User talk:Majorclanger

Welcome!

Hello, Majorclanger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Michael 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, please review and let me know what you think and if there are any other changes I can make to make this Wikipedia worthy.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist0012 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi, I understand your concerns regarding the neutrality of articles. However, what would the case be if I provided a source/reference for it? (because i've got tons of them).

Leave your opinion on this[1] matter if you are interested. It is basically about the term rugby super league being used as a disambiguation for all rugby competitions by that or a similar name. --Ehinger222 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've questioned the accuracy of this article from the first day it appeared. --Wordbuilder 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you added the article Howard McFarland Fish to the AfD listing but you didn't tag the article itself with {{subt:afd}} or create the AfD subpage. I've done those, but I'm not sure what your original deletion rationale was (though it's not a very well developed article, certainly, and is borderline non-notable?). You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard McFarland Fish. -- Mithent 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the page, if you have problems editing, please let me know and I'll add any edits you wish to make to the page. Nick 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indianapolis Colts. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Hut 8.5 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I award Majorclanger a Special Barnstar for helping me fight off vandalism on my userpage. Sljaxon 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sure, that's fine - that page gets a lot of childish vandalism, so I just assumed that it had been removed by somebody writing something and then not been restored properly. If you have doubts about it, then it's best to be sure and not have it at all. Thanks. Bob talk 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You edited TUGS. You edited the Jaguars. You like both American Football and TUGS? If so, you are my new best friend. C= --SteelersFan UK06 05:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page Humidity, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's do it again. And don't take offence, this was just a routine roll-back. Have a nice day. Martial BACQUET 14:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken, but the original message seems rather high-handed, especially given that it didn't apply to this situation. Majorclanger 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls go to the SSP report you filed and provide diffs to help the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the logs, that article is currently semi-protected until the 20th. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have been keeping an eye on Woodland Animations, which is good.

According to the ImDB page (linked from the article) the company was 'responsible', in some capacity, for a greater number of productions than are credited in WP. My particular 'interest' is in the Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends reference, which led to Woodland Animations being added to the 'Thomas' navigation template for some considerable time. (It has just been removed, hence my sudden interest!)

What reference material are you using to decide the inclusion/exclusion of productions? If the IMDB list is inaccurate, had you thought of requesting a change there? It would be useful to know if there is a genuine link between Woodland Animations and Thomas (or not), since as long as the IMDB reference exists, people will want to 'correct' the WP articles...

This discussion should, perhaps, be written on its talk page -- but I leave you to move/copy it if appropriate!

(For WP:THOMAS) -- EdJogg (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I should confess that I personally know very little about Woodland. I got dragged into monitoring it as one particularly persistent troll began attributing other series to Woodland (specifically some Smallfilms series, which I have a particular interest in). While fighting that battle, I tried to straighten out the series list, but found that there's not a lot of reliable info on the web about Woodland. I vaguely recall leaving "Thomas" intact due to the IMDB reference, though I don't consider IMDB to be particularly reliable in general. When another editor removed it, I was perfectly happy to go along. I can't categorically state that Woodland had nothing to do with it, but it's pretty clear that they were not the primary producers - if so, they would surely be on the credits. Also, the cited obituary for Ivor Wood lists "other successes" for Woodland, but doesn't mention "Thomas", which certainly would be considered more successful than some of the series listed (Bertha, Charlie Chalk, et. all.). There's also a Guardian story used as a reference for Ivor Wood that covers Woodland, and again does not mention "Thomas". It's all pretty circumstantial, and I know too well that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I've looked a fair bit for solid info linking Woodland to the first Thomas series, and finding none, can only conclude that any connection is tenuous at best. I don't know if that's much help to you, but hope so. And I apologize for that terrible five clause sentence above! Majorclanger (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've covered similar ground to me here, but it's good to have it confirmed. If we doubt the validity of the IMDB data, then it might be worth noting this on appropriate talk pages. If references come to light later, then it can be easily re-added. Thank you. EdJogg (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of courtesy, and on the off-chance that you are not watching Woodland Animations, thought I'd mention that I had copied our above conversation to Talk:Woodland Animations. The reason for this is two-fold: (i) it's The Right Place for the information (so I can easily refer to it later), (ii) I can take your talkpage off-watch for now (it's been a bit 'noisy' recently - nothing personal, you understand). Feel free to get in touch if you need some assistance with (eg) Smallfilms-related articles. Cheers EdJogg (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! I'm still watching Woodland, so all should be well. I've been using Huggle a bit, which has attracted the wrong (or is it right?) sort of vandal attention. Heck, if I didn't have to, I wouldn't watch my talk either! Majorclanger (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that Runs batted in is inherently plural, but the pluralization of the the abbreviation is RBIs not RBI. The URL http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/rbi.html explains it simply.

RBI is an acronym. The pluralization of acronyms is to add an S. To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Acronyms and initialisms are pluralized by adding -s or -es as with any other nouns (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006). As with other nouns, no apostrophe is used unless the form is a possessive."

I hope that makes sense, cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not want to get in an edit war, or whatever it is. The page is for the high school and the community, not for me -- and certainately not for you. Just curious, you have nothing better to do but go around all these wiki pages and correct grammaar/etc.? Must be nice.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karasbr136 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have zapped the ip you reported to AIV. I would comment that there seems to be a persistent vandal who targets childrens tv articles with difficult to spot changes. If a similar ip starts doing the same edits as the one I just blocked then you might have a returning vandal on your hands. In this case either check out WP:SSP for similar and report there if relevant, or comment at WP:ANI if it isn't obvious stuff that can be reported at AIV. Cheers, and keep up the good work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Enigma ^message 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!

Hi. I noticed that you added more to the Red Sox 2008 season. I figured that your a fan so please accept the invite. Any questions? Just ask on my talk page. Thanks.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user for 48 hours. I skipped it because it looked like a recreation of the stale report. I recommend you follow up with a an {{ipsock}} report since you have the context and knowledge. Thanks for your vigilance and sorry I let this one go on so long. Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps if you spent more time researching your opponents rather than just throwing the first lazy ass insult that pops into your head, then you would know I'm already planning on updating the articles AND be aware of why the page they presented us with won't be sufficent enough.

The main issue with what they typed is that you know some prick out there WILL delete it because of it's little relevency. In order the insure the words safety, we have to create articles for each episode one/many/all at a time there is no other faster way. I'd immediately help right now, but I'm stuck updating The Powerpuff Girls episodes. In the past few days I created all the articles you'd find on that page.

Oh, by the way, I'm doing that all ALONE. ANYONE feel free to chip in and HELP ME.

Maybe I will give a few article updates here and there but for now, POWERPUFF. That person's started you off, why don't you go add add more to his information?ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an "opponent" - I've never come across you before. I'm glad that you're planning to update the article, but you could express that in the page's talk in a more tactful manner. As it is, you come across like a petulant teenager with zero social skills. All I've seen from you is the resurrection of fifteen month old discussion threads with immediate insults followed by an additional insult directed at the guy who started to implement your suggestions. You need to spend some time reading the civility policy. Following it will make your life much easier in the long run.

The reason I won't add more to the Dora list it that I don't know anything about the series and don't particularly care to. I've never seen an episode and have only been watching the page because of its frequent vandalism by someone who also attacks pages on a couple of topics I do know about. Majorclanger (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tough. I AM a teenager! 16 to be exact. Tell you what, I won't use curse words in sentences directed at you again if you don't try to pull that sap "civil" rule into the mix. It's never made anyone into a pacifist overnight by just bringing it up in the conversation so there's no use trying it now. I'm at least an intermediate user now and surely already know about all that shit. (You didn't say you agreed yet...)

It doesn't matter what you do and/or don't know, just give me anything and I can work with it. What that other punk on the Dora talk page left for us is all fine and dandy for a start but like I mentioned, we need to create individual articles for each episode. I DON'T want to have to do all this work by myself.ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in turning you into a pacifist, but if you continue with the combative attitude, you'll find yourself with enforced vacations of growing length. Frankly, I could not care less if you curse at me or not - knock yourself out, but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Majorclanger (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude is not combative. It just seems like that because we aren't speaking in person and therefor can't indicate voice tones. There you go trying to mention consequences again as if I care. It doesn't extended vacation is the same thing as what you're doing now. (*hint, hint* NOTHING!)

I spent most of my last message trying to discuss to you what we are going to do about the episode articles and yet you haven't even bothered to stay on subject! You spent the entire response (a short one) trying to scold me!!! The thing is I haven't the patience to sit around and waste time discussing about something that could already be getting done. I tried this past few moments but, so far all I've deducted from this conversation is that I'm STILL very alone in improving these pages...ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good night, then, and good luck, but I have no idea what much of the previous post is supposed to mean. To clear up any ambiguity: apart from reverting vandalism and rudimentary grammar, spelling and writing issues, I won't be modifying any of the pages you've mentioned. Majorclanger (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Exasperated sigh* Well there's plenty of that to go around...ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, good night and good luck. Majorclanger (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I got the first episode article up, mainly because I was just watching it last night/this morning. The episode is El Dia De Las Madres the Mother's Day episode. What do you think of it? Are you finally going to help? I don't want to have to do all of this by myself.ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick peek and it needs some copy editing at least. I'll try to do that, but it probably won't be today. I'll leave any other comments after that. Majorclanger (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorclanger, per your request on WP:RFR, I have enabled your account with the rollback feature. Please read documentation on the tool, and remember that it is to be used for the removal of vandalism only—it must not be used to aid edit warring.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Anthøny 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will check it out. Just give me a few minutes to wrap up the report I am currently working. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I had already caught the fact that the link for 86.162.213.131 was really pointing to 83.71.101.29. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based off of DNS information, these addresses appear to be from three different countries:

• Limerick, Ireland:
  • 83.71.101.29 (talk · contribs)
  • 86.41.204.126 (talk · contribs)
• England, UK:
  • 86.162.213.131 (talk · contribs)
• New York City, USA:
  • 72.43.110.189 (talk · contribs)

Judging from the similar editing patterns of the two IPs from Limerick, I went ahead and blocked 86.41.204.126 for six hours based on the fact that it appears they are IP-hopping in order to avoid the block already levied against 83.71.101.29. In the meantime, I went ahead and semi-protected the articles in question. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help! Sock reports do not always get the attention they deserve and need at AIV due in part because AIV tends to work best on very straightforward vandalism reports. For future issues like this, you might have better luck with WP:SSP. Thanks again for your help in dealing with vandalism on Wikipedia! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Majorclanger. I just noticed your undo of an edit made by an IP to the Maya and Miguel article, where you took out some information on one of the characters. I have just reviewed the edit made by the IP and I consider it ok to leave there, but I am not gonna put it back without talking to you first so that I can ascertain why you removed the information in the first place. Would you please be kind enough to contact me via my user talk page and we can discuss it. Cheers! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Majorclanger. I follow up on a lot of the articles about kids tv, but having reviewed the IP edit, on second thought I am inclined to agree with you. It isn't wholly relevant, so I will leave it for now. Thanks for getting back in touch. I appreciate it. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with my edit? I know I haven't put any sources up yet, but I thought it sounded a helluva lot better than the one before it, and was more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeiranVaun (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot, I really appreciate the constructive criticism and advice. And I hope Jocketty does, but knowing the Reds, we'll probably trade Volquez and Bruce for some no-name prospects. John (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some strange reason I didn't get the "new messages" bar after you left the comment which is why it took so long to reply. This is just one IP that the vandal uses, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Page 2#Disney/Barney vandal for more or check out the history of various Barney related pages. Because they change IP's I usually let them play for a while before blocking. I've given them a week this time. One thing is that no matter how many messages you leave them they never reply. If I'm around let me know if not report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism with a link to the long term abuse page. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm way too slow. The IP, 24.47.245.45, was already blocked. For a nice 3 months. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. What's unclear is whether it's just one guy, or multiple users on a shared IP, as it seems to be covering a variety of unrelated topics, some of which appear legitimate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I realized my typo and fixed it. 2. If you're talking about the List of DirecTV channels comment on my page, I responded on the poster's page if you want my explanation. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove all of the edits made to the Legends of the Diamond page yesterday? The addition of the players that you can select in the game is definitely significant to the game's description. Can you please elaborate as to why you felt they were not necessary?

Bowler275 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dont revert edits and give the reason as junk there legitment edits and are not agianst a consensus--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i will fix the grammar--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay now--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would it be noteable to add that alot of the super bowls during that 13 straight were blow outs--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay gotcha on that note, i will keep an eye out for sources for those sections--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, which is it? I notice that 92.10.187.232 had at different times actually changed "top" to "bottom" and "bottom" to "top". Does the manufacturer consider the chocolate-coated side the bottom? [aside: it's quite possible that is the most trivial and asinine question I have ever asked. I'll have to check the archives :)] --Rrburke^(talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, dude, you obviously don't no anything about the I-Train, he NEVER PLAYED IN NFL EUROPE! Look at my references, he was on the Bears practice squad during the first half of the NFL season, and was promoted to the roster on the 2nd half, stop reverting back to Berlin Thunder, and don't give me the "false edit" bullshit. Please reply--Chicagobearz (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How come you keep reverting edits by 81.153.234.253? There seems to be some dispute about dates. Why not talk with the other editor about this? You aren't getting anywhere if you keep undoing each others edits. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a long history of inserting false information - this is just the most recent manifestation of it. Have a look through the history of the page and look at the blocks issued to his various socks. I've tried to talk to him a couple of times - no reply. Also note that he doesn't always insert the same dates. This is a case of vandalism, pure and simple. Majorclanger (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for clearing up. Just from and observational view it looked like there was a dispute. No worries. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good idea indeed! Thanks for catching that. I still need to work some more on that article. StarM 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away, but I think the point I made about your edits was an apt one.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take your opinions about procedure and politeness a little more seriously if you could be bothered to use edit summaries and a little less high-handed tone. If you were so eager for that material to be in the article (I personally believe that it's notability is in question and have further reservations about it), why didn't you simply restore it yourself (hopefully without the spelling errors)? Furthermore, what do you possibly hope to gain by prolonging this conversation? If you're trying for the third spot, you're not going to make it - the top three are real doozies. Majorclanger (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to clean up the wrong dates/misinformation that IP was editing into articles I definitely knew about/could definitely find information about, but as there were some (seemingly?) legit edits, there were some instances where I did not really know/could not find enough information to clearly determine whether or not to revert. I also couldn't figure out if i should report that IP or not, because of those edits that looked legit. thank you for picking up on their edits and stepping in on their talk page to help. :) -- Khisanth (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this guy is a repeat offender under a number of different IPs. There have been a number of instances of vandalism on Gumby related pages by changing dates. On several occasions, the same editor has changed release dates of video games (which were usually subsequently reverted by editors with accounts). Seeing the same pattern here, I rolled back everything. And I'd like to thank you for leaving the previous messages on his talk - if he does it again from this IP, those messages will go a long way to getting something done via AIV. Majorclanger (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again... just wanted to let you know that our friend seems to have returned as 207.118.137.247 this time (editing the same type of info into the same articles), so go ahead and add that IP to your list. :/ -- Khisanth (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I am trying to correct the bogus information concerning my grandfather and notice that you are deleting my last paragraph and stating that it is taken from another website. I wrote the article on that website as well and the website administrator simply tweaked a few words in the first few paragraphs. All content is basically the same. Is all that I need to do is modify the text in the omitted paragraphs so it is not word for word? Jolly mon7 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrote it, it's a different kettle of fish, at least to some extent. You don't have to change it at all (*ahem* except I'd recommend getting rid of the misused apostrophes /*ahem*). There is a seemingly cumbersome procedure enumerated here: Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online used to assert authorship and releases the material for use on Wikipedia. In practice, I'm perfectly willing to accept your claim of authorship and not re-revert, but there's no guarantee that someone else won't find the same site and remove it again. I'd put a note on the page's talk page saying pretty much what you said to me, which would hopefully forestall removal. I'd still suggest that going through the procedure noted above would be the best way to go.

Oh, and welcome aboard. Your contributions are nicely written, and certainly make the article better overall. It'll need a little reorganization, which I can handle if you let me know when you're done adding text. Majorclanger (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to wikipedia editing, so in order to reply to your post do I type on your page? (You can delete this after answering). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolly mon7 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've shifted my comment from your page over here and reformatted for clarity. Just go ahead and reply here to keep things simpler. When you do, start your comment with four colons, which will indent it to show that it's a reply to this. Majorclanger (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I noticed your comments on apostrophes and I'm wondering if you meant commas instead. All apostrophes I have used appear to be correct. Each is denoting ownership and the other is in a man's name. I tend to go overboard on commas sometimes I think. Will let you know when I am complete as I want to discuss with my dad who my grandfather's parents were. My main goal was to get rid of the totally incorrect information that was there prior. The author must have had him confused with someone else.Jolly mon7 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - RBIs shouldn't have an apostrophe. I'm personally of the opinion that the plural of RBI should be RBI, but the Wikipedia manual of Style indicates otherwise. I didn't dig though the history of the page, but it's likely the incorrect info was introduced by a vandal. My guess is that is was probably either a kid by the name of Sam Leslie or a friend of such a kid trying to be funny. Majorclanger (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've modified the last two paragraphs and removed apostrophes. Let me know if that is good enough. Will still do a little more tweaking on his personal life after talking with my dad. I actually found a mistake I made in his stats. Thanks.Jolly mon7 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I just went in and cleaned up some of the redundancy. I mostly kept your text, except where the other version made more sense given the structure of the article (specifically, I'm referring the the details of his death). If you can find details about his 1934 inside the park grand slam and the 1936 cycle, they it probably should be reinserted in the "Baseball career" section, but specific dates are needed - if you don't have them, I can try to look them up. Majorclanger (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the death information hasn't changed. I left it as a "lengthy illness" rather than cancer just for personal choice. I see that you referenced the part about the "inside the park HR" which is great. I googled "Sam Leslie hit for the cycle" and found 3-4 reputable sites (mlb.com, baseball-reference.com, etc) with the date of 5/24/36. Can you site that reference for me as you can do it in 5 seconds. The "early life" and "personal life" sections are rather weak. I might work on those some later. Thanks very much for your help in this. Jolly mon7 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. What I meant was that the death info was in there twice - once at the end of the career section, and later in the personal section - I removed the former. I lined the above comments out because the cycle info was already in there (I just overlooked it), and I went ahead and looked up the inside-the-parker. I agree on the "life" sections, but don't go into too much detail - since the MLB career was the most notable aspect of Mr. Leslie's life, it should have the vast majority of coverage. Good additions would be schools attended, any info about how he was signed and minor league career, and any post-retirement involvement in baseball (school or youth league coaching, perhaps or possibly scouting).

Just saw your update above - I'll handle the citation. Majorclanger (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Just saw one mistake that I need to correct. Grandparents weren't married in 1930. They celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary a few years before they died. Based on the article, that would be 1980. They both died in 1979. I think I left the date that the original author wrote hoping that MAYBE it was correct. :-) Jolly mon7 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De-indenting, as we've gone far enough to the right. I went ahead and dug through the history and found that he incorrect info seems to have been inserted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Leslie&diff=173081516&oldid=173072731, so you might want to have a look at that to make sure all of the rubbish has been removed. My recommendation would be to remove anything form that edit that you're not sure about, as it's probably pure vandalism. Majorclanger (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Yes. That is the garbage that I got rid of. The only part that was correct was the information about him playing baseball. I think he would have liked the fact that someone gave him such a colorful life. Do I remove it the same way I removed it from the main page? Still need to find out when my grandparents were married.

There's no way to remove that - the link above is a generated page comparing two historical versions. I was just bringing it to your attention in case any false info from that particular edit was still in the article. I noticed that the article contained references to military service prior to the vandalism event. If you can verify this (or part of it, anyway) it's certainly notable enough to be included in the article. He would have been right at the outer edge of draftable age at the start of the war (I know this because my own granddad was just beyond service age), so he likely volunteered, or it's possible that this "fact" was also false. Majorclanger (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will find out more info on Saturday. He might have been in the service, but I don't believe. Thanks Jolly mon7 (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...my dad wasn't much help at all concerning my grandfather's early life. He's old and I don't think he really understands exactly what I am doing. When I mentioned Wikipedia, he sort of had a glazed look on his face. I do know that my grandfather was one of the organizers of the summer youth baseball program which is now Dixie Youth Baseball. Would like to have known the year, but I don't so I didn't mention it. It was in the 1960's just guessing (but that isn't good enough).

I feel that I should site the fact that his 22 pinch hits is still the Giants club record. That is located at the following website: http://www.mlb.com/sf/history/season_records.jsp Can you site it for me or give me a quick lesson? As always, thanks very much for your help. Jolly mon7 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - citation added. To do this yourself, look below and to the right of the "show changes" button on the edit page - you'll see "Cite your sources:" followed by sample ref tags. If you set your cursor to the end of the sentence you wish to cite and click the ref stuff, it will insert the reference tags into the edited text. All you have to do then is copy the link location between the two tags (between the first > and the second <). You can experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox to get the hang of it. Majorclanger (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De-indenting...I've reviewed some of the information on uploading photos and noticed that issues are involved. I have many to choose from, but the one I like appears to be a studio shot from when he played (sort of like "picture day" at school). I have no clue as to who the producer of the photo is. Is this important this many years later? To me, it's simply a picture of my grandfather in a photo album.

I also modified the reference site for the MS Sports HOF induction statement to site the actual MS Sports HOF website rather than the article I wrote for the Jackson County HOF website. That's just a local guy's project for fun. Not saying that it isn't accurate, but the HOF website has a little more credibility. Thanks!! Jolly mon7 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying back to front - agreed on the HoF site - a fine substitution. I'm not that familiar with the image copyright stuff, but you'll probably be OK just as long as you fill out the "forms". I think this: [2] would work, or, most likely this: [3] - if the photo has no copyright info, the pre-78 template seems to apply unconditionally. Just copy the template into the Summary section when you upload the image and you should be fine. If there are any objections (which is highly, highly unlikely), the objector will leave a note on your talk. If this happens, let me know, and I'll weigh in.

I'm also about to make some minor edits to the article again, including a partial reversal of your recent edits. Let me know if you want more explanation than the edit summary. Majorclanger (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've looked a bit more at the uploading form. It looks like you not only need the template in the summary section, but you much make a choice in the licensing dropdown. "Historically important fair use" is probably the best choice. Majorclanger (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recalled three edits I made. Two looked unchanged and the one reverted dealt with the removal of "future" from describing John McGraw. I did that because a few sentences later, I did not describe Bill Terry as being a "future" hall of famer even though at that time he was. Was trying to be consistent since both did end up in the HoF and since the article is of the past tense. Don't think it's a big deal though. Sometimes, I'm bored and will adjust some tiny thing if it looks odd. Thanks!! Jolly mon7 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late Saturday night addendum...I am looking at the back of the pictures (which are different than the ones I was referring to above). His and a bunch of his teammates' pictures all say "Geo. Burke 847 Belmont Ave. Chicago" on the back. I googled that and there really wasn't anything signifying that the studio was still around. I'd like to upload one of these along with some of his teammates that might have a page on wikipedia as well. This shouldn't be a problem (I wouldn't think)??? Is it ok to add extra pictures of the big stars who already have a picture posted? Thanks Jolly mon7 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, The David Carradine article is in nomination for Good Article status, so I really don't want an edit war over this. I can see correcting the spelling and I can even see removing the whole Lipton tea commercial as trivia (but that is not my call, as I was not the original contributor),but as long as it is there the Super Bowl appearance is a cited fact and, in my opinion, one of the few things that makes it worth mentioning in the article. So I have corrected my misspelling (sorry, not a football fan)and reinserted the cited fact. --DorothyBrousseau 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

I know this is a little out of nowhere. I saw your edit summary at FieldTurf and the sports related comments on your user page. I have been working on the Qwest Field article to get it up to FA. If you are feeling saucy, it could use someone with a good eye to clean up my grammatical blunders. It is currently under peer review so chime in if you have a few minutes. No problem if it isn't your thing.Cptnono (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd be glad to have a look at it, but won't have a chance until tonight. Be forewarned, however: I'm prone to use the scissors relentlessly when things start to drift. Do you want me to make edits inline, or enumerate suggested changes? Majorclanger (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks for any feedback. Do whatever you feel like when it reads poorly. I'm not looking at any huge content changes so just give me a heads up with those. Some of it was expanded (past what I was comfortable with) due to previous requests at FA. Cptnono (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick start but won't really be able to dig in until tomorrow - too many plates spinning at the moment. One thing that I can't really fix: under "Company History" there is text that reads "The merger allowed FieldTurf to expand... " but there's no preceding info about this merger. It needs, at the very least, what company was merged with. Majorclanger (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Some confusion there. I saw your edit summary at Field Turf but was trying to get your thoughts on Qwest Field. I thought you might consider since it is sports related. It would be great (anytime not ASAP) if you felt like it. I don't even know where to start with the FieldTurf article!Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - entirely my fault. Got click crazy without actually fully reading. Sorry about that! I'll get on that one tomorrow. Majorclanger (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. I opened it up for a 2nd peer review and it hasn't received feedback. If it takes a few days it takes a few days. Thanks again, and I have your page watched.Cptnono (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF you doin to mah article? I'm teasing. Thanks so much for your input.Cptnono (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... not quite done yet - just doing a bit at a time. 13:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No rush at allCptnono (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've left a question that you may be able to answer at the AfD for Jaff Decker. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this discussion is going to end in a merge. Do you think you should maybe withdraw the AfD nomination? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not bizarre at all, just not properly cited. On May 31, 1999, as noted here,[4] Cliff Floyd hit a ball that was initially ruled a double, then a home run, then changed back to a double after ump Frank Pulli consulted a replay screen. The protest was denied, so the call (and the user of the replay) stood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you keep blanking Upcoming slogans section on the Adult Swim article. But That is it. Majorclanger You're FIRED!!!! and Don't come back until December 31, 2012. at 1:00 PM Delete the page NOW!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.157 (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majorclanger, I'm not gonna protect you. I'm sorry I angered you Can you forgive me Majorclanger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.144 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC) It's 10/16/00! Not 10/31/00? Do not change airdates from Blue's Big Costume Party? And Don't revert to October 31, 2000 anymore? Unless you are a administrator. I'm sorry Majorclanger? Put it back to 10/16/00? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Majorclanger, I really admit it, It was me, I did bad edits, Can I Make a Good edits instead of bad edits, I am really so sorry Majorclanger, Can you forgive me Majorclanger? 4.226.111.198 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Majorclanger. Here's the Plan? Step 1, No More reverting to October 31, 2000 for Blue's Big Costume Party airdate. Step 2, It's October 16, 2000 for Blue's Big Costume Party airdate. Step 3, Do not revert back to October 31, 2000 anymore. You Got That? 4.226.228.163 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majorclanger, I'm sorry I vandalised pages, I was wrong, It was October 31, 2000. Because of the Old edit. Can you forgive me Majorclanger? 4.90.0.195 (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agent4453 is gone 4.90.2.215 (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm Majorclanger Jr. Do you remember me? Majorclanger Jr. (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, was here. Between that comment and a revert he made of one of your edits, I've blocked him indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about his userpage. It's been overwritten. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Majorclanger, you recently identified an edit I made] as vandalism. It was not vandalism; I removed an incorrect credit from the filmography and fixed the table. Could you let me know why you felt this was vandalism? If you were not referring to my edit, then perhaps you inadvertently undid my edit.  Chickenmonkey  20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting 76.195.206.93, as all recent edits from this IP seem to be vandalism. It first appeared to me that your edit was a partial (but not full) reversal of the anon edit. I further assumed (yes, yes, I know what happens when one assumes...) that the IP had bolloxed up the table and that reverting to the most recent prior to his edits would be what I wanted. Now I see that it wasn't and I offer my apologies. Majorclanger (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem at all. These things happen.  Chickenmonkey  02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I'm still new to this site and I'm not even sure that I should be replying to you in this way. Thanks all the same! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega cyber turnip (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes perfect sense to point out that Jersey is not ranked because some other non-independent countries are. However Jerriais rugby, like that of the Isle of Man, seems to have subsumed itself in the RFU, despite Jersey not being part of England.--MacRusgail (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that, but the way it was written before made no sense - the antecedant of the pronoun was the whole sport or activity, but the "they" was clearly talking about a representative team (which was my intiial edit). As long as there's a transition indicating something about a particular side not being ranked, it's perfectly reasonable. Majorclanger (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is some side which claims to be the Jersey team, but I doubt it is playing as a national squad. To be honest, the ranking bit is basically a sentence that I added to all the new "rugby union in [nation X]" articles that I created. Building them from a kind of framework like that made it quicker work.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you have made contributions to the Featherstone article. The current rugby league club, Featherstone Rovers, wasn't founded until 1902, and appears to have no links to the earlier rugby union (RU) club. However, I have contributed to an article about James "Jimmy" Metcalfe, and I have found details of him playing for Yorkshire (RU) in 1896/7 while playing at Featherstone (RU), would you have any information about the RU club of the 1800s in Featherstone. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vladmir Putin Superbowl ring incident. Since you had some involvement with the Vladmir Putin Superbowl ring incident redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Guanín (bronze) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]