User talk:Evb-wiki/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Archive 5

Talk text from September 2008 through December 2008:

Palin

If you agree that POV tag is appropriate (as you said on talk page), a quick vote down below on the talk page would be helpful. The vote is currently now 7-5 against POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment: Per *Restore_large_protection_notice*, replacing the protection tag would serve the purpose by informing readers & would-be editors why "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" cannot be edited and explain generally the unresolved disagreements between editors. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Francisco Santos

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Francisco Santos, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 82.154.63.44 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because Olympic atheletes are considered notable, deletion is probably not the answer. However, you may want to try the AfD process for more opinions. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Man of the Lake

Some .gov photos for the Old Man of the Lake article are at google .gov. If you have some time, please upload and use {{PD-USGov}} where it applies. -- Suntag (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag on Governorship of Sarah Palin

Cheers for fixing the tag, one day I'll buy thinner fingers :-) Fr33kmantalk APW 07:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Coal gas and suicide

I amended a Sylvia Plath category from Suicide by gas to Suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning. I see that you quickly undid it, asserting "rvt cat. - gas from the oven wouldn't be carbon monoxide".

I hope you'll find that assertion untrue. See, for example: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas ss 6 and 8.8 ff 2) The British gas suicide story and its criminological implications (1988) http://www.jstor.org/pss/1147403

Press reports of gas-oven suicides, before the national conversion to "natural gas", invariably reported "death by carbon monoxide poisoning".

If you're still convinced of the truth of your assertion, perhaps you'd better also undo my similar amendment to the Assia Wevill entry. I punctiliously didn't amend entries in the "Suicide by Gas" category which referred to deaths outside the UK, as they're outwith my knowledge. I even left the Spilsbury entry as, in his lab, he could for all I know have produced another gas, arther than relying on the coal gas supply.

Incidentally and FWIW, I think the Suicide by Gas category is vitiated by the "includes natural gas" gloss. Omit that gloss and the carbon monoxide category could be folded into it, and any confusion/dispute probbaly avoided. I have seen the discussions but don't intend to get involved.

regards

81.105.58.114 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It appears that you are/were correct. My bad. I've reverted myself. Thanks for the educational tid bit. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx. --(ex 81.105.58.114) 86.27.181.2 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe's birth name

Since Martin E. Mortensen was most likely her father and he spelt his name with an "EN" then wouldn't Marilyn's birth-name be spelt the same way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpm296 (talkcontribs) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see this talk page. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Visionism false accusations

I'm not placing false IDs or signatures in my comments. FRV is my signature. I didn't signed User:FRV I have signed FRV it's a little beet different, don't you think? Please don't do false accusations and remove the pejorative comment please. FRV 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are disguising your identity, which is inappropriate. And the automatic sign robot does not recognize it as a signature. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry

Hi, yup I agree the image is better, and I'm not big on copyright either, but the licensing seems suspect. I won't mind if you put it back on. Cheers. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

editing was mentioned on Talk: Sarah Palin prior to edit

Hi! I removed the reference about CNN and the AP feeling they had too little access to Palin on the Talk: Sarah Palin page well after asking for input. Might you add your input there? Thanks! Dave Collect (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I did. Where it talks about rewording the last paragraph of the *reception* section. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Maria Ford

Thanks for adding Template:Fact to Maria Ford, but the paragraph you added it to was just vandalism. - Jredmond (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Visionism

Biden

ERROR

I did not remove anything. I moved it to the right section. 903M (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages

are for discussing improvements to the article. They are not blogs or chat rooms. A comment that has nothing to do with the article and that cannot conceivably lead to ANY edi of the article, a comment that blatantly violates WP:BLP, is nothing more than disruptive editing. It is an abuse of talk pages. Talk pages are for improving the article.Let's focus on Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, not a laughingstock. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some other editor had just commented that "this is exactly what talk pages are for" or don't you read the entire threads. Also, you failed to close your hidden section, so every subsequent thread was also hidden. Get a grip. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the problem, it has been fixed. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson murder case

Hi. The IP vandalism is getting out of hand, so I've semiprotected it for three days. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPs again - the vandalism is polluting the edit history. If it gets like this please consider reporting it to WP:AIV and WP:RFP. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrator status

Hello, Evb-wiki. May I ask - how come you're not an administrator yet? No doubt you could use the extra buttons, considering how much article-building you do. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Richard. I don't know. The subject hasn't come up before. With greater power comes greater responsibility. While I'm open too the suggestion, I kinda like being a wiki-gnome. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin Image

Hi Evb-wiki- The image is more appropriate in the campaigning section and looks better there. I think the white space to the right of the contents box needs an image. Do you think the 'looking away' pic would look good there? IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it belongs there. The whole article is text heavy. It could use some on-topic images throughout. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I removed the info box by mistake. I think the flipped image, even if discouraged, looks much better. I found it in the image file history. The placement of any image we use should be aligned with the contents box. I wish we had more images to work with. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The image is really too large to be sized the same as the lead image. I don't think it fits well stacked under the info box. Perhaps it should be placed somewhere else in the article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I will try moving it down - I do not know how to adjust the 'contents' box to improve the composition. The large empty white space does not look very good so.....? IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I changed it again. Placing it directly before the first titled section created a white space above the TOC. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The images look much better aligned left. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sylvia Plath Forum

Yesterday evening, I added the Sylvia Plath Forum to the Sylvia Plath Wikipedia page.

But you removed it, almost straightaway.

I would like to say that this website has some of the most erudite discussion about Sylvia Plath going back to the publication of Birthday Letters in 1998. Academics and laymen alike have contributed hundreds of thousands of words which are of great use to Plath scholars. It was run by Elaine Connell who died last year, but the forum continues as a fantastically useful archive.

I am not sure why you removed it but I am writing to respectively ask you to reconsider.

Thanks

Cirsh (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As my edit summary indicated, I removed it because the linking guidelines specifically discourage linking to discussion forums/groups. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the guidelines you quote. These were clearly meant to relate to groups like MySpace, Usenet, etc. I would not have thought they were meant to include serious discussion, often by highly eminent academics. I've just seen a reference to Elaine Connell where it is said "her greatest legacy would be her website for Sylvia Plath which stands unique among Plath sources on the Worldwide Web. Her work in this field was unparalleled." What is the point of a Sylvia Plath page on Wikipedia if it does not offer scholars and lovers of Plath's poetry this important avenue to broaden their knowledge.

Kind regards, Cirsh

Cirsh (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hustling Palin

Please see the talk page of the article about parodies of Palin. (An article that really ought to mention the wonderful vblogs at 236.com.) In brief, this product doesn't yet exist, it has hardly been newsworthy, it's most unlikely to be parodic, and the write-up for it effectively looks little more than advance publicity. -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular media tag

I have to admit, I didn't take the Cher edit very seriously. But your point about Sinatra is well-taken. A cite there at the end of the paragraph might well prevent both future warring (The Great Cher Skirmish!) and example creep in general.DocKino (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Engine Vax Boom Palin

I've done some beefing up of the description of the baby name generator within the relevant article. I hope you like the result. The very short description is now buttressed with a rather absurdly long list of URLs attesting to its notability, or anyway web salience. I didn't want to drop the earlier URLs, and I thought I'd add some more, in part as a prophylactic measure against a certain faction of WP editors that seems extraordinarily keen to remove anything that doesn't treat the next-but-one Prez (?) with less than rushmost gravitas. -- Hoary (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summary

Well, I gave my reasons for this POV tag in length on the talk page, but apparently you prefer to revert and be uncivil instead of discussing why this POV tag should not be there. Novidmarana (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I read your reasoning and was unconvinced. Your placement of the {{disputed}} tag after several editors disagreed with your edit reminded my of a child who wasn't getting his way.--Evb-wiki (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[1]

I removed it per the talk page. Enigma message 01:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus there. I see two editors agreeing it should not be there and one that believes it should be. That is not a consensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I fail to understand why you restored the controversial content. Enigma message 02:09, 31 October 2008

(UTC)

Full Protection of Candidate's Bios

Hi Evb-wiki, Please express your opinion in the discussion at "Should the election bios stay fully protected through the election": [[2]] Thanks, IP75 (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nailin' Paylin

Yeah, probably...lol Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Zsero (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating 3RR on the Sarah Palin article. Because this is not the first time you have been blocked for edit warring, the duration of the block is now 48 hours. Reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4. The first was verifiable content; the source (CKOI radio) was named in the text. The second was a content dispute. The last two were not blatant vandalism but rather an extension of a content dispute, so they are not exempt from 3RR. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Note to reviewing admins: I will be away from my computer for a few hours. Feel free to unblock without consulting me if you feel it is warranted. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the 3rr has changed since I last read it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I thought the edits needed to involve the same material. These were good-faith edits. I would not have made the edits, if I thought I was violating the rule or edit warring. And I'm not at all interested in the drama going on at the Palin article. I was just intending to keep the article clean.}} --Evb-wiki (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

No violation of 3RR: indeed the first two edits cited pull in contrary directions to each other, and the third and fourth are about an unrelated matter. No vandalism, no edit warring, just good-faith edits with which another editor may agree or disagree. Their disparateness is illustrated by the way in which I (for example) happen to disagree with at least one and agree with at least one.

Request handled by: Hoary (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the unblock, but 3RR was violated. From the policy: "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material". Completely unrelated reverts are still reverts.

Political articles are going to be hotly edited over the next several days. Don't try to police them all yourself. Kafziel Complaint Department 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good morning. I saw that language and hadn't realized that aspect of 3rr. It's not what I had remembered. Under that language, my edits were technically in violation. I assure you, though, they were made in good faith. Anyway, now I know. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for your efforts to keep some of the articles related to the crime projects from vandalism, additions of trivia and irrelevant content. Keep up the good work! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding 3RR

You-know-who has changed the Family of Barack Obama back to the falsified version. Could you please revert it? I'll give him the 3RR warning. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Julie Brown/Sarah Palin Parody

I don't know what possessed you to entirely remove the information on the Sarah Palin Parody page RE: Julie Brown's video spoofs and retooling of her hit song to be about Palin; you claimed it was a "YouTube Spam/Hoax," which is patently false. Perhaps in the future you should do some investigation. In the meantime, a simply click to www.juliebrown.com - the official web page of this award winning actress, singer and comedienne who has been working for over 30 years - would make it quite evident that it is NOT spam or a hoax. CouplandForever (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither YouTube nor www.juliebrown.com is a reliable source. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is, actually. If the video is on her web site then we know it isn't fake, and what more evidence do you need? For that matter, even a video on youtube is evidence that she actually did the parody — how could it be faked? That doesn't necessarily mean the material is notable, it might not be; but verifiability isn't an issue. -- Zsero (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The claims in the paragraph about being the one of the earliest parodies, etc. just weren't credible. Those are primary sources. We are looking for secondary sources here. See WP:RS. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, claims about the significance of the artist's work can't be sourced to the artist herself. As for the dates, I think her web site is reliable unless there's a reason to doubt it. I don't know whether she actually does claim that her parodies are among the earliest, or whether that was an unsourced addition by the editor who put it in. I'm not interested enough in the answer to look and see whether she makes such a claim. But if the date she puts on her first video is early, then I think the claim would be justified, even though in theory should could be lying about it. This isn't a court of law. -- Zsero (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I compromised and put a one-sentence mention of the song parody in the section entitled Immediate comic reaction. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mother insults

Oi, the name of the person the insult is directed to is clearly a commonly used variant of the 'Your mom' come back. How is that original research?

Desjardfan (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not commonly used. Please provide a reliable source to support the variation. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but which of the retort variations is accompanied by a source documenting its common use? By your criteria not one of those should be listed. --Desjardfan (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
When you're right, you're right. I tagged the entire article as {{Improvereferences}} and that section specifically as {{unreferenced}}. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ha, yeah. Kind of struck me as curious why one and not another. I mean, "Your mother's like a bowling ball: she gets fingered, chucked in the gutter and still comes back for more!" Yeah, I can see that. But it's the equivalent of saying, "Your mom's like a vacuum cleaner: sucks, blows, and gets laid in the closet!" is simply a common part of the language.
All of that said, I feel given the nature of this article that the specific name reference is a valid example, especially since it simply built upon one of the (let's be honest) well recognized uses of this insult. If you know a friend's mom's name you're going to work it there just to dig it in more, and that was the purpose of the example. --Desjardfan (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rape Kit "material"

Hi Evb-wiki, thanks for removing that "material" from the Palin article. I have started a RFC and would not mind an other type of mediation. I hope that if enough neutral yes take a look, there will be a fair out come. Cheers, --Tom 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Brook Farm article and cleaning up some of my mess (I should stop typing so late at night)! I think it's getting very close to being ready for a GA nomination. If you have any further clean-up or suggestions for improvement, go for it! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. With the substantive work you've done, it's looking like a quality article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Evb, I'm about to put Brook Farm up for Good Article nomination. If you get a chance, would you be willing to give it another quick run-through (especially for economy of words; I'm not good at that). I've added about another 5k since last you dropped by. It would be much appreciated! --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

South America article

Recently I’ve made some structural changes to that article, in addition to the section I just included. And since, I see that you frequently visit and patrol it I thought, perhaps you’d like to contribute and make some constructive changes to it. The article has lots of potential for improvement, and is in need of some serious changes in terms of style and references. Likeminas (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

War on Terror

Hi, you obviously didn't get my editation you reverted. People add many new combatant nations every day, thats why I want to make it clear, that US is the leader, and other nations are included in these missions.--Novis-M (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The US is listed at top. The coalitions follow. Bolding the coalitions needlessly emphasizes them, not the US, and IMO makes the infobox appear cluttered. The links to the coalitions allow readers to jump to those articles, where they can see the structure, scope and makeup of those allies. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
well I understand this stuff, but majority of people visiting that page would say: "so its only US and UK campaign and their missions?"..."where is norway? where is australia? they fight too"....so thats why I want to make it more understable and simple. --Novis-M (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Berg

v. Obama Was deleted a month ago via AfD. It's less notable now than then, and i'm nominating it for speedy in a few minutes. FyiBali ultimate (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Donofrio v. Wells ref

Hey, thanks for fixing that, I'll try to be more explicit in the first place next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to admit, the title of the news piece gives no hint they would have a side note on Donofrio. I was looking for a written article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I searched NPR for "Obama Supreme Court", and this story popped up. I admit I was equally puzzled at first, as you are quite right about the title. I hadn't really added many links to audio before, I think your fix goes a long way towards clarifying the point. Thanks again! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas

Please see article history. While in the process of editing out the large image, because infact it was large at previous revision, someone else got there before me, and instead of removing it, they shrank it. Therefore I removed their shrunk image incorrectly. Tjpeople (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Poet Laureate

Yes -- I did clearly note that link to another article about poets laureate of several states; but I thought a brief sentence or two was relevant in the context of this U.S. subsection ... with further, more detailed information available at the linked page? I would have thought these sentences were not a redundant duplication, but rather a necessary addition in this context? Have I perhaps misconstrued something about wiki-protocols which needs to be clarified? --Tenmei (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that, if you start listing individual state laureates in that article, we'll end up with all 50 state laureates listed there. Maybe a proposal to merge the List of U.S. states' Poets laureate into Poet laureate should be made. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
In this addition, Lawson Fusao Inada was only offered as an illustrative example. By referring specifically to the explicit title used by Oregon's state government, I hoped to avoid any complaint about mis-identifying the generic term. As I see it, the point you raise now presents an easily resolved problem. I'll gladly defer to any other illustrative example you may prefer -- choose some other poet or some other state, if you like.
As I construe it, the significant issue raised by my revert of your edit has more to do with whether or not a link to a list of state poet laureates was sufficient reason to delete a sentence or two in the body of Poet Laureate#Poets Laureate in other countries. I would have thought not. Frankly, I can admit that if Inaba had not been Japanese-American and sansei, the concept of state-designated poets would not have attracted my notice; but that is almost besides the point. Can you agree with me that some brief mention of officially designated state poets is justified? I don't mean to make too much of this; and indeed, I'm quite willing to defer to your judgment ....
This is something which I myself would have wanted to learn in consulting this Wikipedia article. --Tenmei (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:BO

Just wanted to say that my edit summary wasn't directed at you - I saw that you had answered the question in your edit summary. I was talking to the reinstatement of the comment after that, without going ahead and answering it. Sorry if it seemed I was criticizing you, as I wasn't. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank. And my comment was directed at the same reinstatement comment, not at you. I understood who you were "criticizing" for reverting but not addressing the question. No worries. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How to redo Barack Obama page

I just looked up Obama, and found an outrageous remark. Please revise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moisesencyclopedia (talkcontribs) 03:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Houston

Should Texas A&M University, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State University and Stephen F. Austin State University be listed at List of colleges and universities in Houston? Please see Talk:List of colleges and universities in Houston. Your input is appreciated, Thanks Postoak (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings

Wishing you a Merry Christmas or a Happy Holiday Season and a joyous and healthy 2009! Postoak (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Theater and theatre

Regarding your post: [3] - Do you mind posting evidence to this assertment?

I have had a previous discussion about moving all "theatre" related categories regarding the U.S. to "theater" (which I will restart shortly) - There I posted evidence stating that in both situations "theater" is the proper word to use in the United States. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_27#Category:Theatres_in_the_United_States - here I show that three U.S. universities describe "theater" as the preferred spelling of the word in all instances except in proper noun instances where "theatre" is part of a name of something. Also please consult the previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_24#Category:American_Theatres_or_Theaters.3F. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Annie Mac

Just for the record, I did not add the contradictory information to the above article. That was added by the IP 86.146.85.171. I did, however, notice it and tag it in an effort to help people improve the article.86.1.196.156 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)