do recall coming across info on the Domine's widow while living in Beverwyck. Google books has Albany Chronicles by Cuyler Reynolds published in 1906. If you havent used the google books website before its pretty easy, just search for the title and once you bring up the book, it will have a "search in this book" search field on the right side, type in her name and itll list every single page with her name on it and her name will be highlighted in yellow in every instance it shows up. Camelbinky ( talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to clean up the Mike Emrick article. I know it needs some work (namely verifying some of the information), and I ran out of time earlier when I was rearranging some of the info, but now it's more accurate and easier to read. I appreciate your picking up where I left off. sme3 ( talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a complaint about your consensus-defying behavior at WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Cirt(
talk)
14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)I must admit that I am quite surprised by this action of "blocking" my access to editing Wikipedia for any length of time without so much as a warning or seeking my side of the issue. (According to the time stamps User:Cirt blocked my account just five minutes after User:Baseball Bugs (age 13) posted his "complaint" about my supposed "disruptive editing.".) If Cirt had instead taken the time to review my record, he would have found that I have made over 4,300 constructive edits on Wikipedia since September, 2006, and contributed 111 image files, without ever once being accused of "disruptive editing" (or any other misconduct) except by User:BaseballBugs in the instant case. The vast majority of my contributions have been to add information and research (I am also a professional historian and the author of four published book) to articles about subjects which interest me (see my user page for a listing and my background) while my deletions or reversions have been limited almost exclusively to obvious vandalism made by unregistered (IP) users, changing material that I has previously contributed myself that I later decided to change or update, or to make reversions of the deletions of my own contributions which were made by others without providing any reason or justification for doing so. The last of these best describes the edits and reversions in the instant case.
As has been noted, this all revolves around the contention and apparent belief by some that the winning of
Major League Baseball's annual "World Series" tournament also automatically entitles its winners to adopt for themselves that they are also entitled to be considered as the exclusive and internationally recognized title of "World Champions of Baseball." Despite the views of BaseballBugs, this is by definition an impossibility. Official "world championships" in all organized sports are determined only by competing in international tournaments which are sanctioned, administered, and regulated but the several International Federations which govern those sports. In the case of baseball, that is the
International Baseball Federation which was founded in 1938 and is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland. No other organization -- including a privately owned, for profit corporation with self limited membership such as "Major League Baseball" -- is recognized as having the authority to sanction "world" championships and determine their winners. Also such championships in team sports may be competed for in these international tournaments only by national teams organized and certified by each country's National Federation for that sport, This, of course, excludes privately owned and financed professional teams.
As this distinction did not seem to be clearly made in the intro to the
World Series article I added it early on April 25, but it was almost immediately reverted by BaseballBugs with the only reason given being an unexplained claim of "editorializing." As no explanation was given, I restored my edit with a notation that it was "not editorializing" followed by "see talk" where I then gave a full explanation of my reasons for its restoration. This, however, was then almost immediately reverted for a second time by Baseball Bugs with the only new reason given being a rather cryptic: "It is what it is." I then wrote a new edit to which I added a reference to the 2009 "World Baseball Classic" international (16 countries) tournament recently completed under the sanction of the IBAF, however Baseball Bugs again reverted for athird time (which would seem to be a violation on his part of the "Three Reversion" rule). I explained again in talk why I felt that this distinction needed to be made to which he responded that "It is not your place, as a wikipedia editor, to decide that this is not a "world" championship and to use a wikipedia article to try to editorialize on the matter." and accused me of being "disruptive."
I then rewrote the contribution again to delete the discussion to the "World Baseball Classic" (about which he had also complained) and asked him to respond to my argument (see above) that it is impossible for a privately owned and operated baseball club winning a "World Series" (which is a tournament limited exclusively to the 30 member clubs of MLB) to then declare itself the "world champions of baseball" without competing for that title against sanctioned international competition. The only affirmative "argument" which he advanced in answer to that question was that "Major League Baseball itself calls the World Series champions "the world champions". Those are words straight from Bud Selig's mouth." I then explained to him in talk that as Mr. Selig is a paid representative and member of the management of MLB, his statement must be treated as being self serving as an encyclopedic source and thus not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on independent sourcing. As such Mr. Selig is not a disinterested or objective voice to support Baseball Bugs' contention this is a sanctioned world title. In an attempt to assuage his concerns, I then rewrote may entry as a footnote which Baseball Bugs reverted again (for the fourth time in less than 24 hours). When I restored the footnote and attempted to again explain the reasons supporting it, the entry was reverted (for a fifth time) and Baseball Bugs filed his "complaint" against me for alleged "disruptive editing" to which User:Cirt responded by unilaterally blocking me just five minutes later. (For this reason I was and have been unable to post my further comment in the World Series talk page on why I had restored it.)
Baseball Bugs claims that "consensus" had been reached that the "World Series" and the "world championship of baseball" are the same thing (the falsity of which is the only point that I intended to address in my edit). A review of the section of the World Series talk page discussing this issue, however, hardly shows that to be the case. While I am not currently able to edit the talk page to add further comments there, Baseball Bugs has since advanced a second affirmative reason as to why they should be considered as the same, to wit: "That's where the money is" ("The players with the highest level of talent want to come to the USA because they can get the big bucks. HUGE bucks. This is a profession. It's about money.") Of course the players in the NHL, NBA, and NFL are also the highest paid professional athletes in their sports as well, but none of these leagues have ever claimed that their playoff champions are also the "world champions" in their respective sports. How much players are (or are not) paid to participate professionally in a sport has nothing whatever to do with whether or not they win championships.
One additional word of explanation. I rather suspect that part of Baseball Bugs' real reason for "complaining" about me as an "editorializer" might well be that I had objected to his own earlier overt edtorializing on Wikipedia by his repeated attempts to introduce his own personal religious POV that miraculous devine intervention should be used to explain the successful outcome of the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in the North River section of the Hudson River last January rather than crediting that to the plane's aircrew, their training, and experience as being responsible for saving the passengers' lives in the accident.
While I do not claim to be an expert on baseball (professional ice hockey is my field), I will seek to get a more official detailed explanation of the real MLB position on this matter (and Baseball Bugs' expressed views on it) when I see my old high school classmate for four years (1960-64), Dave Montgomery, at out 45th Reunion Dinner next week at
Citizens Bank Park. As the longtime President of the Philadelphia Phillies, the current MLB "World Series" champions, I think he can speak authoritatively on this subject.
I would have much appreciated the courtesy of User:Cirt's both first reading the comments that I had already posted on the article's talk page and then contacting me before unilaterally blocking my access to editing without warning or explanation just five minutes after Baseball Bugs' made his "complaint" that I was being "disruptive." Doing so in this manner hardly seems like due process or investigating to me, especially in the light of my otherwise spotless record on Wikipedia, Baseball Bugs' own five reversions of my contributions in less than a day, and my extensive use of the talk page to state my reasons for my various edits whenever I made them. For this and the other reasons stated above, I therefore request that my account be immediately unblocked and that the blocking be expunged from the record of my account as inappropriately applied without investigation or due process in the first place.
The block has already expired. Cirt ( talk) 14:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In the future please take care to observe WP:3RR. Cirt ( talk) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, see [3]and [4] - posts from four days ago now archived from your talk page. Cirt ( talk) 23:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As reading on your user page, it seems you may be interested in helping with the article List of United States airmail stamps. I am building the page myself and would greatly appreciate any help I can get. The references on the bottom of the page will provide any information you need. I have pasted them here for convenience. Thank you in advance! :-D
Jonverve ( talk) 14:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that your image may have more context if used in the article Citizens Bank Park instead. By moving the Cira Center image out of the section that mentions the 2008 World Series, context for that image is lost. I will likely move the images within the next 24 hours or so. KV5( Talk • Phils) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
i think we should wait till after the season ends to add the new teams to the timeline . Warriorshockey1 ( talk) 20:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you revert this to the lower-quality version? Better quality is always preferred for public domain images. -- NE2 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US Transcontinental Railroads 1887.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading File:Jefferson Davis CSA Postage Stamps 1862-63.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions pageor me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Pullman's Palace Car Co. Stock 1884.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions pageor me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading an image or media.
Whilst, the image or media appears to be licensed, It would be helpful if you could confirm the photographer, author or copyright owner of the media concerned, has granted release under the licenses shown. You can do this by getting them to make a formal release,or by confirming any permission you obtained, by writing to the OTRS permissions queue as detailed in WP:COPYREQ.
If you have already approached OTRS, then please get an administrator with OTRS access to update the image information to confirm this. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I will assume from having read the previous message you know what's needed, so will only list affected images in compact form below. If any restorations have archive reference numbers, that something worth mentioning in the source section. It helps researchers find them in your museum, archive and library. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
List of items needing updated/expanded details:
*
File:Wells, Fargo & Co. Display Ad 1868.jpg missing description details, better source request. Done
Many regard aircraft as ships of the air, air-craft, and therefore far from gender neutral.
I'm not necessarily including myself.
Varlaam ( talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder: you guys need to knock off the reversions, you're both well past 3RR and someone's very likely to bean you for it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good day to you, I am working on getting some of the Medal of Honor articles upgraded to GA or better (theres about 150 our of 3000 Medal of Honor recipients that are doable at this time) and I was going to renominate the Charles Lindbergh article for GA but when I did a page analysis I noticed you edited that article around 555 times. WOW. Well done. Since you have done, by far, the most work on this article I wanted to talk to you first. Please let me know what your feelings are about submitting this article for GA review. I will be away from my computer until at least Sunday night so if I don't respond right away thats why.-- Kumioko ( talk) 16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 ( talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. Jay32183 ( talk) 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I submitted the Charles Lindbergh article for peer review. Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on many ECHL articles since I joined Wikipedia a few years ago and am in the process of petitioning WikiProject Ice Hockey for a separate ECHL task force. As you are an avid hockey fan in general and have made many edits and contributions to relevant articles, I felt that you would be qualified to help with the task force. I am asking ten other Wikipedians and am hoping for at least five commitments before I petition the WikiProject. Would you be interested in joining this potential task force? Rik ( talk) 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for the nice note you left on my talk page. It's fun to meet another Wikipedian with similar interests. Your web site about the B&ML looks very interesting; I look forward to spending some time reading it.
If you're able to visit Portland while in Maine this summer, be sure to check out the Kotzschmar Organ summer concert series. I'll be at the Felix Hell concert. He's great!
— BMRR ( talk) 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For sourcing [5] :). The text is also at a much more relevant place. -- Luk talk 09:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You are wroting 'item covered elsewhere', but didn't seen until other editor '128.189.195.157' he put back. So, you wroting something incorrectly. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going through some of the articles I have been working on for a while to see which ones where ready to submit for various things (FA, GA, A, peer review, etc) and I think this article is well beyond the requirements for GA so I was going to submit it. Before I did though I wanted to run it by you since you are the number 1 editor by far. I will already left a message on Bzuk's page since he is #2. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You really need to stop edit warring on this article. You are currently opposed by three different editors, which puts you on the wrong side of consensus. Discuss and build support for your argument. You are risking a block if you continue to battle over a word. Reso lute 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Long time no talk, btw, nice job on the Boeing 314, one of my (and obviously) your favourite subjects. Note, I still write in Canadianisms, and I long ago, discarded the Harvard comma as redundant in a list, but I do see your point, and many other authors/writers are still hanging onto the earlier convention. FWiW, what's your latest project? I am getting geared up to do another book but contemplating the amount of research required is daunting. Bzuk ( talk) 17:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
Conceded. There were, nevertheless, nonstop flights (Alcock & Whitten-Brown come to mind) before Lindy. His record was for a solo. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 16:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Mustang6172 ( talk) 02:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have to edit war everything? I was actualy reverting someone elses change back to the original. When the debate about the head office came up in the hockey project recently it was found that in the coyotes bankruptcy filings that the NHL actually was calling the head office to be in Montreal. To be exact 1800 McGill College Ave, Suite 2600. The head office they may work out of could be NY. But the legal entity is registered to Montreal. But none of that mattered, information in such lists through all our other infoboxes is alphabetized.- DJSasso ( talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"The NHL is an unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs, including the Phoenix Coyotes. The NHL'sheadquarter offices are in New York, New York. The NHL has other offices in Toronto. Ontario and Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Each Member Club operates a professional hockey team in North America. The NHL teams are located in a diverse group of cities throughout the United States and Canada."
== NHL head quarters == You should take your proposals to the NHL talk page. -- GoodDay ( talk) 18:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the reassurance (at DJ's page). GoodDay ( talk) 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) == Transmoutain Railways == Beg to differ, but the Pakistan to China Railway which is 1100km long through extreme mountains is as significant as an Ocean to Ocean Railway. You didn't ask to delete this. You should put it back. Similarly with Myanmar to China. Tabletop ( talk) 04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) :If you are interestied in starting a new article called "transmountain" railroads to cover such lines you are free to do so, but the two proposed (not even built) railroads you added do not meet the definition as stated in the intro to the Transcontinental Railroad article which reads: "A Transcontinental Railroad is a railroad that crosses a continent from "coast-to-coast." Terminals are at or connected to different oceans. Because Europe is criss-crossed by railways, railroads within Europe are usually not considered transcontinental, the Orient Express perhaps being an exception." Inland mountain railroads, no matter how difficult to build, simply are not "transcontinental" railroads whether or not they are as "significant" (which is a subjective term) as an "ocean to ocean" road. Centpacrr ( talk) 05:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Centpacrr,
I wish to contest your deletion of
1. I believe this image enriches the article by adding the formal aspect of Military Mail franking (by "formal" I refer to the official triangular "stamping" versus improvised hand-written remark). Since this aspect is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, it might be constructive to open a new section dedicated to this use rather than deleting the relevant image.
2. If the image caused undesirable shifting (which I missed) there are other ways to overcome the undesired result, like adding a new section, or moving the image into a newly formed gallery.
3. Any significant change in an article should be justified. "displacing several existing images and forcing them away from the sections of the article relating to them" is not a sufficient justification for a total deletion, especially because you did NOT object to the inclusion of the image in the article, but to its location.
I would appreciate it if you reconsider your deletion.Etan J. Tal 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal ( talk • contribs)
If ya wanna use American spelling, that's fine. If ya wanna has the USA flag above the Canadian flag (in the Infobox)? I don't mind. Neither will overly effect the article, IMHO. GoodDay ( talk) 20:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk ( talk) 20:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for that -- I'm a little perplexed how I could pull such a move -- both the file names and descriptions are clear and there are no confusing circumstances. ???? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with making a distinction between cable an broadcast, but the phrase "national over the air television" is just ridiculous, especially considering the (lack of) context in the sentence at
Mike Emrick. I'm not going to counter revert because I trust you to come up with a better edit yourself, which addresses your own need to make the "over the air" vs. cable distinction and my own criticism of your language. Thanks.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law)
05:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, why was railroad reverted to road? -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're gonna OWN so much, so quickly [6] here, at least make sure whatever you're watching so aggressively has a proper introduction section and otherwise conforms with the MOS. thanks // Fra nkB 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that editor's experience on Wikipedia, it's highly suspect that he would be so inclined to remove something that is clearly granted an exception under WP:Peacock, let alone make an argument against it. Did he just magically miss the last section of the article? ...Or perhaps he's not as skilled as I thought; maybe he's just a terrible editor. Luminum ( talk) 07:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
See: my response. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC).
Sorry about the dates, coffee not kicked in yet! Well spotted. Mjroots ( talk) 07:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)