User talk:LibraryLion/Archive 2

Babe Ruth Called Shot copyright claim

Library Lion,

The Wikimedia Help Desk has received an e-mail from Kirk M. Kandle claiming copyright on this image.

I am the owner of the still photo of Babe Ruth. My copyright notice is not published on the page in Wikipedia. I must insist that this be corrected immediately or removed from the page. The copyright notice should be included with the visible photo, not as a separate item.

It should read: Copyright © Kirk M. Kandle, all rights reserved. Also, please include a link to www.thecalledshot.com.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this.

I will make the following changes to the Babe Ruth article accordingly. Well done on that article by the way. Capitalistroadster 09:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Baseball on Wikicities

Hello LibraryLion, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something because of all your work on the Babe Ruth article. 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 great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Image listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:YankeesGiants1921.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

Admrboltz (T | C) 05:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Length of Babe Ruth Article

As I'm sure you've seen, I've gone through the entire Babe Ruth article and made many minor edits throughout the entire article. That is the *longest* article I've ever read on Wikipedia! Having said that, I don't know why anyone is complaining about its length. I wouldn't want to throw away any of the text, and I wouldn't want to see the article broken up into tiny pieces just to make each page smaller. I think it's an excellent article.

Having said that, it does read more like a biography than an encyclopedia entry. For example, extensively listing statistics at nearly every turn (and for every year of his career as you go along) is not really necessary. It would be better to break out the statistics to a separate entry that could then be linked to from this article. Also, a great deal of the information that adds color and life to the article (a good thing, to me) really don't relate strictly to the subject at hand. In that way, it seems more like a magazine feature piece than a scholarly article. I can certainly see the value of having a much shorter summary article, with this article as a deeper reference, as others have mentioned.

How would something like that work within the Wikipedia structure? Creating a summary from the main Babe Ruth article is something I would find interesting: I love ripping things apart!  :) Is this something that would be valuable to pursue? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. If you'd prefer to communicate via e-mail, please use the link found on my user page and I will e-mail you my address.

Tmassey 20:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles Marion Russell

Terribly sorry about the revert, I was looking through the history of a serial vandal and doing reverts to the previous versions before he had changed them- when I came upon his entry on this article, I reverted without double-checking the history and noting that it had been reverted and updated. Sorry for any inconvenience. I would appreciate it, however, if you did not presume that I was deliberately taking improved content away from the article, instead of trying to fix vandalism. If in my course of doing this I make a mistake, please just revert it to the correct version- it's certainly not intentional. Thank you. -Kuzaar 05:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and take care. I'll do my best. :) Kuzaar 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think your suggestions as to further cuts are right on. I'm also going to try your suggested arrangement of the section and see how it reads. If you don't object, I'd like to cut-and-paste the comments you left on my talk page into the discussion page for the rewrite, so that others can see them. Thanks for all your good work on this article. --djrobgordon 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the edit summary of your reversion on this article, your stated reason is that it needed style and grammatical edits. This may be true of the rewrite, but it's also true of the older version. I know, because I spent a lot of time cleaning them up. I inserted pronouns, fixed syntactical errors, and deleted a number of redundant wikilinks. By reverting my changes wholesale, rather than fixing the errors that I missed, you've made it necessary for someone to do that work over again.

You've also reinserted content that you admited was extraneous. I have no claim of ownership on this article, and you're free to add any content you wish. However, I think it would be less destructive to add said content without undoing all of the work I've put into the article.

Length continues to be an issue, and as of yet you're the only person to argue that it should stay so long. This was one of the major issues that kept Babe Ruth from attaining feature status, and has been brought up on the talk page by people other than myself.

When I posted the rewrite, I made every effort explain my edits, and to get feedback from yourself and from other editors. As a matter of fact, I took a good amount of the suggestions that were made. Also, you and any other editor on this site were free to edit the rewrite in any way you saw fit. The consensus was that the rewrite was an improvement, so I moved it to the mainspace. Because you expressed an interest in writing a more detailed comanion article, I did you the courtesy of moving the longer text to the Babe Ruth/rewrite so that it could be edited freely.

I'm going to revert the article to the final edit you made before reverting it. If there are issues you think need to be addressed (such as grammar and style), and you're not willing to address them, please post a message on Talk:Babe Ruth so that other editors can. Reverting the month's worth of work that I put into improving this article, throwing out the good along with the bad, in my opinions creates just as many problems as it solves. --djrobgordon 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

period/quote

I completely agree with you on the period-inside-quotation issue and I do exactly what you recommend in my own writing, but I also believe that following a style guide is important. Someone wrote WP:MOS long before I got here and I think it needs respect or chaos will result. In those cases where they allow variation (such as serial commas) I use my best judgment, but where their rules are firm, I grit my teeth and follow them. Perhaps if you feel strongly about this you can lead a discussion about the style guide and get this fixed or at least allow variation. Hal Jespersen 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed undone by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 22:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln/Kennedy

You did a cut and paste move to List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy, which is not how we move pages here. The proper way to do the move is to use the move button, which will bring the article's history and talk page with the article, and automatically create a redirect at the old page name. I have deleted the new article to open it up as a target for a proper move, which you are welcome to do, although it is often wise to discuss moves on the talk page to see if people are in agreement. Here is the text of the message you left on the now deleted talk page:

== Title Change ==

The New American Oxford Dictionary defines coincidence n. as "A remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent casual connection." Most the information in this article would not qualify as "remarkable.". So I have changed the article title from Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences to one that is more specific and accurate. --LibraryLion 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, NoSeptember ^talk 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you've done any cut and pastes in the past, let me know and I will fix them. NoSeptember ^talk 21:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)