User talk:Lantana11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk page contents[edit]

Hi Lantana11, you are free to delete comments from your own talk page, but be sure to log in to your user account when you do so. Since no one can tell who is doing the deleting if you are not logged in, you may get reverted. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise me?[edit]

Hello and greetings from California. Many editors offer their services of advice and expertise, but I am seeking yours because your user and talk pages seem particularly friendly. I could use some Wiki-friendliness right now. I am a relatively new Wikipedian and make contributions relatively seldom; I've often made edits and then deleted them because I was unsure of documentation or perfect neutrality. On 11 June I, User: Lantana11, made a brief addition to article KCBS-TV, recasting the opening two paragraphs. My added material was factual and, I believed, relevant to the article. Within the hour my edit was reverted by User: Rollosmokes; the edit summary merely called my addition "unnecessary." I had a similar experience with this editor on another article a month ago--thrice in one day he deleted two brief but factual additions of mine, branding them "unnecessary" and even "ridiculous." After my fruitless attempts to reach a compromise edit, in great frustration I resorted to an episode of "sock puppetry'--unwittingly, because I did not know that using IP and username alternately to make a point was a violation. But I sat out my block, realized the edit conflict was not worth being angry about, and sent this user a lengthy apology and truce. It was rebuffed and even deleted from his talk page. In the first article edit I had made in a month (KCBS-TV) I received the same treatment at this editor's hands. It makes me a little uneasy about editing when I know there is someone out there waiting for the chance to "put me in my place." I have no intention of arguing or starting a new reversion war, but I do feel a need to stand up for my edit. If you have any advice or guidance for me I would be very grateful. Sorry for such long-windedness, but I wanted to put the complete matter before you, and as you can see this is important to me. Thank you, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I'll take a look at your edits and get back to you in a moment. Regards SilkTork *YES! 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Rollosmokes' history shows that user has been in conflict previously [1], [2], [3]. However a person's past history doesn't mean that all that person's actions will be bad, and some accusations may be unfair. That being said, it's not encouraging that this user has got three ANI mentions.
I also note that WikiProject Television Stations seems to have at its heart a group of editors who rule Television Stations very strongly, and Rollosmokes is part of this group. These individuals may have a reason for their strong attitudes - I have no experience of editing within the Television Stations topic, and it may be a target for vandals which sometimes leads people to have lower tolerance levels than in other less targeted areas. However, it does mean that unless you are working in compliance with this group, that you are likely to have ongoing conflicts.
Unfortunately not all editing on Wikipedia is done in a supportive, collaborative manner. For example, Cabals do exist. That is a reality. Also some areas attract more conflict than others, due maybe to the subject matter or to the editors who dominate that topic. There are rules on Wiki to moderate aggressive, intimidating and unhelpful practices, and to encourage a supportive, collaborative spirit - but the rules are sometimes difficult and time-consuming to enforce. If a user (especially a group of well-installed users) choose to dispute a complaint, it can take a very long time before that dispute runs its full course, and if the person pursuing fair action is less knowledgeable in Wiki ways, has few confederates, and is not as strong willed as those opposing, then the fair action may not be achieved. It is up to you to decide if you wish to continue editing in an area in which you have to fight your corner, or if you might prefer to edit in areas where you may be more welcomed.
My first observations are that you appear to have been very badly treated by Rollosmokes, and I don't quite understand the reason why the user has treated you so badly, nor why that user has reverted your edits. Not to suggest that your edits are right and Rollosmokes' revert was wrong, but that first appearances are that Rollosmokes seems to have handled your case in an unnecessarily aggressive manner which tends to cause more conflict.
I note that you have been blocked for sockpuppetry. I haven't looked fully into that, and would like to hear your side of the story. It appears that your editing alternated between account and IP. This can sometimes happen by accident - but it looks like you made a revert from your account to an edit by your IP in a manner that suggested you were using your account edit to support your IP edit as though they were done by separate people. I understand the frustration that may have prompted this, though if this was deliberate this was a silly thing to do. I hope, if this was deliberate, that you have acknowledged this, and are prepared to commit to never doing this again. We learn by our mistakes, grow stronger from them, and move on. "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." Confucius
Anyway - I think Rollosmokes has - for whatever reason - reverted too strongly in your case, and I will enter into discussion with that user. SilkTork *YES! 23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you well. Remember to be patient with others. There are a whole variety of people editing on Wikipedia, and not all of them are warm and friendly. That, after all, is not the point of the Project. The intention here is to build a free, accessible, accurate and reliable store of knowledge - to that end sometimes people's feet get trodden on and feelings hurt. This is, after all, not a playground or networking site. It is up to you to decide if you wish to continue editing in the field of TV Stations given what has happened. If you do, I would strongly suggest that you initially confine your edits to adding reference sources to existing information, and build from there. And make sure that whatever you add to an article is backed up with a reliable source. If you do decide to return to editing TV Stations articles, I would suggest first a period of editing elsewhere to get a better feel for editing and having your edits accepted. Sometimes it is better to edit in an area in which you have little knowledge, for then you are forced to do some research, and you can then use that research as reference sources for the information you add. Regards SilkTork *YES! 18:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lantana11. You have new messages at AndrewHowse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Re my request for editor assistance concerning KCBS-TV edits[edit]

Not uncommon. It's a concern with ownership of articles, which is a violation of policy. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful template[edit]

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Some people put this template, {{opentasks}}, on their User page. It's a useful set of links to various tasks that need the attention of a willing editor. Give it a go. SilkTork *YES! 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheer up![edit]

I do not know anymore how I have come to read about your dispute with User: Rollosmokes—we have very different areas of interest as it seems—but somehow I have seen the protocols. I am appalled by the uncivil treatment that you had to suffer, especially because you have acted so calmly and well-mannered. I am sorry for this bad experience in the early stage of your editing. I wanted to let you know that I hope you pursue your own way and that Rollosmokes does not put you off track. In the end you will have much more satisfaction here. All the best. Tomeasytalk 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you good luck with your future edits. May they be less about (unsuccessfully) trying to appease some bully and more about content, which is probably why you are here. What are the fields that interest you? Our ways are likely to cross if your interested in geography, languages, politics, econometrics, or engineering.Tomeasytalk 21:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstarn. Had almost forgotten about you after such a long time. I am happy to see that my words became true and kind actions were more pertaining than the bully ones of someone else. As you say "It is always encouraging to see collaboration and good manners prevail." Cheers and lots of fun with your future editing! Tomeasy T C 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rams WikiProject[edit]

Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject St. Louis Rams, a team subproject of WikiProject National Football League dedicated to improving the quality of St. Louis Rams related articles. Simply click here to accept!


I think work on the LA Rams would be a great idea! We need some attention at History of the St. Louis Rams. It is very heavy on the St. Louis side of the history, but the LA section is lacking lots of information. I cleaned up the Cleveland section a bit, but never got around to the LA section. I was going to add information from two books I have on the subject: The Rams: Five Decades of Football by Joseph Hession and How 'Bout Them Rams; A Guide to Rams Football History by Jim Hunstein. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award[edit]

This editor is a Burba and is entitled to display this First Book of Wikipedia.

For your work on Santa Clara University‎, for experiencing and overcoming conflict, and for spreading Wiki Kindness, you have earned the level one Wiki Service Award. Take this book, may it serve you well. SilkTork *YES! 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rollosmokes[edit]

I don't think he's responded since getting his third (and presumably final) indef-block. "Three strikes - yer out!" I can't figure out why he would go to the trouble of sending an e-mail to the one admin who still trusted him (as he points out on his narcissistic talk page) and then screw that admin's good faith within a week. Maybe he just wanted to take one last shot or see what he could get away with. It's a real shame, as it seems like he had something to contribute. There have been times when I've let my ego get in the way too. It comes down to one of my two wikipedia axioms, "How badly do you want to edit wikipedia?" In my case, badly enough to curb my behavior a bit. In his case, NOT. P.S. You should some discretion by removing your editorial comment from his talk page - discretion that he lacked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's indefinitely blocked, for the third time now, and I think this one will stick. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Lantana11 (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I've seen some stuff about his recent socks. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Runteldat As far as I know, they're now blocked, but if you see evidence of any others, don't hesitate to bring it up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, Baseball Bugs.

Holiday Greetings from a California Friend![edit]

Hey, SilkTork! I wish you all the best in your personal, professional, and spiritual matters--may you and those close to you be well and full as we close this year and lurch on towards another. In all candor we here in the US have our obstacles, but the new year does bring us new leadership and optimism and perhaps renewed hope for better days. Cheers, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick. I think it's more than just the people in the US who have obstacles at the moment! However, humanity has the admirable quality of learning from our mistakes and moving ever onwards. I think the new year will bring new hope. Keep well. SilkTork *YES! 11:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays![edit]

Back at ya. Although in southern Cali the days are all about the same, right? Christmas is when you decorate the palm trees, right? :) I've never been inside Dodger Stadium, but I would guess your experience is similar to the first time anyone enters their first big league ballpark, wherever it may be (well, maybe not if it's the Metrodome). I had a similar epiphany the first time I walked up the steps, walked through that little portal on the third base side, and set eyes on all the green at Wrigley Field. It just about knocks your Sox off. d:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to Fenway either, and that's likewise a must-do. Although I had better bring plenty of cash, to scalp a ticket. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I make jokes about the Metrodome, I actually rather like it. It's a football stadium with a ballfield in it for the last 25-plus years, but it has a unique atmosphere. Actually, most any ballpark with a game going on will do for ambience. Bill Veeck once said that the greatest sight in the world is a ballpark filled with people, and second greatest is the ballpark half-filled. One place I miss is the old Comiskey Park. It had 50,000 seats tightly packed together in a double deck that nearly encircled the field, and when they had an SRO crowd there, that place rocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Veeck was an extraordinary character. He loved the game, and was able to run a number of ball clubs despite never having had much money. He couldn't operate now, of course, as free agency killed off any chance that his approach could work, unless he managed to find some very, very wealthy friends as silent partners. It's too bad he's kind of remembered for the infamous anti-Disco night, which wasn't really his fault except for allowing his son Mike to stage it in the first place. Mike paid dearly for it, and will never run a major league club himself, but on the smaller scale his St. Paul Saints are a good success story, echoing Bill's times running the old minor league Milwaukee Brewers - minus the "rolling fence" situation, although that may well have been just one of Veeck's stories. But Veeck's philosophy was the right one - you can't guarantee your team will win, but you can do your best to be sure your patrons have a good time at the ballpark. He was decades ahead of his time on that point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen games in both Tiger Stadium and Baltimore Memorial Stadium. Tiger Stadium was a baseball mecca, and it's a crime that the politicians destroyed it. Baltimore was a multi-purpose stadium, but to my mind one of the best-designed ones - it worked well for both baseball and football. And of course both of those places had some great history connected with them. When I see those old place disappear, I'm reminded of the irony of Terence Mann's speech in Field of Dreams, because it's not just American that's constantly erased and rebuilt, it's the green cathedrals themselves. But as Bart Giamatti said, the great glory of the game asserts itself eventually. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm old enough to remember the Bears playing at Wrigley. They played there for 50 years, and might still be there except the NFL decided that every NFL stadium had to seat at least 50,000, and Wrigley fell a few thousand short, even with the East Stand in place. It was really a cozy atmospher for football. One north end zone corner was smack against the left field wall, and one south end zone corner was actually in the first base dugout. An extra point kick at the north end might end up in Waveland Avenue, just like a home run ball. The goal posts were on the goal line in the NFL in those days, which made things interesting when game action got into the red zone. Last fall they tore up the turf at Wrigley, completely redoing the surface for the first time since the 1930s or so - and they found the supporting structures for those goal posts, unused since 1970. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never went to a Bears game at Wrigley, only saw them on TV all the time, being the regional team. I recall seeing Kezar on TV sometimes, when the 49ers were led by John Brodie. I saw the L.A. Coliseum once, not for a game, just to drop by to look through the peristyle. I was stunned at how big the place was. Breathtaking. At least it's still there. It saddens me to think how many places I've been that have been torn down. Nothing lasts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that there's a fair amount of lost-youth nostalgia about old buildings. It has occurred to me that there were probably people who lamented the loss of Bennett Park after Navin Field was put up. If you've seen photos from the wooden-ballpark era, the stands were small and cozy, and were very close to the diamond. That was part of the appeal of minor league ball to me, during the times when I had better access to minor league games. But even that has slipped away as the new minor league parks are built with more distance between the fans and the players. Give me Durham Athletic Park over Durham Bulls Athletic Park anytime. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Theme parks with a ball game" by the way, for those who get tired of the theme park. Veeck pioneered the idea of entertaining the fans, but he always tried to keep the focus on the diamond. His idea of a "distraction" was a shower in the centerfield bleachers at Sox Park. He's been gone since about 1985. He would probably be tut-tuttin over all this. However, he was also a businessman, and his attitude might be that as long as the people show up, it's all good. I have to say that the DAP was a special case. It was a victim of its own success. I'm assuming you've seen Bull Durham. I'll just say that from what I saw about the trappings, that film pretty well captured it. Except Susan Sarandon wasn't there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The old bull from Durham Athletic Park

Here's a photo from the DAP from nearly 20 years ago. Note the bull is actually in foul territory, not where it was depicted in Bull Durham. In any case, it's unusual for a movie prop to become part of the reality in which the movie is set. Maybe not as unusual as what happened with Field of Dreams, though. You're right that once a pop culture item becomes self-conscious, it can change. Ernie Banks used to talk about "The Friendly Confines of Wrigley Field". That was fine until they painted those words on top of the dugouts. As if you needed a reminder of where you were. That was the Tribune Company's doing. P.K. Wrigley didn't do that. Instead, he had TV ads saying, "Come on out to beautiful Wrigley Field." Truth to tell, the Trib has kept the ballpark in better overall shape than the Wrigley family did. Not that it was a dive before then, by any means. Although Wrigley and Veeck mixed like oil and water, they both believed in the fans. Wrigley Field's main grandstand area, i.e. the part in foul territory, is physically larger than Comiskey's was, but there was more leg room at Wrigley (better leg room than at any ballpark I know of) and that resulted in a lower seating capacity. P.K. also held back 2/3 of the tickets for most games, for walkup business. The Trib company made everything reserved seating, so of course attendance is much higher under their reign, and it's hard for the casual fan to get tickets unless he shows up with big bucks for the scalpers. Wrigley Field is also an architectural hodgepodge (as is Fenway). My favorite quote about the old ballyard is what Babe Ruth allegedly said when he set eyes on it in 1932, when it was only 18 years old and was just another ballpark: "I'd play for half my salary if I could hit in this dump all the time!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays![edit]

Thank you so much for your regards on my talk page. Certainly, I wish you and your loved ones a very pleasant time as well. Have a good start in 2009 and keep making Wikipedia a comfortable place! Yours, Tomeasy T C 08:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl Edition[edit]

It doesn't matter now, 'cause they lost, but I thought you might have lamented the fact, as I did, that there was not enough said about the Cardinals' existence as the Chicago Cardinals and Comiskey Park. Or "Card-Pitt" or "Phil-Pitt." Also--in reading a biography of Pete Rozelle I recently came across the fact that when the old American Football League in 1960 put player names on the backs of jerseys it took the idea directly from Bill Veeck, who was the first sports owner to do so (1960 season). Or so it says. My memory goes as far back as, I think, '67 or '68, and the Sox had names on the jerseys (Joel Horlen, Walt Williams, et al). Lantana11 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All ancient history, I suppose. Last week's Sports Illustrated had a pretty good overview of the franchise. The Sox were the first to use names on a permanent basis, I think. I would have to check the Okkonen book to be sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the reason for putting numbers on the shirts was to sell more scorecards. The names, oddly enough, work against that. My guess is that Veeck saw it as a good promotion and minimal risk. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... taking this stuff a little too seriously?" Let's put it this way - my motto: Before I do anything, I ask myself, "Is it in the best interests of baseball?" Let that be your guide to all things in life. d:) As for names on the shirts, the Okkonen book says the Sox were indeed the first to put names on their team shirts, in 1960. His guess is that it was for television, which certainly makes sense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A point that seems to have been lost on the uniform designers is that with names on the shirts, you don't need numbers anymore. However, numbers are traditional since the early 1930s. The Yankees began the trend in 1929 (after the Indians had experimented with it in 1916 only, and the Cardinals in 1923 only), and all 16 clubs were doing it by 1932. Besides which, they like the idea of retiring numbers, so numbers are here to stay. The next logical innovation would be to have some kind of interactive capability - maybe to have a website link on the player's belt or something, that you could somehow click on, to take you immediately to the players' page on MLB.com, or possibly to the player's personal website, where you could instantly order merchandise before it becomes obsolete (e.g. a Manny Ramirez L.A. Dodgers shirt). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still keep score at the games because the scorecard is a tangible souvenir of the game and is fun to look back upon sometime. And it's also handy in case they don't have the info on the board. Of course, later I can print out the play-by-play from the internet, just to be sure they got it right. :) As far as players getting away, there's no accounting for the behavior of owners, GMs, and players. I'm old enough to remember Brock for Broglio, and more recently the Twins let Ortiz go without even getting some modern equivalent of Broglio in return. Hard telling where Manny will end up. One thing almost certain is that the Twins won't get him, as he's too flamboyant (and too expensive). The Twins like their players to fit a corporate mold of some kind (and not to cost too much). It's good to be a Dodgers fan, though - a team with a rich and colorful history, and frequently a contender. Plus they're in southern Cally, where the games never get rained out, or hardly ever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Twins don't like controversy. For example, the episode with ex-player Kirby Puckett being accused of sexual harassment was embarassing to the organization, and they basically dumped him from the organization after that story came out (he had been an executive VP). That was long after his playing days, of course. They also have a reputation for trying not to "overspend", let's say, a reputation that is somewhat exaggerated. The Griffith family's only source of income, as far as I know, was the team, so they had to penny-pinch. The Pohlad family is another story, and in fact they were more willing to open the pursestrings. In fact, it was said that their generous contract to keep Kirby on the team actually hurt the club overall, as they had spent too much on one player, to the detriment of the team's budget. In recent years they've paid pretty big bucks to a number of players, some even of questionable worth. But they will only pay so much, which is why guys like Santana are allowed to get away. They also don't really draw all that well. The stadium is probably too large for a metro area of its size, and while they do draw "good" crowds, they seldom fill the Dome. Attendance has really been a struggle for them since 1961 when they began. The Twin Cities are really borderline as far as a major league area is concerned, although it's clear they're here to stay now, and obviously the city is much larger than in 1961. But they are going to find that they will miss the Dome, as there is plenty of uncomfortable weather during baseball season. Hard telling about the Vikings, but that's another story. Regarding Cal Griffith and Rod Carew, that was a long time ago, but as I recall, around the time of Carew going to the Angels, Griffith said something about Carew that seemed to have racial overtones, and the angry Carew said, "I'm through being a n***** on his plantation." Whatever Griffith said, it was an old-school kind of comment, and he was stung and hurt by Carew's words; I think he and Carew later talked and ironed things out. Carew is currently an honored ex-Twin, with his number retired and occasionally working for team functions and appearing in team TV commercials. He was a great singles hitter. I think he once threatened to hit .400 for the Angels, finally finishing at .385 or so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting take on the Twins. They are indeed a family-owned business, a throwback, and a team that often overachieves. No one really expected the Twins to tie for first place on the last day of the regular season this past year. They also have 2 World Series trophies, while the much-more-beloved Vikings have nada. They have also won their division 4 times since 2002, which is more than a lot of teams can say. They just don't have the kind of team that does well in the post-season. But post-season success has a lot to do with luck and momentum. They're never going to convince me that the Phillies were the best team in baseball last year, but they won when it counted. And you're right that the A's don't get the respect they deserve, that the Giants get all the press despite having won 0 championships since moving to San Fran, while the A's have 4 since moving to Oakland. That situation is somewhat comparable to the Cubs and White Sox. The disdain for each others' part of town is for real, and many Sox fans were guffawing after the Cubs folded in the post-season (the Sox making it to the post-season was a bonus, but the Cubs were expected to actually do something). Maybe the A's will garner some respect after they open their new park, provided they play competitively. The Coliseum is kind of the last vestige of the much-despised Finley influence, and this will give them a fresh start. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make these [4] changes, or was it a vandalizing IP address? I assumed the latter, and reverted it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Trouble[edit]

No trouble. I reckon I should put back your updated version. But that's not trouble. Trouble is dealing with sockpuppets, like the drawerful that continually try to infest random, seemingly mundane articles like Pioneer Courthouse Square or Rick Reilly. Those are the time-wasters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Caen Section[edit]

The other day was the first time I had read the SF Chron article and I was rather shocked at how poorly written it is. That said, the HC section was pretty good except for the lack of paragraphs. More of a formatting issue to give readers some visual aid in identifying discreet subjects and ideas.

When I get some time I am going to do some major re-writing of the rest of the article - it needs work!--Fizbin (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCU Connecting[edit]

Nick, you're a hard man to track down! The old group (Kevin, Gene, Mark, Jim, Norm, etc) are all getting together late April. This is the closest to a contact I could find on you. I don't want to put public contact info here, but you can easily find me on LinkedIn or Facebook by searching my first and last name. Brian F. 15:00, 17 March 2009 (PDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.14.176 (talk)

Re: Article KCBS-TV[edit]

Thanks for the reply, but I think I'm going to wait until a set date is announced before adding the reference. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1967 NFL Championship Game[edit]

Hi, I have been editing the 1967 NFL Championship Game and the Vince Lombardi articles. I started w Lombardi and then I realized that most of what I have been writing should be in the Ice Bowl article. So I started adding all the stuff to the ice bowl article so I could bet most of it out of the Lombardi page.

I made a mistake and put details of the game in the Lombardi page.

I want some of the Legacy stuff of the ice bowl, like what Kramer said, to go in the Lombardi article.

I want the details of the game that I put in the Lombardi to, almost entirely, go in the ice bowl article.

I am an inexperienced editor and I wrote the correct stuff but just put it in wrong article.

The Lombardi article needs tons of work. *poke*

Right now I am in a holding pattern for the ice bowl. As you can see someone incorrectly reverted my edits and I had to go get someone to tell the other person to stop. Check out the last 500 edits of both articles if you can. Any thoughts? Thanks 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will be temporarily undoing your version of the game because it will be easier for me to undo the person who reverted me 2 times, then I will put back in what you wrote. My last revision removed most of the flowery stuff you mention. Furthermore, the reason for me editing this article started because I was trying to remove the flowery stuff in the Vince Lombardi article. Right now I am leaning on removing the Facenda stuff out of the ice bowl article (it's definitely coming out of the Lombardi article). It might be more suitable in the history of the green bay packers for the lombardi era, especially when you look at page 428 of Maraniss because he mentions many of the players names. I am still awaiting admin permission to reedit the article. Any thoughts??? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me manually reediting the article took 3 hours to do. That's why It's easier to revert what you did and then what he did and then put back in what you wrote. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would love you to get involved with the Vince Lombardi article. The 1967 NFL Championship Game is not the gem. The Vince Lombardi article is the gem. At this time, there exists no FA, GA, A, or B class article associate with any of the greatest coaches in the history of sports. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

s/love/love for s/associate/associated 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lantana11. You have new messages at Tedder's talk page.
Message added 01:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

tedder (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited KCBS-TV, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages WLS, KTLK and WBZ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Lantana11. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lantana11&oldid=1086654024"