User talk:Mwalcoff/Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Did you know has been updated

and a fact from the article Dawg Pound, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

Go Browns! :)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Frank Ryan (football player), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks on your work on Panelak[edit]

You made the article much better. Pavel Vozenilek 01:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did you removed picture of that russian building? It surely was panelak what was pictured there... --Josef Sábl cz 19:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So panelak built in country other than Czechoslovakia is not panelak? And what about newly constructed panelaks in recent Czech republic? Their building surely has different background... sorry but this whole matter is pretty crazy :-)

Thanks for Jiri Paroubek[edit]

Thanks for your fast and thorough corrections of my clumsy English in the Jiri Paroubek article. It reads much better now! Matt 16:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panelak[edit]

Ok, I thought it all over and decided to add information about Panelak in world wide contents to Tower block article. I'm just unsure what term should I use. You wrote in past that term prefab is not satisfying enough. Now I know it is not accurate as it can be used in other meanings. I was thinking about various terms. I believe that english is your native language. Would you please suggest something?

My suggestions:

Prefabricated tower block
Prefab block
Concrete house (as a translation of panelak but I do not like it anyway :)
Or even simply Prefab as this term is in Czech-English vocabulary and it would not be confused as it will be in Tower block article.

And thak you for coreting my english. I would be grateful if you would like to continue in the future.

Regards, --Josef Sábl cz 08:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I searched several internet dictionaries and many of non czech refer to Panelak as Prefabricated tower block so I think it will be alright. --Josef Sábl cz 08:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chock full o'ideas[edit]

Your Chock Full O' Nuts has inspired the creation of List of misleading brand names of food. Would you be so kind as to come contribute that entry, and any others you might think of? Thank you, in advance. --Mothperson 9 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

Regarding Frank Ryan[edit]

No worries. And thanks for creating such a great article. By the way, if you're at all interested in the NFL and articles related to it on wikipedia, I suggest checking out Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League. --Sophitus 00:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League[edit]

Hi. You might want to mention at Talk:Anti-Defamation League exactly what improvements you think the article needs. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, indeed, you had! Somehow I didn't look far back enough. Sorry! --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Did you know[edit]

Hi Mwalcoff, you forgot to sign your suggestion for DYK on the page above; Nor did you bolden the article title as is the practice. Thought I shd inform you so that you can do both these asap. --Gurubrahma 13:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An act to regulate... etc.[edit]

Very cool article... --Dvyost 03:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Maps[edit]

I know it can be very difficult, but it is the best I can do giving the circumstances. The orange colour used to have a lot more red in it, so I added some yellow to make it brighter. There's not much I can do about colour-blindness though, as I am not an expert in that subject, and I know there are all sorts of different kinds of it. Just have a look at the colour key, and try and differentiate which one's are NDP and which one's are Liberal. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad. Maybe you could try fixing the map? I wouldn't mind. Just as you dont change the information shown. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're not that informative, if you take a look at Dave Leip's US Election Atlas which uses a similar format. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use both maps. Yours can be for the colour blind folk :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No profile, no link[edit]

On the topic of having a link to a profile. Only known players (i. e. Peyton Manning, etc.) should be linked. NoseNuggets 7:20 US EST Nov 12 2005.

Centralized Discussion[edit]

Looks fine. I will try to get round some of the interested parties and invite them along. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Carson[edit]

I added Carson to list of recent deaths in polish Wikipedia, so I need also article. I noted, that is translated article. Greetings Berasategui 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC) PS. Sorry for my poor English.[reply]

NA[edit]

Whats wrong with the national alliance as a news source? If its about them, and they are newsworthy, then I dont see the issue. freestylefrappe 15:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But self-concoction has worked just as well for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Although he is arguably more important than Walker, shouldnt such bombastic statements be considered newsworthy when made by a public figure? freestylefrappe 23:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. freestylefrappe 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuidado con lo que se pone[edit]

Hola, perdoname que te hable en castellano; es mi lengua materna y según veo en tu página de usuario lo podés entender sin meyores problemas. Soy quien hice una edición en Hyphen War, la revertiste y la acabo de volver a poner. Te explico por qué:

En primer lugar tenemos un error técnico, más allá de la neutralidad. El sistema no era comunista porque si hubiera sido comunista no habría Estado; el mismo nombre del Estado, valga la redundancia, lo dejaba claro: República Federal Socialista de Checoslovaquia. Por más que el uso popular, sobre todo en países angloparlantes, haya hecho común hablar de "sistema comunista" o "régimen comunista", una enciclopedia no puede convalidar malos usos ni faltar a la verdad.
En segundo lugar hay una grosera imposición de un punto de vista... ¿neoliberal? Un punto de vista, en síntesis, rabiosamente anticomunista, propio de esos enfermos que hablan de los crímenes del comunismo y esas cosas. Si el sistema socialista que tuvo Checoslovaquia fue una dictadura o no es tema de discusión, y sabido es que la permanente distorsión de todos esos asuntos fue y es asunto prioritario para las potencias capitalistas y sus medios de comunicación. En tal contexto, no se puede dar por cierto, absoluto y neutral "dictadura comunista"; "sistema socialista" es tan solo una descripción objetiva y sin calificativos de más, así que salvo que tengas mala intención y tu prioridad no sea el bien de la enciclopedia, no veo razón para revertirlo y volver atrás a una versión con fallas graves. --200.85.112.116 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno, acabo de contestar en la página de discusión del artículo, así que te pongo dos ó tres cosas acá que ya son a título personal. En primer lugar, no hay duda que muchísima gente en Checoslovaquia no estaba para nada satisfecha con su sistema político, por considerarlo autoritario, totalitario, dictatorial o como te guste llamarlo. También había mucha gente que sí lo valoraba y defendía, sobre todo antes del fatídico período 1985-92; de hecho esto se daba mucho más en Eslovaquia que en lo que es hoy la República Checa, pero ambos formaban parte de Checoslovaquia.

Sobre dictadura o no, no está escrito en ningún lado que democracia sea aquella de libre mercado multipartidista donde -teóricamente- cada partido representa los intereses de distintos grupos o clases; se puede entender democracia como gobierno del pueblo, y no está de más recordar que en Checoslovaquia había elecciones y todo, aunque de una naturaleza diferente. ¿Que el sistema era muy rígido? No te lo discuto ¿Qué después de la caída del socialismo real y en realidad desde antes existe una campaña tremenda a nivel global de descalificación y tergiversación de todo lo que no siga los lineamientos de las potencias capitalistas? No hay duda tampoco, y en América Latina está más que claro; mirá por ejemplo todas las maniobras y operaciones que se hacen contra el legítimo gobierno de Chávez en Venezuela: los intereses involucrados, son los mismos que en 1991 cantaron victoria cuando se arrió la bandera de la URSS del Kremlin. Y esto último es por supuesto un eufemismo. De todos modos, tenés razón y no tengo problema en reconocer que en esta Wikipedia y en el mundo angloparlante en general estas argumentaciones son minoritarias, lo que para nada les quita validez ni impide que en un artículo se puedan reemplazar frases malsonantes o sesgadas por algo más técnico y que no hiere susceptibilidades.

El tema de registrarme, por ahora no tengo planeado hacerlo en esta versión de la enciclopedia porque hay muchas cosas con las que no estoy de acuerdo, y no me gusta mucho el ambiente en general. Además el inglés no es mi lengua materna y eso reduce mucho mi potencial de contribución. Hablando de lengua materna, si hay algo que no entendés porque usé vocabulario medio retorcido sólo decime y te lo paso en inglés; hablo en castellano porque me sale 5 veces más rápido y eso es vital para argumentar :). --200.85.112.116 15:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No te digo que tengas que coincidir conmigo ni lo pretendo, tan sólo estoy expresándote mi opinión y, como te expresé, ya yéndome de tema. Para mí derechos humanos básicos son la alimentación, la educación, la salud; y si nos guiáramos por eso en el artículo de cada país capitalista deberíamos poner cómo los violan sistemáticamente. Pero sería sesgado y una vez más no lo pretendo. El punto con la expresión Communist dictatorship es que es tremendamente cargada, polémica ergo inadmisible, y lo que yo propuse de ninguna forma habla bien o mal del sistema sociopolítico checoslovaco de entonces, sino que por el contrario es una definición técnica y correcta que no se mete en política.

Sé que esto suena a capricho y entiendo si no te importa, pero en la Wikipedia en español, que es donde colaboro activamente, por lo general no se encuentran frases y expresiones tan poco neutrales y menos gente que las defienda cuando se las reemplaza por lo que corresponde para un artículo enciclopédico; por otro lado, ni la Britannica ni Encarta por poner dos ejemplos dicen algo como ''con la caída de la dictadura comunista, ...". Resumiendo: entiendo tus opiniones, pero no entiendo que te opongas a reemplazar dictadura comunista por sistema socialista, y éso y no otra cosa me parece no neutral. --200.85.112.116 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

I very much appreciate your advise on researching U.S. law! Our articles will most likely be better for it :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, brievity isn't the best thing[edit]

More than a brief recap on the games in the Current Events in Sports pages are sometimes irrelevant. For example, on the Dolphins-Patriots game on January 1, 2006, I had put in sone information about Doug Flutie's drop kick of a historical perspective that was deleted, and I had to restore the information. Also, because of the many playoff implications, the draft order and historic moments that day, most of the games had "backstories" that needed to be placed in perspective that day. NoseNuggets 9:10 AM US EST Jan 2 2006.

Pete Townshend[edit]

Hi - a while back you made a good edit on the Pete Townshend page where Townshend was being listed as a "Child Sex Offender" - despite the fact that the police decided NOT to prosecute him, he wasn't charged and thus not convicted. He acknowledged a solitary technical infringement - and the police exercised their discretion and administered a caution. Which is absolutely not the same as a conviction. As part of accepting the caution - Townshend was mandatorily placed on a register with those who ARE offenders. It's part of the process. But that does not make him a "Sex Offender" as that term is understood by the general public. So it's something that should be referred to within the Townshend article - where there is space to put in a contextual note that explains the difference between conviction and caution. But I strongly believe that it is inappropriate to baldly list Townshend as a "Sex Offender" in the category section - where there is no place for a contextual footnote.

Anyway - this is preamble to mention that a battle has been raging on the Townshend page and the Townshend talk page for the past month - with a single anon. person very forcefully and repeatedly insistent that Townshend is a "child sex offender" - and determined to make that be included. A couple of other Wikipedians have now joined in to try and resolve the matter.

Since you had expressed yourself on the topic before - I thought you might wish to be aware of this - and perhaps join the debate. Warning: The Talk page has become full of charge and counter-charge! Ultimately more heat than light I think!

But I'm concerned that there is a fundamental fairness at stake. thanks. Davidpatrick 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. There is no disguising that the matter has become agitated. And that there is someone who is being quite persistent in presenting his view. So I would certainly not expect you join the fray on any recurrent basis. I'm quite exhausted from trying to revert the constant POV edits! However - if you feel that the way the matter is being presented - with Townshend categorized as a Child Sex Offender - with all that that connotes - after the police declined to press any charges at all - then perhaps you would be prepared to make a one-time observation on the talkpage to express your view. Thanks. Davidpatrick 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NoseNuggets[edit]

I've endorsed it and added another comment. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

I made some comments on a peer review you submitted for American football a few weeks ago, and wondered if you'd like to reciprocate for Manchester City F.C., which I recently placed on PR. Oldelpaso 22:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page redesign[edit]

I appreciate your input on the map colors. Usability is always important with such graphics and I'll work on the colors more tomorrow. I think your input would also be useful on the Main page redesign project that's ongoing. There are several different draft designs, and right now we're taking comments, suggestions, and discussion on these. The idea is to improve the main page usability (e.g. make it easier to browse topics, encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia, along with the current featured content). There is also debate over design elements, layout, and colors. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayin[edit]

True, they are "silent" letters in a way, especially Aleph, and especially in modern Ashkenazi pronunciation, but Ayin (and aleph to a lesser extent) is (or was) a glottal stop; that is, well, it's hard to explain. You'd have to hear it. Listen to old sephardi Jews speaking Hebrew, and you'll hear it. The closest thing English would have is when some Scottish speakers would say, for instance, "gloh-al" instead of "glottal". Anyway, since עצוב has the ayin, i put the glottal stop there. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded that this letter isn't entirely silent; it often signals a break between syllables, even for those who ignore or fail to produce the glottal stop (the latter also heard in the Cockney pronunciation of the word "bottle" as "bot'əl" or something like that). You can hear it contemporary Hebrew as spoken by Israelis of Iraqi or Yemenite origin. Hope that helps, Deborahjay 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'interesting' article[edit]

User:Mwalcoff/List of interesting or unusual place names I've moved this into you userspace, you can do as you wish with it. Two conditions 1) You can't cut it and paste (the edit history needs to stay intact for copyright reasons). If you want it somewhere else , you need to 'move' it. 2) You must not move it back into the main article space or it will be deleted as a 'recreation'. If you want to move it into the wikipedia space, that's up to you. Someone may think it inappropriate and nominate it for deletion, but I will not. --Doc ^ask? 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: "failing" WP:BIO[edit]

Sorry. I was not ignoring you and did not mean to be rude. I just did not think that I had anything special or new to say. I look at WP:BIO and it's Talk page and it's very apparent to me that it's never been intended as an all-inclusive list. At the same time, I look at how it's being used on AFD discussions and I see the "fails WP:BIO" argument used occasionally but not what I would consider "a lot". Sometimes, a user does misinterpret the guideline but other users are generally quick to correct them (some with civility, some unfortunately less so).

More often, though, I see people using that argument as a relatively neutral way to point the user to a page that they may be unaware of (or may be deliberately ignoring). They seem to me to be trying to say that the subject of the article is clearly not encyclopedic but to do it in a way which minimizes personal confrontation. By appealing to a generally accepted guideline, they hope to avoid some of the personal animus and hostility which often arises when one recommends deletion.

By appealing to the policy page, they may also be hoping to avoid yet another endless rehash and reeducation of what WP:V and WP:NOR really mean. Those two policies are widely misunderstood but they are uncompromising standards for the encyclopedia. WP:BIO is an implementation page of those two policies. I have always considered it to be a set of rules of thumb describing subjects for which experience has taught us that we are highly unlikely to ever be able to write an article in compliance with WP:V and WP:NOR. But since WP:V and WP:NOR are so hard to explain briefly, it is easier to point people to a concrete implementation page. (This is a poor analogy but I consider it similar to not pulling out the advanced thermodynamics text book when someone needs to replace the sparkplugs in their engine - they need the car repair manual. It's clearly based on thermodynamic principles but that's more than the user needs or can handle right now.)

The obvious implication is that the person making this statement must also be trusted to be saying that he/she does not believe that an exception is justified in this specific case.

But the two of us have been over all this before. We may be at a point where we have to agree to respectfully disagree.

I will promise to look at your Candidates and elections subpage but probably won't have time to give it any serious thought for several days. I've got a number of things at work that I need to focus on and I'm trying to get my Wikipedia addiction under control. Thanks for your note. Rossami (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Candidates and elections[edit]

I'm just starting to think about your proposal. I'd like more time to digest it before commenting. I did have a procedural recommendation, though. Would you consider moving the sub-page from User talk:Mwalcoff/Candidates and elections to User:Mwalcoff/Candidates and elections? That would leave the discussion page free for specific comments about the proposal. It keeps your userpage a bit cleaner and can be helpful in consolidating the discussion about this specific proposal. It will position the proposal a bit better for you if/when you decide to request comments from a wider audience. It's certainly not required but it seems to have been efficient in other cases.

Thanks for taking the lead on this issue. I'm glad that someone's working on a concrete proposal now instead of in the middle of another election cycle. Rossami (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a minute, you might want to look in on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Political advertising. I may be distracted a bit more from your proposal because I've somehow let myself get embroiled in the Brian Peppers controversy. Rossami (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Adams[edit]

Thanks for the compliment. I ran across his story with while working on Booker T. Washington, which I have been maintaining for several years. I wish we knew a little more about Mr. Adams and dates of birth and death. His story seems inspiring, especially using the power of the black vote to the greater good and not personal gain. BTW had similar integrity, which is largely why the big bucks guys like Henry H. Rogers were comfortable working with him. Someone at Tuskegee probably does have more info, but I couldn't find out through web searches, and I must work from home (taking care of two disabled family members). Cheers. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI WP:Censorship[edit]

You might be interested in this: "42 Please Follow Along"

Haizum 18:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Square[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Public Square, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--PFHLai 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the anti-Vandalism work[edit]

Thought I'd drop you a quick note to say thanks for the great anti-vandalism work. Listing 207.200.116.69 was very welcome. Keep up the good work. Best, Gwernol 01:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to write a new policy Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am very busy but believe strongly on having some standards in Wiki. I would appreciate if you can review it and incoorporate new ideas you might want to add. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I cannot finish it without help. Best. Resid Gulerdem 00:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might want to know about the poll in the Wikipedia:Wikiethics discussion page. Rgulerdem

Alexander in Kanji book[edit]

I didn't scan it - I think someone ripped it off Amazon, I just found it - It's from 'Write Your Name in Kanji' (isbn 0804833346) - The book is in copyright though, so I didn't upload it to Wikipedia, I just linked the scan. +Hexagon1 (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports franchising[edit]

That was a great contribution to talk:sports franchising. If you can possibly find the time, please demolish and rebuild the article. --Concrete Cowboy 13:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good - now where do we do put user:ThirdEditions Welsh stuff? Jameswilson 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you have a look at Sports in the United States#Professional sports where it says There is no system of promotion and relegation in American professional sports. Major sports leagues operate as associations of franchises. The same 30-32 teams play in the league each year unless they move to another city or the league chooses to expand with new franchises. and note where the word "franchises" goes to! Clearly it is not merchandising or another branch of Starbucks! But it is not Relocation either, so maybe you need to write a third meaning? --Concrete Cowboy 13:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None taken (though if you look at talk:Franchise F.C. and Talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C., you'll see why it is such a big deal here!) It is just that I am really having a problem understanding this third use of the word, and it doesn't help that "Franchise F.C." seems to be a misnomer - I think! Does the text above mean that the Major League is itself a corporation, that sells licenses to the team corporations? The fact that the licensees call themselves Bears or Red Socks or whatever doesn't matter, because they are still NFL/NHL/NBL licensees? --Concrete Cowboy 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you have already helped a great deal and maybe this is far as we can take it right now. If you come across someone who has the details on how the corporate law works on this stuff, I'd appreciate it if you could point him/her at the discussion. Thank you for all your help. --Concrete Cowboy 22:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have been a great deal of help. I've just redrafted Sports franchising — maybe it will flush out some experts! --Concrete Cowboy 23:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caron/hacek vote[edit]

There's a vote on Talk:caron where the article should be if you're interested. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about a new stub[edit]

Hi, Mwalcoff,

Thank you very much for giving me a message in my discussion page. I started that new stub, and later I know you have modified it. Thank you for pointing out some facts. I hope we can remove this stub, because this stub is not necessary. Can you kindly remove it? Thank you again.

Sincerely yours,

Fspol

Thanks[edit]

Thanks on the comment on the two Washington franchises. I don't know who originally put the second franchise as a National League team in, since the current Nationals are the only ones that actually played in the NL. I just forgot to put the edit description in the first time. Jgera5 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Česko do toho[edit]

Věta že se používá Češi do toho místo Česko do toho, vyznívá jako by to byla chyba. Češi ale také skandují i "Hoši, bojovat!", "Kdo neskáče není Čech, hop, hop!". Je prostě více hesel. Až jednou začnou používat jméno státu bude jich zase o něco víc, třeba budou úplně jiná. --Li-sung 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: American football[edit]

Even though we can post notices as far as the eye can see, it does not prevent those who "always ignore signs or notices anyway". So we got to keep on reverting. That's been my experience anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Union[edit]

Thanks for your points on the FAC for Rugby Union. All really valid. -- GWO

RD/L[edit]

Thanks for your response. I certainly agree that, ceteris paribus, one ought to opt for fewer words, not more (although certainly you wouldn't infer that from my question, I suppose). I guess I would respond that, even as the two convey the meaning equally (which, for a descriptivist, would suffice), one is imprecise, inasmuch as, for example, a player's committing holding does not result in a penalty but, instead, in the assessment of a penalty, with an intervening actor. Your point, though, is well-made and -taken. Joe 04:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union PR[edit]

Thanks for dropping those points in- I had sort of forgot about the FAC as it was nominated at a time when everyone was still working on it, and it kind of got disowned after that. But thanks a lot, I will be working on it heavily soonish. Thanks again. Cvene64 02:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rugby World Cup is also on Peer Review - it would be great if you had any ideas/thoughts on that article as well. Thanks Cvene64 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myst[edit]

Thanks for the tip about replying on the other person's talk page. I didn't know that. --Richardrj 04:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture on my talk page[edit]

Mwalcoff,

I was unaware the NSDAP has extended it's anti-freedom operations to Wikipedia.

I looked through WP:USER and couldn't find anything that goes against the picture on my talk page. Could you please quote the section of WP:USER I have violated? Until then the picture will remain on my talk page as a beacon of free speach, sexual liberation, and equality.

--The Mad Bomber (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Novy[edit]

Hi. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that runs on sources. When there is no sources providing information on something, we usually can't keep it on here. You seem to have a source for Milan Novy, so please provide it, then re-add him to the list. Thanks. 68.215.50.205 04:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Háček[edit]

I thought it might interest you that User:Ackoz has initiated another caron > háček move request here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics to T&F[edit]

Now you have cited a web site called British Association of Track and Field Leagues. Have you looked at the site? It look similar to a personal web site? If you click on the link batfl you will notice they have links to many leagues in England. Whoever runs the site has incorrectly named the Southern Men's League the "South of England Men's Track & Field League". Even more strange, the name of the association is now written as "The Association of British Track and Field Leagues". A google search finds practically no references to either organisation or the South of England men's track and field league. Possibly there has been a very recent shift to changing the name from athletics to track and field in the UK but this site is not convincing at all. Is it possible that this page is someones hobby page and does not exist as a real organisation? From the evidence this would seem a more likely explanation.

You say that "Of course, "track and field" is the only name for the sport in U.S. and Canadian English." And yet in Canada the governing body is called Athletics Canada?

I am sure you could build a better case, so far many of your facts and points are incorrect. David D. (Talk) 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know if you're going to get involved in a big discussion on this topic you may want to tone down the anti-metric, anti-soccer stuff on your user page. It's like painting a huge target on your back. And front. ;-) David D. (Talk) 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Háček 2[edit]

There's yet another vote at talk:caron. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics[edit]

FYI, your changing Athletics from a redirect to a disambiguation page leaves over 2,000 pages linked to a dab page which is a bad thing. In fact, it puts it at #2 on WP:DPL. Unless you have a good reason, I'd prefer that some of those 2,000+ pages were fixed to point to the new Athletics (track and field) page before Athletics were made a dab page. Otherwise, it's going to confuse a lot more readers than it helps. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myst (again)[edit]

Hi there. Just wondering if you ever got into the Myst series of games, and if so what you thought of them. --Richardrj 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

It wasn't ther when I started editing and for some reason, it didn't give me a conflict, which is odd. At any rate, instead of reverting my entire edit, maybe you want to combine my phrase about #4 to your entry? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion[edit]

I would just like to tell you that I completely disagree with points 1 through 3 of your "These Things I Believe"-list on your userpage. I'm from Belgium, so I have to get up at 0400 to see the superbowl every year, which I like to do because I think american football is a great sport. However the 'best sport in the world', is different for everyone, some people like american football, others like soccer or even something else. I for one am one of the soccer fans, I can definitely understand your not liking it since it is not a popular sport in the US, but to call it 'invented by Satan' is overdoing it again. Also, I am not a religious person in all, but who knows some religious soccerlovers even might get mad at you for that comment. See also Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy for how a small comment can upset millions of people. Also, we do not refrain from playing american football because we "don't know any better", but because it is considered too complicated by most and probably mainly because it is no part of our culture, which soccer is. Just like american football is part of your history. For probably the same reasons soccer is not a popular sport in the US, however you don't see me saying you guys "don't know any better". As an interesting point I would like to mention however that your soccer league has a very interesting system, with the divisions and conferences and such (like in most sports there), this system brings an extra flavour to the game of soccer and has certainly not ruined it. Then, you probably didn't make the template, but calling the metric system inhuman and bureaucratic, that just makes no sence. I'm not used to feet and miles and gallons myself, but you don't here me saying those silly things, I don't see why the metric system is any more bureaucratic/inhuman than any other systems. Then last ànd least, I believe the Simpsons have indeed had a few lesser seasons, but recently a lot of good episodes have been aired. Check also this bit from an episode from season 18 which features the White Stripes (not aired yet though). Sorry if i'm annoying or cranky and such, feel free to ignore me or whatever, it's almost 0200 here and I have nothing better to do right now, I'ld better get some sleep. Must have eaten something wrong today. :) Anyway, greetings from Europe. --P e lotas^talk 23:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say i thought the same thing first time I read your user page. You may believe it, but you send a very strong and negative message when your leave that on your user page. David D. (Talk) 03:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this?[edit]

Wow man.. you is really patriotic but you need begin see that the world is not only USA culture. Soccer is boring for you but not for billions other peoples in the world. It's also the official sport of England. So open your mind because sport is not a "war" sport is a way of integration, union and proclaim peace in the planet.

Metric[edit]

Hi, I'm from from the French wikipedia, so excuse my poor English. You work like me on the sport section, and I crossed your user page that way. I noticed a badge on your user page about the metric system. It's bizarre, because Fahrenheit/Celsius have nothing to do with the metric system... I really dont understand why higly civilised countries like USA and UK can't use the metric system. It's a mystery to me. yours in sports. Clio64B 11:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm from the US and I'm sure that Celsius and the Metric System are both far superior to the English system. Timneu22 14:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a "Duh" situation frenchy :) You see, it would cost tens of billions of dollars to change...and there really is no reason for us to, other than to make other countries happy...so like I said, no reason. We use it for science though :D -Nobody Special1 4:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Football overtime[edit]

I approve that you approve. :) The main point was that the paragraph was incomplete: it only described what happens with regular season overtimes. The 1972 thing is more like "trivia". Wahkeenah 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Defamation League[edit]

You're right! I intended to do this same edit to fix Jpgordon's edit that you apparently had already fixed, but when I edited I didn't see any of your edits. Maybe the database was behind and didn't show up your edits which preceded mine when I edited. Thanks for fixing my attempted fix : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well three of us tried! At least you actually got the job done! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to American football[edit]

Your recent edit to American football (diff) 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 my humble creator's 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. // AntiVandalBot 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The letter "I" pronounced in Hebrew[edit]

I noted in this recent Reference desk/Language query your transcription of the name רבקה as pronounced "reevka", i.e. with a "long I" in the first syllable. As I responded there, this isn't at all familiar to me (in either the Old World or the New!). Rather, the long I sound is commonly found in "open syllables" represented as V (as in the first syllable of the word for "mother", אמא) or CV (as in the name ריבה). I'm curious to know where your suggested pronunciation is current. (And please pardon my makeshift phonological representations, the best I can recall from proper studies over two decades past :-) -- Thanks, Deborahjay 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update following your response - it's quite likely that the pronunciation you hear (sung, not spoken) is the Reform cantor's vocal styling for emphasis or artistic considerations. I was mostly concerned with explaining the basis for pronouncing the "short" vs. "long" vowel in Hebrew, which is so often the bane of the non-native speaker. As a practicing translator who acquired Hebrew relatively late and entered the profession even later, I try to avoid the excess handicap of the much-ridiculed "American accent" that characterizes my fellow expats in Israel. Apropos, back in the States I'd rejected chazzanut as having too few job ops (for a secular woman, anyway...) to justify what would've been a costly course of study. Better to be an amateur vocalist on one's kibbutz! -- Cheers! Deborahjay 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Categories of Jewish Athletes[edit]

Hi. I know that this is an issue that has interested you in the past. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Jewish_fencers some people are suggesting that Jewish athletes, beginning with Jewish Fencers, should be deleted. I do not think that is the correct approach, or consistent with wiki policy, and thought that others might want to weigh in on the discussion. --Epeefleche 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Biographical Centre[edit]

G'day. I'm just alerting you to the above newly created article. Given your interest in the American Biographical Institute you may wish to keep an eye on the IBC as I'm sure it will upset a few honour holders! Maustrauser 02:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Not racist dude but your deletion sure as hell is. -- Barringa 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way thanks for letting me know why persons who claim to be Jews but have a greater affinity for worldly possessions than for God want Judaism to be regarded as a race rather than as a religion. -- Barringa 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]