User talk:Wahkeenah

Image:Brooke_Shields_GP_200508.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brooke_Shields_GP_200508.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wahkeenah. That wasn't helpful. We know we can do better. I trust you. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. Wahkeenah 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree it should be deleted, you can help by tagging it with {{db-author}}. But putting that kind of comment on the image description page is not like you. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just worn out from undoing all the Ron liebman sockpuppet edits, eh? But I can kind of understand the cavalieriality (just made that up!). I get similar notices occasionally about celeb pics I uploaded ages ago. And basically said, "Whatever". I think TPTB got carried away with the fair use thing on celeb pics, but my opinion's not gonna change anything. So I gave up, and started taking Florida NRHP photos instead.

I almost wish someone would create a bot and tag all the darn pictures, delete them, and have done with the whole farbling mess. And on that cheery note, folks, I'm to bed. To sleep, perchance to be unconscious. ;) -Ebyabe 02:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Cardinals project

Please accept this invite to join WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals, a project dedicated to improving the quality of St. Louis Cardinals related articles. Simply click here to accept!

Patty Hearst

Who said I didn't like it? I've cited a policy to why I removed it, while you on the other hand readd it simply because you don't want it removed, unless, of course, you're going to integrate the section into the rest of the article, which almost can't be done. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expiry of the Ron blocks

Just wanted to warn you that most of the liebman sockpuppet blocks will expire today and tomorrow. Be ready for the onslaught, and I'll do what I can do. Btw, love the sad attempt by Jos martinez to stand up for Ron, when he is (as you said), in all likelihood, Ron himself. Since he can't change Victor's page b/c it's blocked. I tagged his user pages as such, 'cause if it walks like a duck... ;) -Ebyabe 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SABR

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner about this but thank you for contacting SABR. Hopefully they will help us clear up this issue. I appreciate the time and energy that you are putting into this. -- No Guru 16:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures of Superman (TV series)

MORE ON LOCATIONS:

Saw your updated photo - nice work. Don't know if you have it, but "The Adventures Continue" Issue #2 had some shots of the Carnation building from the mid-1980's; unfortunately they were taken from a moving car. Hopefully something more usable will turn up.

The mention at the end of the paragraph about 'final season shows using some LA street locations'... the example given ("Big Freeze") is from the fourth season, not the final one. I presume the scene that was in mind is the one where Clark Kent pulls up to the Iron Works and inquires about the blast furnace. That's actually the front gate to the old Charlie Chaplin Studios on LaBrea Ave (now home to Henson Productions). AOS was filmed there during that season (when it was known as Kling Studios).

I don't recall any "street scenes" in the final season that weren't done on a soundstage. In fact, the only true location shots I recall are in "Superman Silver Mine" and "Superman's Wife" (when Superman stops a truck and orders him to turn around... and the location Superman is actually a double; Reeves does his line in front of a rear-projection screen).

Michael

UPDATE #3: Wahkeenah:

Glad to have helped - and please feel free to call on me. Trust me, I want to set the record straight just like you. I've got nearly 20 years' research logged on this show. I've communicated with Ted Newsom, and we're both more than a little wary of fanboys. I started a very lengthy, sourced write-up on Reeves' death; Ted has what I've completed so far. I planned to post it to the Reeves bio page, but didn't wish to endure what would likely be a contentious reaction from the usual suspects. In any case, it's not needed now - the bio is much improved since the last time I saw it (about 5-6 months ago).

Don't know if you saw my note about the "Sept. 19, 1952 airdate" on the AOS Discussion tab - you might find that interesting.

Michael

UPDATE #2: Hey, Wahkeenah:

I've been looking for an online photo of the Carnation Building for many months, but can't find one. Of course, it doesn't help that the building no longer exists. The closest I can give you is the frame blow-up from a 1952 DRAGNET episode that appears on my blog at http://betterlivingtv.blogspot.com/2006/02/great-metropolitan-newspaper.html (I have a copy on my computer, but don't know how to post it here.)

It's the white building just beyond (and about half the height of) the Wilson Building. If you squint, you can just make out the "C" in "Carnation."

I think the folks who made that building cast took Gary Grossman a little TOO literally. Grossman is absolutely correct that the Carnation building was used for the first season... but it was ONLY for the exits and entrances made by Reeves, Coates, etc., as seen in "Crime Wave" and "Superman on Earth." Grossman didn't differentiate between that building and the skyscraper stock shot, but they're definitely two different buildings.

Michael

UPDATE: The following article will explain the building's name and history: http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2006/07/fighting_over_wilshire_an.php

Michael

Hey, there.

The Carnation Building was used only for 1st season entrances and exits. It was a four-or-five-story solid white building at 5045 Wilshire. The 12-story building pictured is the Wilson Building (later the General Insurance Building), 5225 Wilshire. See my post at http://betterlivingtv.blogspot.com/2006/02/great-metropolitan-newspaper.html

Having lived in the area for 11 years, having written several articles about the series that were published, having served as a consultant on the Warner DVD release, I think my credentials can be trusted.

Sincerely, Michael J. Hayde —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeH0714 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Roberto Clemente

"Jos" is doing liebman-style edits here. So much for not being a sockpuppet... -Ebyabe 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

Thanks for the note. I have found two editors (though, of course, they could be the same one) doing this today. User:Eclecticology whom I was tracking when I got your note and User:David Gerard. User:DESiegel reverted the latters edits and I already left him a note of thanks. We will just soldier on and fix what needs to be fixed. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no view on whether spoilers are a good thing, but you might be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Notinasnaid 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, feller - thanks for piping up on the subject, but it might be easier to resolve the problem without folk yelling. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that actively trying to recruit editors to revert warring is a poor idea, and one that could readily be considered disruptive behavior. Phil Sandifer 23:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll do it all myself then, even if it takes all night. The disruption has been caused by the nannies who seek to impose their will on the readers of wikipedia. Wahkeenah 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, vowing to revert all night is also a bad idea. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that and edit warring is considered harmful. Phil Sandifer 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Zitarosa and the Hindenburg books supporting sabotage

Rick Zitarosa is an airship historian who was one of the authors of a book about the Lakehurst Naval Air Station [1]. He often answers people's questions about airships on this site [2]. He and I were having an e-mail chat about the Hindenburg and he recommended a few books for me to read but said that those two books supporting sabotage were garbage:

“

Many books are pure garbage, notably THE HINDENBURG by Michael Mooney (which was made into a movie starring George C. Scott) and WHO DESTROYED THE HINDENBURG? by A.A. Hoehling.

”

Never mind, as this was not confirmed by a true WP:RS. Frankyboy5 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

Your comments on the spoilers MfD are in rather flagrant violation of WP:AGF, and are bordering on personal attacks. Nobody is arguing the words youare putting in their mouths, and you are making the quest for consensus, agreement, and understanding harder, not easier. Please consider reigning in your tone, reading the arguments that are actually being made, and responding to them more civilly, calmly, and directly. Phil Sandifer 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not censored you - your comments exist, almost verbatim, elsewhere on the page. Phil Sandifer 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of spoiler warnings

Please see the usage requirements on Template:Spoiler. In particular, it says "Use this template sparingly. It should not be used in sections that are clearly marked with a heading (such as "Plot" or "Ending")". The tag has been appropriately removed from Mary Poppins (film). Please do not edit war over this. If you want to change how the template is used, I recommend you start a discussion about such use rather than revert warring with multiple people over this. For now, the spoilers template staying off the plot section should stand until such a discussion has been concluded. --Durin 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the interests of the project ahead of my own and yours. Please read the instructions on the template. It's quite clear. I do have considerable respect for our readers. I expect that if they see a section titled "Plot" they will be able to figure out for themselves that there will be content in the section telling them about what happens. --Durin 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that calling such removal of a tag per the instructions in the tag itself "vandalism" as you did here is a personal attack, and is ill-regarded. Edit-warring with personal attacks is considered a bad thing - David Gerard 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raw foodism

If you'd like to make the dangers of raw food more well known on Wikipedia, I suggest learning about the subject and adding constructive well-cited documentation to the page, as you did on January of this year.

What vandalism is not

This edit[3] called the previous edit vandalism. Please read WP:VANDAL#What_vandalism_is_not before labeling other edits as vandalism. Vandalism is a bad faith edit, if a person is in their opinion trying to improve the encyclopedia it is not vandalism, even if you disagree with it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editsummaries

Please do not call your fellow editor's edits vandalism as you did here. Talk it over with them, revert it with a different reason other then rvv (which is revert vandalism). Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But in any case, they are not vandals, please do not call your fellow editors that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Blazing Saddles

You appear to have made the same edit (restoring the redundant spoiler tag) on Blazing Saddles in 24 hours. This violates the three-revert rule. I'm certainly not going to block you or request a block, but please do note that that's officially taking a concern way too far - David Gerard 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR on Blazing Saddles

I have blocked you for 24 hours for repeatedly reverting on Blazing Saddles. See [4][5][6][7][8].

Reverting is not the way to discuss things. Please do not use stubbornness as an editing technique in the future. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fed up with the patronizing attitudes of certain wikipedia editors, and no longer wish to be associated with this so-called encyclopedia in any way. If someone could kill by user account, that would be fine and dandy. Wahkeenah 17:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]