User talk:Twigboy

Welcome!

Hello, Twigboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, 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!  Karmafist 03:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the OJ Simpson article. I only noticed the first nonsense add and missed the other, very obvious ones. Whoops. Gretnagod 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. I have been reading for awhile and it was really bothering me how the articles about The Price Is Right seem to not have any sources. I hope my tagging them as unsourced is not out of line for a newbie! Rekarb Bob 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not out of line, by all means. But, I would hope that you become involved in discussing the solution. Personally, I think most of the information is true and is gleaned from watching the program. This would be consistent with most of the articles about The Simpsons or South Park episodes. One particular fansite seems to have reliable, even behind-the-scenes, information about The Price Is Right including episode summaries. However, the episode summaries are written by TPIRFanSteve, and, while I don't doubt his accuracy, I am not sure whether it violates the no original research policy. I would ask for you to see the discussion at the main Price Is Right article because we are running into the same issues there as well. Thanks and I hope to see your contributions! —Twigboy 16:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great shot! --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:NPOV? You act like you haven't. Please do. Kramden4700 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I’ve made some rather large additions to 2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship and would appreciate if you could take a look at them and possibly reconsider your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship. I thought it was a worthy topic, even though it had a wretched article, so I added information about revenue and the sponsorship process, the sponsor related controversies of this World Cup (tickets distribution, Budweiser in Germany, Mcdonalds at a sporting event), and took out the copyvios. Please take a look. Thanks! Vickser 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links to ArenaFan were just as relevant to the pages as the official team sites due to the information on those pages. Obviously you didn't bother to look at those pages on ArenaFan before you removed the links. I will be putting them back on the team page listings for all AFL and af2 teams since they are extremely relevant. In addition, many of those URLs were not put in by me, but by other people who edited the pages, most of whom I do not even know. It should also be noted that I do add and edit the pages for content, mostly fixing errors submitted by people who know little about the subject matter, and my source for many of those modifications is ArenaFan. Finally, I can site hundreds of instances where similar links are provided all across wikipedia in a similar manner. Nolesrule 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the desire to promote one's website, it's Wikipedia style to avoid adding links to your own site (see #3 here). I'm not disputing that there may have been others that added your links, but a reasonable sample showed that they were added by you. There are several other links to mainstream media sites [1][2][3], all of which do not belong here either. By linking to your site here, it increases your visibility on Google (ranks which are determined by the number of links to it). That is frowned upon here. All of that said, I have left some of your links in where there was a sufficient reason to leave them in, especially in historical contexts. (I have, indeed, bothered to look at the pages on Arenafan.) But don't be surprised to see someone else remove them. I also have noted that you do edit Wikipedia in a responsible way otherwise, which I do appreciate. Thanks for your contributions. —Twigboy 14:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I honestly hadn't even considered how it would affect google rankings because ArenaFan generally comes up in the top 1-3 for most team names so I don't pay attention to them since I have no reason to. I was only adding them because a) I thought they were relevent, and b) other people had added the links to various wikipedia pages so I figured uniformity was appropriate. I agree that the examples you site are innapropriate, but they don't provide any additional information beyond what can be found on wikipedia or official team pages, whereas there is dynamic data (not just news) that cannot be found anywhere else and would be inappropriate and tedious to include on wikipedia pages. Nolesrule 02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the links again as spam, and discuss with other admins about perhaps getting the site listed on the blacklist. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking for an explanation as to why the ArenaFan links consitute spam and not relevent external links. From the external links definition page under "What should be linked to

5. # Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

So please explain why the ArenaFan links don't fit that category Nolesrule 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some preliminary thoughts before I study it more closely:

• I would rather not have team logos in the infobox. There is still a debate involving those users who strictly interpret Fair use criteria rule #8 in which logos and other fair use images can only be used if either they identify the subject of the article, or illustrate specific points in the text. Therefore, I do not want to see an edit war, especially because the basic removal of possibly copyright violating material does not count under Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Now, if it was an anniversary logo for a specific season like Image:SeattleSeahawks20thAnniversarylogo.gif, then that is a different story.
• Which reminds me, you should also look at the existing articles 2005 Seattle Seahawks and 2005 Denver Broncos for ideas.

More possibly later. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to be honest I do not really care about the specific details about the pages, just as long as there are no edit wars, other admins removing logos and fair use images after strictly intrepreting WP:FUC, or "Deletionist" wanting to delete them because "they aren't notable enough". Therefore, you can create them at anytime. But if you are going to make one for the Steelers and/or the Dolphins, we should create them before the end of Sep 7 Kickoff game... and the other ones by opening Sunday Sep 10. I don't want users padding the NFL team articles with long detailed summaries of the opening games. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pat, I'd like to guess: Is it dilute?" :) —tregoweth (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize Wikipedia's policy is to use secondary sources whenever possible, but there's a dearth of those on fair catch kicks, and the ones available online are woefully incomplete. Even NFL officials have admitted that they have no idea of the exact number ([4]. With no official source available, newspapers reporting on the Cardinals' would-be fair catch kick attempt were compelled to cite Wikipedia's entry, which only contained 4 kicks at the time. ([5]) This prompted me to add to Wikipedia the primary-source research I had already put on my own site.

Almost all the additions I made to the Fair Catch Kick entry are from contemporary game reports published in newspapers the day after the day in question. Almost all of them are not available online except in paid archives, but all are available in microfilm form in public libraries. I can and will provide the exact sources (this will involve some digging through my notes), but by and large they were from the major local newspaper of the team attempting the fair catch kick.

The one exception that I know of: the reference to Fred Steinfort's 73-yarder was found in a January 21, 1981, interview with the Boston Globe. The game itself was a Monday nighter marked by drunken fan antics; post-game articles written on deadline ignored a missed FG in the first half. Here's the relevant quote:

So how come, he was asked jokingly, he missed that 73-yard free kick field goal after a fair catch against New England here Sept. 29?

"Well, you know, I've made them over 70 yards in practice and that night we expected to get the ball around midfield," he laughed. "But Mike Hubach got off a good punt and those goal posts looked so far away, I didn't know what to do. I used poor technique going to the ball and didn't get a good shot at it at all."

I hope this helps. Quirkyresearch 20:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references (major newspapers over local, when available) for each fair catch kick and given permission to use the material, but I left the known attempts section commented out for now. Feel free to un-comment it if it meets approval. --Quirkyresearch 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is confusing, see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Naming conventions basically because non-fans get confused the playoffs and Super Bowl should be referred to by the calendar year the occur in. Also indiivdual years should not be wikilinked in Wikipedia. Pleased don't get mad at me neither decision is my choice. You could probably ask for further clarification on the talk page over at WP:NFL. Maybe I'm not 100% correct but I'm pretty sure that's the correct format. It's confusing—the Chicago Bears and New England Patriots articles are considered featured articles and could be used as examples. Maybe we could just say they won Super Bowl XXI and XXV without mentioning the year. They are mentioned again in the section with the year mentioned. Quadzilla99 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, individual years aren't supposed to be wikilinked, you could wikilink "the 1990 season". Not necessary right now. Quadzilla99 15:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article this afternoon and made a few small changes...mostly copyediting or rephrasing things. Personally, I think it looks the best that it has in a long time.

I wish I knew if you had AIM -- you seem like someone I wouldn't mind chatting with. -TPIRFanSteve 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, it's nice when you work on something to get some kind of reward/recognition. Quadzilla99 21:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NYG invite

I increased the font size I think it looks good. What do you think? Quadzilla99 02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed half sacks back to .5 since that's how they're always displayed on espn.com, books, football stat sites etc. Incidentally, how do you display that 1/2 symbol? I wanted to put something like that on the favorites line but didn't know how to do it. Do you know any place where we can get the coaching staff info? I can't find anything in the The New York Times archives or any of my old football history books. I know some of the basics just off the top of my head, but we would need a source anyway. Quadzilla99 05:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I was able to find a good source for the 1990 New York Giants staff (the source pops into the ref section when the template is put into an article) but I haven't found one yet for the '86 staff. Quadzilla99 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumped it up to Start-class (and left an explanation on the talk page). :) ~ Danelo 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed it, per your request. I have yet to hear your reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Price_Is_Right_%28US_game_show%29#Carey_continuing_the_spay-and-neuter_announcement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdayejr (talk • contribs) 13:41, August 4, 2007

Twigboy, please e-mail me at JTRH@aol.com. I have something I'd like to ask you about the Price is Right page. Thanks. JTRH 17:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the text is that close, blatantly promotional and the page it comes from has a clear copyright notice one it, don't bother with {{copypaste}}, just hit it with {{db-copyvio}}. 68.39.174.238 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Kathleen Bradley Gerald Asamoah Tom Everett Scott Kathy Greco Roger Dobkowitz Pauleta List of Super Bowl broadcasters Oliver Neuville Seogwipo Limit price Claudio Suárez Joseph Carr Contradiction Market Deeping Mauritania national football team Doug Davidson AWD-Arena Andriy Rusol Dian Parkinson

Cleanup Holly Hallstrom Saint Francis College Markup (business) Merge Price leadership Intrinsic value (finance) Italian alphabet Add Sources NFC East Price point Fixed price Wikify New York City Transit Police Paul Winchell Polonia Warszawa Expand Maura Tierney Takayuki Suzuki Gay pride

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, today's rerun was the February 19 show, not March 22. -TPIRFanSteve 02:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Per the new tape dates on cbs.com, how is it possible for a Carey episode to have a tape date of 8/17 when they didn't start until 8/25

Maybe it's a typo on their part? Thanks -75.185.202.134 15:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm coming in very, very late here, but taping for this season started on August 15, not August 25. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I believe that the objects in question fit the description of a lectern. Regardless, with the exception of the instance I left alone, the items referred to are clearly not podiums. There isn't an extra step behind the "podium" for short contestants. Feel free to find a better word than "lectern", but "podium" is inaccurate. Rhindle The Red 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my talk on the Politicians section seemed personal. I really was just commenting on the text and didn't think about the author. Most of your additions on this article have been more productive than my minor changes.DirectRevelation 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

TwigBoy,

I moved the potential CBS strike from the Effect of the 2007 Writers Guild of America strike on television to the end of the main strike page because it fit in better with the other potential strike there. At least for now.

It looks like there were a lot of edits and undos with that section so I'm a little unclear: is this just with CBS News radio does it also involve writers with CBS TV News (60 Minutes, Evening News, 48 Hours)? What is AFTRA's role at CBS since they normally represent news writers?

If this comes to pass, it may be difficult to categorize these events since we'll have 2 different unions who are both involved in the same 2 strikes. (How many people could understand that last sentence?}

Would our Article titles look like this?:

• 2007 Writers Guild of America strike against AMPTP
• 2007 Writers Guild of America strike against CBS
• Effect of the 2007 Writers Guild of America strikes on broadcasting

DirectRevelation (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

OK, I'm fine with your proposed article titles. I just thought it was important to discuss this ahead of time so that the separate CBS contract isn't muddled into the other Guild articles.

I took a look at the List of Strikes and added several links to it. Be careful about using it as a source for naming strikes though, since the vast majority of the links are deadre and don't refer to actual articles. DirectRevelation (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

Just a quick note in case you're not still watching Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Footnotes_in_hover_text to say I've now created a script for hover text with clickable links. Details there. -- DatRoot 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done a script for the footnotes in preview at User:DatRoot/Scripts/PreviewRefs.js‎. -- DatRoot 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Son. I've reactivated WP:TVGS. I saw that you created a task force in WP:TV. I've redirected that to WP:TVGS. Once we get the project up and running, we can decide then whether or not to repatriate back into WP:TV. So, if you want to remain a member of TVGS, which I'm sure you do, just add a time stamp to your user name. If not, just remove it. Happy editing! --Son (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Monmouthuniv.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the criticism is untrue, I just think that the section should be limited to their road to the super bowl, and leave things such as criticism and controversy to their individual season pages. Criticism of them running up the score has little to do with the game or how it will be played. Now if they run up the score in the Super Bowl, then it might warrant a mention. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know if AOL has discontinued the daily video of TPIR? When you click the links for the supposed "shows", it is going to Y&R, David Letterman, and not TPIR.

Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdayejr2008 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the determination that this is a CBS problem vs. an upload issue with TPIR. Feel free to strike this from your page if you choose. Thanks Hdayejr (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm trying to breathe new life into this. Any help would be appreciated. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twigboy. The discussion at GAR has been inert since 7 March. Are you still needing more time or would you like the reassessment to be closed? Best, PeterSymonds | talk 22:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a list of NYG first draft picks in sandbox. Please tell me what you think. Mm40 (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks.[reply]

Never mind. I see this in the main article. Mm40 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a question as to the authenticity of the idea that the blackout of 1977 in New York caused an explosion in hip-hop culture. I have since linked to an article where Kool Herc, the man who fundamentally invented the genre

"...describe(s) how the looting of hi-fi stores during the 1977 New York City blackout propelled D.J. culture. ("It was like Christmas for black people," he said. "The next day there were a thousand new D.J.s.")"

Flintmichigan (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2007. Ikip (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... for this edit to {{NYCS Herald Square}}. I couldn't figure out what I had done wrong there. (A newline, go figure!) Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Columbia njflood june06.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:20, 19 May 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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Monmouthuniv.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Television Game Shows has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Gameshow.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. fuzzy510 (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Super Bowl LVII, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hussey. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFL game has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]