User talk:Meegs

Archived Discussion

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:26

• I was an atheist for awhile, but I gave it up. No holidays!

(Shamelessly stolen from Henny Youngman). Wahkeenah 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of "Seabags" before, either, but I've seen several references to it in Google. However, I don't get the impression that it's complimentary. Wahkeenah 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked it up too, but I'm not sure it's a Berman original. I'm going to ask about it on the talk page -Meegs 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote Dry Bones but you voted it on Afd as if it were still what it was before I re-wrote it. What do you think about the new version?? (See the link above for what it is.) Georgia guy 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to express that I agreed with you that the original page about the band deserved deletion without commenting on your new page about the game. The band was certainly nn. Nevertheless, I don't think you should have erased the whole page while it was undergoing review for deletion. -Meegs 00:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He left it a mere skeleton of its former self. Wahkeenah 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for proposed edit: That'll work.  :) — Dale Arnett 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meegs,

I wrote the additional section to Michael Kiske's article. I do know that I was quite a little bit excessive and subjective but I was only trying to better the article. I think we both agree that Michael Kiske does have an amazing voice, he does have classical singing lessons, otherwise he wouldn't have such a voice. I am a singer myself and I can effectively classify quality of voices and I can affirm that Kiske's is among rock's finest. I would really appreciate if we could work together to better the article by including some of Mr. Kiske's skills and therefore transform the article into something more than a stub.

Sincerely

The Crow... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.135.185.107 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2005 December 6 (UTC)

Hello Crow. I'm glad that you want to work on the page. Let's move any further discussion to Talk:Michael_Kiske. Also, I highly suggest that you consider registering and logging in (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?).

In short, though, I removed the comments that appeared to be unfounded, or that were simply your own opinion. Take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. It's sometimes really hard to write about an artist that you're a big fan of. Remember, we're not here to promote Kiske, just to provide information about him. The truth is, he's not considered (by more than a few) to be "one of the finest rock vocalist of all time, even better than Queen vocalist Freddy Mercury." In fact, he's struggled very hard for the last 10 years to get his albums released outside of East Asia. Even if a subjective viewpoint like that were widely held, it's usually not helpful to include in an article without attributing it to someone. Speaking of Freddy Mercury, take a look at his article – it's very well done. Let's talk about specifics of how to expand the article on Talk:Michael_Kiske. -Meegs 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on the Fearsome Foursome page. I noticed the same things. I think the term itself is probably in need of some disambiguation. The Lions team was the one that I think most people consider the most prominent football version, but Chargers fans take umbrage with that. If someone wants to make a Fearsome Foursome comics page, that would be great and I can check out the disambiguation. Thanks again for the comments, very helpful. Bill shannon 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right, I'm probably going to stop soon. I figure I've got some big schools left in the South (Ole Miss, for example), but not much after that. I thought about combining Conference USA, but that conference is a total mess. So maybe Brett Favre and Jerry Rice and Steve McNair and Daunte Culpepper don't get in the category. I think the rule needs to be, a school's accomplishments must be greater than one player to get its own category. But I'm fully aware that that kind of rule doesn't hold water for long on this site, so I'm guessing Jackson State and Southern Miss and Alcorn State and Central Florida will eventually make the cut. Maybe we preempt it with a crazy category like "Football players from small southern colleges". Or not.--Mike Selinker 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just CUSA that's a mess, all of the conferences are. We don't want to have to put alums of the same school into different categories because their school changed conferences. -Meegs 01:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no one's joining the Ivy League any time soon, but the Big Ten has 11 freakin' teams.--Mike Selinker 20:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your category name is missing its "s" at the end of "player". Just thought you'd like to know.--Mike Selinker 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not for seven items, you don't. Here's what you do: Make a new category called "Hawaii Warriors football players". Put the players in it. Then replace your header in the bad category and put in two of these: { then db|Category created with a typo, and replaced by new category, then two of these: }. (I'd type it out, but then your talk page would be deleted!) This will list it under speedy deletions, and it will be gone with 24 hours, give or take. No debate needed.--Mike Selinker 02:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I notice that the players you're entering don't have the unnecessary Category:National Football League players tag. Has that decision been reached, and if so should I be taking those out as well? I'd be happy to, if it leads to the depopulation of that category. You're also making sure they have their position category too, I see. (Also, I've put some categories in to renaming so that they all follow the (school)(nickname)(football players) format. So you might want to put the SDSU players under that format, or just list it under the Category:Categories for deletion entry of "College football teams. Just a thought.--Mike Selinker 06:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have been removing the general tag - I noticed FutureNJGov was going nuts with it, so I started-in too. No one has expressed dissent + I saw the the request for rename to "... by team", which I assume will be made a member of Category:National Football League players. We should probably make an official announcement. As for SD state, I opted not to use Category:San Diego State Azetec Warriors football players because it would have been the longest title in the category, a full 7 characters longer than current champ Category:Minnesota Golden Gophers football players. I considered shortening to "SDSU" or "SD State", but those aren't well-known like UCLA is. I'll change & speedy it, or we can nominate it if you want. ×Meegs 15:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're clearly the Aztecs. I don't think even the most rabid alumnus would insist on Aztec Warriors. If you feel like making the announcement of clearing the NFL players tag on the NFL Project page, that'd be swell.--Mike Selinker 16:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm sending all the angry alums your way. Could you handle the rename however you see fit? I summarized the plan on the the NFL project talk page. I'll look at putting something on the main page after the rename goes through and simplifies the whole situation. One more thing... should we make a Category:College football players by team within (or to replace) Category:College football players? ×Meegs 19:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. As for the "by team" designation, I don't really understand the reasoning behind this. Please explain.--Mike Selinker 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of the by team suffix, but it might make sense to match Category:National Football League players by team, Category:Major league baseball players by team, Category:NHL players by team. I guess the difference is that those other leagues have other, non-team, categories of players (like the poorly maintained pro bowler categories that needs to go in Category:National Football League players), while with college we only have the team listings. The inclusion of by team also makes obvious that individual players don't belong there. As it is, I'm tempted to dump these poor guys in Category:College football players. I won't, though. ×Meegs 18:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The by-team category would be the only content in the college football players category, then? Seems odd to me, but I don't have any real objection; it's a five-minute change if we do that. Still, I don't really see a reason to do it until we have some other content for that category. Now, the guys you have under small colleges suggests a solution: We should just list those guys on that page until enough of them build up to prompt a category creation of some kind. So as people go through and delete players from the NFL category, they add them to that list. Link that idea?--Mike Selinker 02:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's a list and not a category (which would pollute the articles) and as long as it's not an official article (maybe in the user or project space), then yeah, go ahead and start one up and copy my list. Most of the schools there will never get a category our current criteria though, so the effort might be wasted. If you want an idea of how many nfl players a given school is pumping out, look here. And while you're there, check out the massive Hawaii list. ×Meegs 03:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there are 117 I-A schools right now. We're already half way there, why don't we make categories for the players of all of them (and forget making one for the football program for now). Then maybe, we could make a single category for each of the lower divisions. ×Meegs 03:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fine plan. But if we're going to do that, then the easiest thing to do is to do it as we depopulate the NFL category. Starting from the small schools list which I just put into Category:College football players, we can just go guy by guy until all the categories are created. (After all, we run the risk of not having anyone in a category after this is said and done if we create them all now.)--Mike Selinker 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And single categories for non I-A divisions, or ones for each of their schools too? Under current wiki software, there's a huge incentive to keep category membership under 200. ×Meegs 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes. I'm sure Lycoming and Hartwick played some fine football games, but I don't think we're gonna find a lot of guys who were in them.--Mike Selinker 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, got the word from Meegs. Didn't think I was "going nuts" with the cats, but after howcheng suggested that we make it the same as the NBA and other sport cats, I thought we should change it. Anyway, I agree with the list of the small college football players. However, I think we should organize it by school, and add the players to the individual team section. Check here to see my prototype... naturally, it will be much longer once the whole thing is completed. Anthony 22:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. It's sort of overkill if the threshold for creating a new category is as low as 3 players (which is where I'm leaning), but it has to be done. On another topic, what should be the category name for non-flagship state campuses (UCLA and UTEP are easy, but what about La Lafayette? {La, LA, Louisiana} {at, -, –, ε} Lafayette {Ragin', ε} Cajuns football players)? ×Meegs 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for finishing up the infobox on Kyle Brady. i didn't quite understand how it worked, but you made it look good. thank you.--BBLove 10:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I'll leave in those fields in the future. (I'm still getting my bearings on how these optional fields work, and I'm still impressed by that trick of yours.) While I'm here, I've been thinking -- maybe two more fields? One to link to the NFL.com player page for active players (make it optional, like the existing stats field is optional), and another to give the overall draft order (that seems to be the only other field that other boxes have that this one doesn't.) Also, maybe a tiny File:NationalFootballLeague.png next to "Team(s)", just for a splash of color? --Arcadian 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could we squeeze the overall draft selection on the same line (e.g. maybe in parentheses without explanation)? As for a link to NFL.com link, we might be able to add it in the same section with PFR. There's a template around - I can't seem to find it - that's designed for use in the "External links" section that takes-in an espn.com ID and creates a nice citation and web link. I've only seen it once, but it seemed great. If you come across it, let me know. It might be better to make one of those for nfl.com (or just spread the espn one) since they only cover current players, I'm not sure how permanent the nfl.com setup is. As for the icons, I'm interested to see what they would look like. Are you talking about a single NFL icon, or one per team? The latter would be very tricky. No one has responded to the complaint of having too little color - if you have any feelings on that either way, please post a response. Do you think we should fork the template so that we can experiment with it without threatening the pages it's deployed on? ×Meegs 00:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made an untempletized version of the box on User:Meegs/NFL Player Sandbox. We can play around with aesthetics there. ×Meegs 00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've only made one change for now -- I've added a "caption" field, so that we can use the template on pages with images that have captions. An example of it is at Ryan Leaf. The only drawback is that we have to use BR codes, like we do for probowls. Are you okay with this? (Alternatively, we could try to go back to the same fixed-with version we had before, but I know there were some issues with that as well.)--Arcadian 12:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a very good thing to have available. I changed to font size so that it's consistent with image thumbnail captions, and doesn't take away the ability to use italics within the caption for emphasis or publication titles. Change it back if you like. Also, I'm curious, why do you think a caption is necessary in the case of Ryan Leaf? Do you think it strengthens the fair use claim by providing the full issue information for the magazine? ×Meegs 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're giving me too much credit for thinking ahead. :) I just added the caption field because the previous version had a picture with a caption. By the way, I'm on board with the reasons for not including the NFL icon. I found the ESPN template you mentioned above, in case we want to integrate that: {{espn nfl|id=5902|name=William Green}} yields "William Green at ESPN.com". --Arcadian 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, yeah, that link looks pretty reliable. I was just going based on the allmusic guide, which is sometimes kinda stupid. Also, thanks for that link, i'll probably need it if i ever get around to fixing up the venom page. --Eel 21:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the basis of the AFL/AFL conflict alone, I think the Arena Football League should be forcibly disbanded. But that's not the feedback you're looking for. Not even the Washington Nationals give us any guidance, as Walter Johnson is just under the Senators. You could spell it out as "Dallas Texans players in the American Football League," but really, we're looking at a small group of players here. I think the best solution is the years. By the way, you might hit this problem with the Baltimore Colts as well. See Baltimore Colts (1947-1950). That team was in the NFL.--Mike Selinker 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I and other admins have been enforcing this policy listed on Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use criteria:

Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The big problem is that the logo was on a template ... and on many talk pages, the template is the only thing on there–which legally goes outside the boundaries of fair use. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. Thanks. ×Meegs 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs, Googie Man here - I wanted to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan and Wikipedian. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done such great work on Wikipedia I was hoping you could help me get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 20:38, 3 January 2006.

I recently found another useful database. Here's an example of a link: http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=BANKSCHI01. It seems to be much better than ProFootballReference for providing statistics for defensive players. How would you feel if we added another line to the template to accomodate it (optional, of course, so the row would disappear if the row was omitted)? --Arcadian 21:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that site a lot. They don't seem to let you download the database, but other than that, it's quite a bit nicer than PFR. It's not very popular though; do you think we'd clobber it with traffic? I also wonder how long they've been around and how stable the links would be. It's probably ok. What if we give it a row identical to PFR's? I don't know of any simple way to elegantly display one, the other, both, or neither link. If they both say Statistics in the left column, it'd look a little strange when both links are present:

Statistics Pro football reference

Statistics Database football

but I think most of the time one or the other will suffice. There's also the option of letting the user pass the whole link or a list of several links (with <BR>s) as a parameter to the template to appear next to Statistics. That would allow people to mix-in ESPN and NFL.com, or whatever they want, though we'd then lose the ability to enforce proper formatting, and the whole thing would be a lot harder to use. I'll have to think about that one a little more, but I'll go for Database football now if you want. ×Meegs 18:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if we made the rows for them span the columns (sort of like for the Hall of fame line), so the line would just say "Statistics: Pro football reference", etc? That way, it wouldn't look terrible if people included multiple data sources. In fact, we could do this for NFL and ESPN as well. That way we don't have to dictate what source people want to use. Then if the DatabaseFootball source turns out to be unreliable, we can just eliminate that line from the template and we don't have to re-edit every player page.--Arcadian 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand, you're still talking about having a separate field for each statistics site (PFR, ESPN, etc.) so that the user only has to pass a short identifier like BankCh01. Spanning the two columns doesn't help with problem of having to put the Statisics identifier before each one. Of course, we could use a different phrase for every site in your way, like maybe the actual titles of the pages that are linked to. That would be a small step closer to a proper citation, at least.

Pro Football Reference: Doug Flutie statistics

databaseFootball: Doug Flutie Past Stats

ESPN.com: Doug Flutie player card

Sports Illustrated: Doug Flutie player page

We could form all of those titles provided we made a mandatory parameter that requires the player's name (or we could just omit that part of the page titles). Formatting it so that it looks good might be tough too. Whether we make the column-spanning rows center- or left-aligned, they're not going to look good where the Statistics line is now (with 2-column rows above and below it). We might be able to simply move the links section to the bottom of the box. ×Meegs 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those could all work. To get the ball rolling I went ahead and added the fields to the template (example of use at Tony Wragge), but if you disagree feel free to revert. As to where they should go and how they should be presented -- you've got a good eye for design, and I trust your judgement. --Arcadian 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work. I'm having trouble with the layout, but I'm still trying some things (User:Meegs/NFL_Player_Sandbox). Given that we're not a link farm, I'm trying to optimize for zero, one, or two links. ×Meegs 20:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just noticed -- if you look at the codes for Tony Wragge, the ESPN code and Sports Illustrated code are the same. Considering that they're rivals and therefore unlikely to cross liscence, there must be some standard external numbering system that they both consent to. Interesting. --Arcadian 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too. It's probably because they both buy their stats from the same service. Better to keep them as separate fields, though, so that we can wipe them out individually in case one of them changes their system. ×Meegs 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article (Indian Mound Park) this morning. Just a couple of lines. Because some references pointed to no where. I do not know a lot about it. I picked up a few lines on the web. I am just curious to know how you could find so fast there was a new article needing clean up ? ... just curious .. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OC (talk • contribs) 12:59, 2006 January 9 (UTC)

I found it because someone (User:Localzuk) put it in Category:Articles that need to be wikified because it did not have any links going to other articles. They also indicated that some of the claims in the article needed citation, and that's what I've been working on. I guess what you really want to know is, how did Localzuk find your article? Probably, they found it because they were monitoring Special:Recentchanges – there's a link to it in the left column under the spherical Wikipedia logo. There's a large group of volunteers called the RC patrol that spend a lot of time looking for vandalism, but they'll also categorize good contributions (like yours) that need something, like "wikification", so that others can find them and help-out. If you have any more info about Indian Mound Park, please continue to add to the article. I sure haven't had much luck finding anything about it. ×Meegs 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very complete answer and for your welcome message in my page. I am learning. Have a nice day --OC 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in English, people's names (and all proper names) are capitalized, without exception. Re: [1] Keep up the good work. ×Meegs 00:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I'm an indifferent capitalist on typing, and it may be PoV ... but when I don't give capitals, it usually means I don't regard the noun as a proper name, or the designee as a proper person. I can be mean like that --Svartalf 00:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no POV judgement to be made, all proper nouns (and words derived from proper nouns) are capitalized. Peoples' names are always proper nouns, so John, John Milius, Milius-like, etc., are all capitalized. It doesn't matter in what sense you are referring to them, or whether they are important or not. Here is a really nice page with examples for each category of word that requires capitalization. There are also some English-specific links at the bottom of Capitalization. ×Meegs 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've replied to you at my talk page, feel free to remove this message once you've seen it. --Qirex 07:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you on my talk page again Cheers, Qirex 07:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a flower for you for being helpful and nice and even offering to help me fix up my own mistakes :) Qirex 08:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the formatting, Meegs. It looks great and they all match now. Just wanted to drop a note. Not bad for a Patriot fan... Bill shannon 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill. My support falls to the Steelers for the rest of the season. ×Meegs 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the honor of being the one to kill off that category, I appreciate it. So what other categorization work needs to be done? I'll try to do what I can, but since law school's started up again I don't have as much Wikitime as I used to (though I wish I did). Anthony 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have asked ;) ×Meegs 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think linking me to a page called "Workaholic" misses the point. I'm obviously doing this because I'm trying to AVOID work.

I sure do like penguins, though.--Mike Selinker 23:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I', must have missed something here - how is the progressive rock album category redundant. If you are recategorising everything under the groups albums then that implies all the albums by the group are Progressive, it also may implies that no albums by any one else may be categorised this way. As I say I might have missed something I don't understand that you are doing. PLease get back to me :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every single article in Category:Gentle Giant albums was also in Category:Progressive rock albums, so I simply including the former category in the later one. Note that each of the albums is still in Category:Progressive rock albums, they're just another layer deeper in the category. As categories (like Category:Progressive rock albums) grow large, their effectiveness diminishes, so it's worth subcategorizing like this whenever possible. I would not have been able to made the change if the band's albums had been listed in a variety of genre categories. ×Meegs 17:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so let's just be clear this is only done if ALL a musciain of group's output is progressive rock, other wise they are entered individually. Also other artists that may only have a small portion of even one album of there output as progressive would be put in here? If so that seems ok. Just a bit of a pain is an artist has and progressive output of 20 or 30 albums and then puts out a rockabilly standard cover album! what a lot of work to regig things. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally try and steer clear of the genre minefield. I'm only for subcategorization like this if all or next-to-all of the albums are in a single genre, but some others might have lower standards. For me, it's mostly a practical issue: If we dumped-out all of the subcategories into Category:Progressive rock albums, we'd have hundreds of albums there (including 75 from Category:Frank Zappa albums) and no one would use the category for discovering new articles. I'd probably be willing to have that single rockabilly album grandfathered into the wrong category (it alone could also be put in the correct genre category too), but it would definitely bother me too. Having the band's category included in the the genre category also gives the impression that they are a major contributor to the genre (at least in terms of volume), and makes them easy to find. ×Meegs 18:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see all of Heep's been Prog Rock. I mean, sure the first few were but classing Firefly_(album) as Prog Rock seems weird. It's more Poppy. Duckpatch 13:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can add that album to a different genre's category or change the stub type if you like. Removing Category:Uriah Heep albums‬ from Category:Progressive rock albums is a serious step that would muddy the genre categories, though; I'd suggest you wait until you're a little more familiar with Wikipedia before advocating that. ×Meegs 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love seeing you add more and more to the Heep section so keep it up. If you want me to do the rest then edit my work just give me the word :). You wouldn't happen to have any bootlegs on you? ;) Just wondering why we have to use Demons_&_Wizards_(Uriah_Heep_album)? Duckpatch 12:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the band Demons & Wizards — who I've never heard of, but have a sizable following — had that name previously. Since neither the band or the album overwhelms the other's notability, it'd probably be best to make Demons and Wizards into a disambiguation page. I don't really care enough to do it, though; no matter what, the album's article is still going to be called Demons & Wizards (Uriah Heep album). ×Meegs 13:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I'll leave for now but I was wondering if we should do this like they have done for Jethro_Tull page? Gives the choise of the inventor and the band. Duckpatch 13:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for your excelent work in wikipedia. Prof. Carlos Nemer is very popular around here (Rio de Janeiro--Brazil), sometimes he can be a little hard but some other times he is loved by everybody. Recently he lectured at Princeton University. Maybe the university lists are not very updated but I am sure Prof. Carlos Nemer will allways be remembered by his students, in fact I was very happy when I saw his name in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.227.158 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right, early on I did try to improve the article and save it from deletion. After the article's claims were called into doubt, though, I didn't vote to keep it. I'm not supporting this version either unless someone can produce some proof that the person really exists. ×Meegs 09:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs ! Please understand that we are in the middle of a big summer around here (Rio de Janeiro) and everybody is on vacation... Meanwhile some references for prof. Carlos Nemer´s work (more will come with time) can be found in this address: http://www.eng.uerj.br/deptos/profs.php?id=dein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.227.158 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the participants in this AfD are supporting deletion because the new article, Carlos E. Nemer, does not meet WP's guidelines for notability (people). The original article that was deleted in December, Carlos E Nemer, claimed that he had written many books on many different subjects. If that's true, I suggest you add their titles (with references so that they can be verified) to the new article immediately. I also suggest you create an account (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?) and participate directly in the AfD discussion; I know it can be intimidating, but the people there will listen and change their position if you can make an objective case for the subject's notability. ×Meegs 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written articles about university professors come through AfD pretty frequently. If you are not able to establish his notabilty though his books or some other way, do not be offended when the page is deleted. It's not a personal judgement on the subject or the author of the article. ×Meegs 18:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It´s not a matter of him being offended (I don´t know if he (prof.Carlos Nemer) knows he has a wikipedia article). The question is the person exists, he is a notable in his country in his way (some references for prof. Carlos Nemer´s work (more will come with time) can be found in this address: http://www.eng.uerj.br/deptos/profs.php?id=dein) the question is: is Wikipedia really Universal ? Can you acept notable people that "are not in the Enciclopedia Britanica" ? How large is your original project and how degraded it is by now ? Why do you need so many details from a professor that works only for non profitable organizations (federal and state universities in Brazil are totaly free) with bad and not up-dated computer-servers ? I think it is time to open your minds and start to give some chance to outstanding people even if they do not for some how meet your standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.227.158 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right or wrong, these are the guidelines for including biographical articles in Wikipedia, at least for right now. Seriously, follow the advice from my previous post. ×Meegs 13:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E pur si muove! Carlos Vieira

Hi there! I just wanted to point out that you forgot to leave a signature after your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam in South Africa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.. I'm sure you know that lack of a signature can lead to your argument being discounted by the closing admin, and just wanted to drop a note in case you wanted to go back and fix that. -Rebelguys2 03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Thanks. ×Meegs 09:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your kind comment on this article's Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 19:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing about colleges, that isn't the same for the NFL: Quite often, there's only one coach who has an article. So we'll be creating a lot of categories with only one member. But sure, we could do that. We'd be emptying Category:College football coaches of individuals, then?--Mike Selinker 19:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my method probably would be to make the category upon finding the first member. I'm on the fence, maybe even leaning slightly against it, but as I said, I don't like plopping the assistant linebackers coach from 1977 into Category:USC Trojans football either. Here's a tangential issue: Let's say someone coached at East-Central Montana A&M Junior College before landing the job at Notre Dame; should they stay in Category:College football coaches even through they're in Category:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football coaches? ×Meegs 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, I'm an inclusionist. I figure if someone's looking for info about Notre Dame, they might want to know that Willie W. Willieson was assistant linebacker coach for the Irish. So in my mind, he gets into that category. On the other subject, we could create a "Football coaches from small colleges" article for those looking for ECMA&MJC. Is it worth it? Probably not. I think everyone in the College football coaches category now will be going into at least one major program category, and that's good enough for me.--Mike Selinker 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while we're doing this, we should make sure to check out whether these coaches played college ball anywhere, and give them appropriate categories for that.--Mike Selinker 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, most of them did — and most of them have been missed by our previous efforts. I've always added the full complement of player cats to coaches, I'm just disappointed that I didn't take the opportunity to do the opposite. So what are you saying, should we make cats for the coaches of the 170 "big time" schools as we find the first member, or stockpile them on a list (and in the program's cat) until there are 2 or 3? I agree with you and don't want to make a list like we did for players, especially since coaches often got their start at smaller schools than NFL players. That's question one. Question two, that I asked before: can we remove let's say an Idaho and Notre Dame coach from Category:College football coaches when he's put into Category:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football coaches? ×Meegs 20:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also what about coaches that never coached at one of the "big 170" (like if Willie went from ECMA&M to the NFL, which does happen, or to fame outside of football). Do we need to keep Category:College football coaches open for them? We banned individuals from Category:College football players, but there we have the list. ×Meegs 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of questions. I think if we're going to do this, we should be consistent. So I suggest that a coach should get categories for all schools for which we've done football categories, and then should be removed from the main category. If a coach still doesn't move out of that category after that process, we should either do a football category for his school or create a side article or category for it. But he shouldn't stay in College football coaches. Still, this might end up being a totally theoretical debate. Keep a note for side cases and we'll deal with them at the end.--Mike Selinker 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not theoretical, because I just noticed we have an article on John Gagliardi. That guy deserves a category.--Mike Selinker 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there are others too. It bothers me, removing someone that coached at Vermont and Michigan and ND from the general coaches category just because they're in the ND-specific coaches category, but I could go along with it in practice if we have 170 potential school categories. If we do that, there will probably only be about 5 or 10 or 20 coaches that still need to be in Category:College football coaches — and I wouldn't mind leaving them there. They might attract a few others periodically, but that's not too bad. So, in examples, the proposal is

• A coach for {Vermont, Notre Dame, UTEP} goes under ND and UTEP only
• A coach for {Vermont, Notre Dame} goes under ND only
• A coach for {Vermont, Notre Dame, Jets} goes under ND and Jets only
• A coach for {Vermont, Jets} goes under Jets and Category:College football coaches
• A coach for {Vermont} goes under Category:College football coaches

And none of the "big 170" football categories, nor NFL team categories, should have any coaches in them (unless they also held some other important post). ×Meegs 21:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solid. Let's do it.--Mike Selinker 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's done. As predicted, we have 4 stragglers. Leave 'em alone? Make new categories? Also, are we clearing out Category:National Football League coaches? And further also, what do you want to do about the AFL coaches? People like Weeb Ewbank may need separate categories, but I'm not sure where you want those to feed into.--Mike Selinker 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll leave you alone!. Seriously, wow, you did that quickly. I say leave those four stragglers where they are. I've been crawling up and down the succession boxes of NFL head coaches for the last few days, putting them in all of the NFL and college cats at the same time, but haven't covered nearly the ground you have. And yeah, there's no doubt that we should clear out Category:National Football League coaches the same way.

Weeb Ewbank goes in Category:Baltimore Colts coaches and Category:New York Jets coaches. The AAFC/NFL Colts should get a cat when we come across their coaches, though. He didn't coach the NY Titans, but I'm receptive to making a category for them and the Jets (AFL), if anyone wants. Older names, unlike recent short-lived ones like Tennessee Oilers, might be pretty sparse for coaches though. ×Meegs 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you'd like with the AFL guys; I'm no expert on that era, and you guys seem to have it under control. The NFL coaches should be easily cleared out now that all the categories are established.--Mike Selinker 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know the first thing about the AFL either. I'm not really even that big a football fan, much less a historian. I posted to the project talk page, so hopefully Anthony will weigh-in on the matter. ×Meegs 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate that category. But it's there, and I'm not going to argue that it should go away. I do think that the special teams category is nonsense, but I can't argue that there are some people whose job it is to return punts.--Mike Selinker 06:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coaches are all yours. :^)--Mike Selinker 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:MOSDATE#Dates_of_birth_and_death. Thanks. -- User:Docu

The point is that all dates, even solitary years, should be linked if they're the date of birth or death in a biographical article. That's what those examples demonstrate, even though it contradicts the instruction prose above it. I see I missed the recent discussion. ×Meegs 21:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the years at least in the intro. The samples have been there for quite some time, not so the instruction prose though. BTW recently, there were various debates and dramas about linking, not-linking, delinking and not-delinking solitary years. -- User:Docu

I've seen a number of those too. The status quo (that incomplete dates are rarely linked unless they're a DOB/D) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I'm not going to rock that boat. The bigger problem is that there is no prose anywhere, that I can find, that explains the DOB exception to the rule. ×Meegs 16:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still kinda trying to get the hang of things. As you probably guessed from reading the article I wrote, Michael went to my college and we're all pretty psyched about having him in the NFL. I think I remained objective, though. I'm not sure what the four tildes deal is, but I'm gonna try it here. Tromboneguy0186 09:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you're thinking about objectivity, but there are no problems there; you did a great job. I especially like the section about his 58-yard field goal.×Meegs 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were active on a bunch sports pages. My friends and I started a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles. The site is ArmchairGM. We're not "officially" launching until March 6th, but you can feel free to poke around and add content. Let me know if you have any questions.--Awrigh01 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what happened to the cover for Fallen Angel and also what does '(bypassed Uriah Heep disambiguation page)' mean?--duckpatch

• I looked through the history, and it looks like Fallen Angel (album) never had a image. You can upload one if you want.
• That was the edit summary I used when I was going though all of the links to Uriah Heep and changing them to either Uriah Heep (fictional character) or Uriah Heep (band).

×Meegs 08:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK and do you mind if I change the main picture for the band which has Gypsy? We need to do lineup timeline aswell!! --duckpatch

I don't understand. What do you want to change it to? I put-up the Easy Livin' single because it has a good group picture of the band's classic lineup, but we can change if you have something better in mind (so long as it's fair use). ×Meegs 08:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs. I wrote "Brief interventions' from material on my website, to which I hold copyright. Therefore, there is no copyright violation in "Brief interventions."David Justin

I'm replying at talk:Brief interventions. ×Meegs 19:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs-

I've requested permissin from Dr. Kilmer and have also sent him a copy of the Discussion Page so he can understand the reason for my request. I'm Professor Emeritus at SUNY Potsdam; Dr. Kilmer is at the University of Washington and Evergreen State College. I met him professionally at alcohol research conferences and asked to interview him on my website Alcohol: Problems and Solutiions because he is one of the leading researchers and experts on the subject of brief interventions.David Justin 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks a lot! ×Meegs 22:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs-

No need to apologize. I've had some incredible difficulty with people who repost material (including typos!) from my website and then deny that they have done so.David Justin 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs - hey....its a spirited discussion. I enjoyed answering your very-valid questions. You can't make policy without working together. Thank you for your input. Listen, if you do feel its a good idea, can you please say so on the talkpage, or else I'll never gather the consensus for this to work. The topic's open as long as its open, so please feel free to help out anytime. Rama's Arrow 21:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs. Thanks for your response about my query about notability.I think you are right-there can be no objective parematers about notability but I think there is a general consensus about certain achievemnets which would make a person natable-Nobel Awards,Pulitzer Awrds and according to your own Wkipedia Fellowship of American Academy of Arts and Sciences.I was concerned about this particaular instance as there were two problems-there apparently was ome concern as this person's namesake had some very unpleasant antecedants.This lead to two votes for deletion.When it was established that this person was different there was another vote for deletion claiming that he was not notable enough although his Fellowship of the American Academy was verified.There was only one vote for retention and those who had voted for deletion resulting from an unfortunate coincidence of similarity of names did not get a chance to retract.I am not requesting restoration but this is a problem that I think needs to be addressed-those voting should not be in a hurry to vote as there may be namesakes and some achivements do not invite any dispute over notability.Anil Kumar 24th Feb.2006

It's good to hear from you. Three things:

1. It sounds like this article had a rough time on Articles for deletion, but you seem to be avoiding telling me the name of the article in question. That's fine, if you just want to move-on, but if you want to tell me the title, I'll look into what happened. If there was confusion between two subjects with the same name, and critical votes were cast before the confusion was cleared up, then there are probably grounds to bring that case to Deletion review and have the issue relisted. AFD is supposed to function like a discussion, not a vote, and off-topic opinions are usually discarded by the closing admin, but mistakes happen sometimes.
2. You said on the other page that you were worried that articles you're planning to write might be similarly deleted. University professors are deleted quite frequently when their articles don't prominently discuss contributions to their field. Also, it is probably the case that simple membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is not sufficient for inclusion, but I suspect that many-most-or-all of its members have achievements in research that do merit their inclusion. Check WP:BIO and WP:N, and look for similar subjects that we currently have articles for. I'm also happy to give you my opinion on any potential article's subject.
3. You should consider creating an account and logging in to Wikipedia. Right or wrong, people here are suspicious and critical of contributions that come from anonymous users (in part because that's the group responsible for most of the vandalism), and give their comments less consideration in discussions. There are also lots of other advantages (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?).

Let me know if I can help you with anything else. ×Meegs 12:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs.Thanks for your most helpful comments.I am new to Wiki and found them most encouraging.I shall certainly create an account today. Indeed the article had a rough time.The worst part of it was that it concerned one of my teachers who was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences after writing a stellar book on Neuroses.I tried to impress upon the person who had initiated vote for deletion of the merits only to be called a self-seeking vanitarian!!.By the time I became aware of the problems,two votes had already been cast as the name resembled another person with not so savoury antecedants.Another person got into action and cleared it up establishing that there were two people with the same name but then the person who had called for deletion declared that he did not think the person was notable.I am easy and am not asking for restoration as I may be accused of being a vanitarian again just by the fortunate coincidence of being this person's student and would like it to leave it to others if they feel any merit.Thanks once again for the encouraging words. Anil Kumar 25th Feb.2006

Sounds good. Once you register, try working on some existing articles, or creating ones that aren't right near WP's notability threshold. Once you have a little more experience, you may want to revisit this professor's article. Good luck, and welcome. ×Meegs 06:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC]

Thanks once again for your encouraging words.As you can see I have registered as vr.Just to sus out,I had included my suggestions in the Crietri a for notability of academics.To my surprise,I received a response which supported my view.In fact on browsing,I found that Fellowship of the American academy of Arts and Sciences is one of the mosr prestigious honors in the world.I am hopeful that someone other than myself would take the issue up. Thanks once again for your encouragement. vr 28th Feb.2006

hi meegs. ive just readded the note whioch you took out about stubs on Wikipedia:Articles for creation. the reason that is there is explained at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation#stubbing. its annoying having to remove stub templates from so many not-yet-articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation every day - since putting in the 'please dont' note the number had drooped away no nearly zero. now theyre reappearing again. please leave that message there! BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused about who that message is addressing – you want to tell it to the people submitting the AFC, but you've put the requenst in the section giving instructions to the people fulfilling the requests. I'm giving a fuller response on the talk page. ×Meegs 07:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was just wondering if I put the AfD up what people's thoughts would be on the deletion of the article. Tom Hawkins, if you look at the history, used to be an entirely differnet article, on an Australian rules football player who is yet to be drafted into the Australian Football League. It was deleted and redirected into something entirely different. If that article is deleted, than surely there can't be double standards and Rudy Gay will have to be deleted, if you understand what I'm saying. Rogerthat ^Talk 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you on your talk page, the article was not deleted: no content was lost, and, if you want, you can revert it back to the way it was. User:Harro5's actions, redirecting a page with long history, were a bit heavy-handed, but I suggest you wait for their response to your inquiry before doing anything. There are any number of outcomes to this conflict, and even the worst still requires Tom Hawkins (the football player) going though AfD and getting a lot of attention. And AfDing basketball player Rudy Gay is not going to help – again, I suggest you drop that. ×Meegs 11:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough mate, it seems that User:Harro5 has a vendetta against Australian rules players - recently he has vandalised and deleted massive chunks of articles (see Chris Judd as one of the many examples), citing "non-NPOV". Now that would be fair if he took steps to improve the article but he is simply deleting everything and offering no help whatsoever. Rogerthat ^Talk 08:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message for Harro5, proposing some solutions to the Tom Hawkins issue. I looked at the Chris Judd article though, and don't see any evidence that he (you said he, right?) has a vendetta against Australian rules players – if he did, he wouldn't be working so hard improving the formatting and removing speculation and some really strong POV from the article (e.g. a remarkable young athlete, Chris Judd was seemingly destined for great things). These nicknames you added really did not belong either. Maybe this one big reversion removed some valuable information along with the POV, but you can always revise and re-add those bits. He may be rubbing you the wrong way, but it looks to me like each of his edits are, all things considered, steps foreword. However you feel, though, don't accuse him of vansalism. I'd be happy to look at any specific edits if you want a third opinion, but you're probably better-off asking him if you want his rationale. ×Meegs 11:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I did not add anything to that article. Certainly not those nicknames you claim O_o I am not some hooligan who adds idiotic comments such as those, I totally understand the NPOV issues but think Harro5 should take the steps to improve them rather than just cutting out everything in sight. Rogerthat ^Talk 11:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, sorry, you're right, it was the editor before you that added the nicknames. And you're right, the ideal thing to do is to try to revise and neutralize POV when you come across it, but when there's a big section of it in an article, as there was in this case, removing the whole block is still a step forward. Even if you disagree, you have to concede that the edit was made in good faith and is not vandalism. And remember, the removed text isn't lost, and portions of it can easily be revived from the history. ×Meegs 11:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the Tom Hawkins article is just WP:SNOW. Look at a similar recent case: Adrian Khoo was a student in Australia who won a big award at secondary school, but hadn't achieved anything. I state my view cleary in this comment about the issue of Tom Hawkins, and Rogerthat has forgotten my contributions to Australian football articles in the past - see my contribs, and what he has said to me in the past [2] [3]. An AfD has now been opened; that should provide a definitive end. Thanks for your help. Harro5 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, Harro5, there are at least two people that will strongly argue to keep it, so I think the AfD is worthwhile. Here's your chance, Rogerthat: fix up the article as best you can (advice – trim it way down and make his notability clear) and make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Hawkins. Good luck. ×Meegs 11:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've run out of ideas on this talk page. Want to weigh in?--Mike Selinker 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs. Thanks for the helpful guidance as well as the improvements you've made to "Brief Intervention Techniques"David Justin 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you might be interested if I could nominate you for adminship, you do great work around here especially with the football players articles, participate in AFD, work on categories etc and adminship status can help out and you do have plenty of edits for it. Reply in my Talk page, Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I created it Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Meegs go on and accept. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first AfC, I wasn't totally sure of procedure :) -- Tawker 12:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You may not know the Flann O'Brien story about the policeman who turned into his bicycle. I had fondly hoped that I was assimilating my laptop electron by electron but perhaps the reverse has actually been happening? Daisy, daisy, give me your answ... fading off into silence like HAL. Dlyons493 Talk 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh, very good! I haven't, but really should read that book, The Third Policeman. ×Meegs 21:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Though it is kind of silly I can't even create my own user page. :) 68.84.34.154 13:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to clear-out your old IP's user and talk page; who knows who'll be using it next. Do you want me to move User talk:68.81.231.127 to User talk:68.84.34.154/archive or something similar? You could do a cut-and-paste, but a move would preserve the history. Also, I just made you a user page, so we should probably blank the old one, or have it deleted. In any case, let me know if I can help you with any registered-user kind of stuff. ×Meegs 13:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. If you're really feeling inspired, you could even move Talk:Ramy Brooks over to Ramy Brooks :). --68.84.34.154 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I took care of Ramy Brooks and moved your old talk page to User talk:68.84.34.154/68.81.231.127 Archive. I'm just going to blank the old user page, but I'll list it for deletion if you prefer. ×Meegs 17:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. Redirects mean all the links out there can find their way home. Thanks again. --68.84.34.154 17:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you restored the redirects. That's fine, just keep an eye out for new users on the old IP, and clear-out if one shows-up. ×Meegs 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else has ever edited from that address. It's more likely my ISP will reassign it to me :). 68.84.34.154 18:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder; I don't frequent the article requests and couldn't find the instructions I'd looked at last time I created one for someone -- do you happen to know where those are at? I googled the text quite extensively and checked the sources -- it appears quite a bit better than the previous one and the editor has been in contact with the OTRS helpdesk a few times, so hopefully understands our copyright requirements a bit better. I'll keep an eye on it though. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:AFC, the section is called "Fulfilling requests", and is located right below "Recently created articles". The layout of the page is definitely oriented towards the submitters, but we're still working on it, so if you have any suggestions ... ×Meegs 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why the Sports Illustrated magazines that I have uploaded are not allowed but the John Brodie cover is (I'm guessing) allowed since it was uploaded in January and nothing has been done to it. Also the Walter Payton cover too, which you uploaded. --Phbasketball6 23:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're all in the same boat, and I didn't say they're not allowed. I'm taking this back to your talk page, since most of this discussion has taken place there. ×Meegs 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On The Rules, I changed the book reference you put there. Articles should not link directly to Amazon entries. Instead, give the bibliographic details of the book, and end the entry with the characters "ISBN", a space, and then the ISBN number (which is shown in the Amazon entry). Example: ISBN 0446518131. The Wiki software automagically turns this into a special link, which takes you to a page where you can find libraries and booksellers (including Amazon) that carry that book. This way, we don't end up "endorsing" Amazon over other retailers, and everybody can find the most convenient source of the book for their own country.--Srleffler 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually an article from WP:AFC, and I kept the Amazon link around only because the submitter listed it as their source. All the changes you made are great, though. Thanks. ×Meegs 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that those images are copyrighted and not subject to fair use. Images are tagged inappropriately all the time around here. Sports card images should be removed on sight. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always though so, but there was some doubt and opinion to the contrary floating around. It's good to have it codified now. ×Meegs 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wonder why I inserted a sort of legalese paragraph after your reply to the Argentine anon user IP 200.*.*.*, who wants to create new articles, it's a long story consequence of months of particular behavior. His long silicon trail is better discussed by private email you can send me from my talk page. Jclerman 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I was considering challenging your post by pointing-out that the obstacles to attaining permission are not quite that high, but I'll trust your handling of the situation. ×Meegs 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jclerman is trustable at all. That's why I challenged him to do the work. --200.43.201.77 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I looked at Kyle Boller and saw the same. SushiGeek 02:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like you to tell me why we can do it on Kyle Boller and not Bryan Barker. SushiGeek 01:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we can't keep the Boller image either. I'd previously tagged it {{fairusedisputed}}, but I just now changed the tag to {{no license}} and notified the uploaded. ×Meegs 01:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 03:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your RFA --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for your successful RFA. Thanks anyway. :) --Terence Ong 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Personalized RfA thank you messages? how uncommon and delightful!! Congratulations, I'm sure you'll make a fine admin.--Alhutch 07:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're doin' fine. keep up the good work :-)--Alhutch 08:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations!! And thank you for the personalized message! Mushroom (Talk) 10:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations Meegs, good luck --Ugur Basak 10:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats on the RfA, and thanks for the personalised RfA message! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 11:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats! You deserve this and good luck for the future! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-11 21:08Z

Your thank you spam said "if there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask". Well, there is something I need help with. I'm trying to get the Wikipedia:Tip of the day project back up and running, and to do that, we need lots of tips. It would be fantastic if you could write down your favorite techniques as tips and submit them as tips of the day. Come check us out. --Go for it! 08:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'm drawing a blank on new ideas at the moment, but I'll try to help-out in other ways. ×Meegs 12:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I think you were already doing an incredible job. Good luck.Mikereichold 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment moved from top of page

And who are you to decide which copyright I own and which I don't? Don't bother to answer, I've already had enough of Wikipedia. Goodbye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isabellotje (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Unless you represent Metal Management, Norway, the copyrights are not yours to release, and the material can not be added to the article. I also want very much to expand Hensley's article, so please let me know if you have any more questions. ×Meegs 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Well done. Don't know if you like to consider what to do about Thomas-Trevorrow? It's had a short tangled history and I'd speedy it myself except that looks futile. Much too complex for me - I don't understand the sort of antics you humans get up to! Dlyons493 Talk 20:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and done. What a mess that was. ×Meegs 02:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best wish.--Jusjih 06:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was a little tired when I did that, you're right, I'll do it in the future. Silly squidward crashing my bot and making me have to fix the darn thing! -- Tawker 09:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GDFL.

Hi:

I noticed you were active on many baseball pages on Wikipedia. My friends and I are starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles, as well as regular encyclopedic entries. It also has a database where you can display statistics for any baseball player since 1871. If you’re interested in it, check it out at http://www.armchairgm.com. Here's the MLB page: http://www.armchairgm.com/mwiki/index.php?title=MLB. And here's the link to learn about the stats section: http://www.armchairgm.com/mwiki/index.php?title=Help:Baseball_Statistics

Thanks --Roblefko 02:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your adminship Meegs. I'm currently sending you (and in fact all recently promoted admins) a quick request to use your new admin powers to assist in an important area: deleting images that have been tagged as having no source information after 7 days. The category is at Category:Images with unknown source. Most of the images have been removed from articles, but some may have been skipped. It would be fantastic if you could assist in this matter! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...you deserved one too. So here's a Running Man's Barnstar for you, for working with me and others on many, many sports categories. Soon the world will be put in tiny little boxes of our making.--Mike Selinker 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for what I'm working on, nothing too interesting right now. I've been making sure everything I can think of in category:Fictional locations has a home, so there's lots of new categories there. Plus I started a lot of activity over at category:American Hockey League players and category:American Hockey League teams, which could eventually lead to every NHL player getting his AHL teams listed. But not yet. Mostly I've been thinking about proposing something I'm calling the "Great Category Shift," which would give every article a category of the "(X) (Y)" model ("Canadian rivers," "Washington Redskins players"). When I get some time to put that together, I'll give it to you to play with before it goes live.--Mike Selinker 06:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello there, you can call me Allan in the future if you remember, it rather weirds me out to be called by my user name since it's sort of contrived, but that's neither here nor there. Since it's been decided that those images are copyright violations and not proper fair use claims, I'm gonna go ahead and delete them. You're right, doesn't seem to be any sense in tagging and waiting 7 days when they've been removed from the articles already. I will commence with the deletion now. let me know if anyone that you know of suddenly decides to object or if there is a big problem with deleting them. see you around, Alhutch 05:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they're all gone, making red links of your impressive matrix of o's. let me know if anything crops up regarding these or anything else. keep up the good work, --Alhutch 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done, and done. and thanks for calling me Allan :-) Alhutch 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zanimum. There are two more of these Image:Quarto v002 nl.pdf & Image:Quarto v002 it.pdf, but all three are on the commons under identical names. How about we delete all three WP versions and let the commons versions show through? ×Meegs 13:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing that out! -- Zanimum 13:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the note about civility regarding my comments: I meant what I said in the comment. And no, it had nothing to do with me personally; it was just yet another (of hundreds? thousands?) of anonymous IP users who, if you bother to look through their history, do nothing for the most part but fuck up pages here. So I stand by my comment that they're shitheads. Not only that; most of you (meaning busybodies like yourself who supposedly try to minimize stuff like this ) are pussies. I see almost no action taken against such gross violators as these. Why not just shut them the hell down?

I think it's comical how you'll see a page full of nice, polite boilerplate messages: "Thanks for your efforts at editing." "Your experiment worked." "Please use the sandbox." Do you actually think these have any good effect? If the person ever even reads these (which in most cases is doubtful, which makes this whole discussion rather inane and pointless), they probably crack up when they do. That's what vandals do.

But thanks for sharing that with me. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your warning, if it's as effective as those I've seen left on vandal's talk pages, I'm none too worried. Doesn't it bother you that there are pages and pages full of warnings on hundreds? thousands? of anonymous IP talk pages, which result in what? at best, an occasional short period of banning? Meanwhile, the users of those addresses are free to spew whatever crap they feel like. And consider the result: yes, I've heard that lame argument that while there is lots of vandalism here, it is (usually) quickly reverted. But think about it: even it that's true, it still means that a very great number of pages here are defaced to the viewer for a significant amount of time, before someone gets a chance to fix it. Do you really consider this to be "encyclopedic"? Give me a fucking break!

In the meantime, until someone (like the Übermenschen Jimbo Wales, say) decides to get serious about this problem, I'll consider all the nicey-nice admonitions and warnings about vandalism to be mostly a lot of idle talk. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You're right of course. I prodded then noticed that tags had already been removed so moved to AfD - but I should have de-prodded. Dlyons493 Talk 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]