User talk:Vidor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



I think...[edit]

it was the blanking of this (your) talkpage. I should've checked, and followed WP:TEMPLAR. Sorry. --Smokizzy (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has been in contact with me about this article, (un)fortunately. --Smokizzy (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


List of worst MLB season records[edit]

You've got some readers questioning the notability of this article. I don't question that. But I wonder if you have an equivalent article called something like List of best MLB season records? Also, some were mis-construing it to mean "worst teams". That's a value judgment. But "worst records" is easily definable. "lowest percentages" could be a better title, as it takes away any hint of point-of-view. Baseball Bugs 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

One issue is that the 1899 team is not listed in the outline, despite having played 154 games. But they are kind of a special case; a conflict-of-interest that would not be allowed today. (The Yankees got away with it with the K.C. Athletics, but as mediocre as the A's were they never came close to 1899's level). Baseball Bugs 04:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that you fixed it. The 1884 Wilmington team was in the "Onion", whose classification as a "major" league remains a travesty, but that's not my decision to make. d:) Baseball Bugs 04:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of best MLB season records[edit]

2/3 as a percentage equates to about 108 games in the 162 game schedule or 102 in the 154 game schedule. Usually 100 wins is considered a fine season, but that might make the list too long to be meaningful. 2/3 might be good if it yields a comparable list to the worst seasons list. As with the "asterisk" for worst pre-1900 season, there could also be one for the percent the Cubs, i.e. White Stockings, racked up in 1880 or so. Baseball Bugs 06:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of obscure baseball records[edit]

I see this one has been nominated for deletion. I'm kind of on the fence about it, but it already passed inspection once. I just wondered if this subject was of interest to you. Baseball Bugs 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One of Tecmobowl's obsessions is tagging articles for deletion. This is just one of many. Like you, I would not vote for deletion. I would vote for improvement or standardization or something like that. Baseball Bugs 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


The Matsui 518 vs. 519 is one of many vandalizations by User talk:Ron liebman, starting around January of this year. That user name and others were hijacked from SABR's member list, and he has also had a number of sockpuppets and IP addresses. He still pops up every 2 or 3 days, and several of us have his prime targets on our watch list. SABR itself properly recognizes 518 as the number. Baseball Bugs 06:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that little war going on. Bizarre. Vidor 06:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The mistake I made with that guy was taking the logical approach, i.e. the assumption that he was sincere but wrong. I've since concluded that he's just the typical vandal that finds something to latch onto, and doesn't care about the subject matter, just about the fight itself. In this case, it doesn't matter if it's 518 or 519, because it's over. It would only matter if he had played the next day. But he was out for months after that. Likewise with Tejada, who gets an extra day in his streak just because he took one at-bat. But it's over, so it's just a number. Yes, it's a stupid rule, but as you said, it is the rule. It reminds me of the rule that a batted ball striking a runner counts as a hit (assuming it still does, I haven't checked lately) instead of the obvious, which would be a fielder's choice. Years ago, someone said that rule will get changed once it breaks up a no-hitter artificially. But apparently that hasn't happened yet. Baseball Bugs 06:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Batted balls do indeed still count as base hits. Vidor 06:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Striking a runner, that is. Just one of those statistical oddities. The "figger filberts" (of which I am not one) sometimes forget that only two stats really matter: W's and L's. Baseball Bugs 06:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For the love of God, keep this template[edit]

{{MLB HoF}}

Congratulations on your future election to the Hall. d:) The interesting thing about the history of that template's arguments is the way it's evolved, which is the point I keep trying to make on that discussion page. The POV argument is bogus. The fair use argument is questionable. And if they simply don't like the picture, they should simply find a different one. The current attempt is called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". And deleting the template from articles is not being done by consensus. Baseball Bugs 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of those folks are confused about what "neutral point of view" means. It doesn't mean pretending that Casey Wise or Dal Maxvill are on equal par with Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. It means not claiming that by ourselves, but pointing to authoritative sources who say that... like the voters for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Baseball Bugs 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It took tremendous self-control for me not to insult that woman. What an idiot. Stating that someone is a member of the HoF isn't point-of-view, it's a fact. Anyway, this looks like a long job but I just went through all the A's. Maybe I'll do the B's tomorrow. Vidor 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, I like the photo. It looks like a cathedral, or a sanctuary. Maybe that's overkill (like the illustration you may have seen, of God handing a baseball to Adam) but these are the ultra-elite of the game's many thousands of players over the years. I might question the inclusion of guys like Morgan Bulkeley and Chick Hafey, but someone thought they belonged, and that's what counts. Baseball Bugs 07:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The real issue that should be discussed, which is one of the complaints in the deletion discussion, is where to place it. Instead of addressing that, they want to delete it. I would put it in the upper left, with the main picture and infobox in the upper right. That's subject to discussion, but it's worth a try. That speaks more to the hodge-podge approach of the baseball bio articles than anything. There needs to be some uniformity. That should be a subject of discussion, not bickering over the HoF template. Baseball Bugs 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, Tecmobowl is reverting all of your changes. Baseball Bugs 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Be prepared for an edit jihad with Tecmobowl... although he seems to be away from his desk this afternoon... as I soon will be. There are sometimes other things to do on a weekend. :) Baseball Bugs 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cap Anson[edit]

For better or worse, what Anson is best known for today is his influence in establishing the color line, which is a real shame, but of course it's his own fault. I fall short of "blaming" him for it, because if it was just him, it wouldn't have happened. There is no question he was a virulent racist, but it took a lot of other racists to establish the color line. His attitude combined with his leadership basically "modeled the way" for that shameful situation, by giving everyone the excuse to do it. Also, someone had reverted the "Pop" for some reason. Contemporary newspapers typically called him "Capt. Anson", and later on "Pop" as he became the old leader of the club, such as it was. Another thing worth mentioning somehow is how powerful a hitter he was, to get near 3,000 hits in the National League during a time when schedules were much shorter. He was an incredible ballplayer and a racist pig. That's the way things go sometime. Baseball Bugs 07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It happens. Can't be avoided. Vidor 08:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking if Anson hadn't done it, maybe Cobb would have. Baseball Bugs 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It might have been too late by then. Then again, maybe not. No way to tell. Vidor 08:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The flip side is that Anson could have been a force for good, if he had endorsed or at least said nothing negative about playing against Fleet Walker, implicitly if not explicitly endorsing integration. Maybe that could have helped undermine segregation, and maybe by Cobb's time it would have been a non-issue. But Anson's attitude was not so unusual in his day, nor was Cobb's. All water under the bridge. Baseball Bugs 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, cool Mongolian food pictured you made. But... what will it take to convince you to upload your new images to the Wikipedia Commons right away? It's exactly the same procedure, only on a different site, so the amount of work will remain exactly the same (which compares favourably to the extra work involved when someone else has to transfer them there). --Latebird 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I've never done it before and when I followed that link to the Commons you gave me it confused the crap out of me. I am not particularly heavy on computer knowledge. Vidor 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well then, go directly to Commons:, or follow any of the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:" links in an article here to find an appropriate category there. Once there, just do the same thing as you did here up to now. There's a first time for everything, and I promise it won't hurt... ;) --Latebird 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I added most of the deleted text, intact, into the 1956 World Series article. You're right, it doesn't really need so much info in both places. Baseball Bugs 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Super. DCGeist will probably pounce, though, as he did the last time I went through and cleaned up that article. Vidor 04:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
DCGeist (the ghost of Washington?) appears to be a perfect-game maven, and I'm sure a reasonable compromise can be achieved. :) Baseball Bugs 10:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Anderson[edit]

I notice that you keep removing the phrase "by most accounts" from the sentence about the killings of the Imperial family. There is no proof that Anastasia died on July 17, 1918 because two bodies are missing and there have been eye witness reports of her survival, as noted in the very next paragraph. She certainly COULD have died that night and the testimony to the contrary might be lies or wishful thinking, but there is no positive proof either way. The phrase "by most accounts" is the most accurate statement. "Anastasia was murdered" is not accurate because there isn't proof. I've switched that back and hope you won't change it. --Bookworm857158367 13:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Anna Anderson[edit]

I have all the books too and I've read Yurovsky's statement. Yes, he said Anastasia died. There are also other statements to the effect that Anastasia survived. We don't know which is correct. Hence the phrase "by most accounts." --Bookworm857158367 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:TenSleepWYchurch.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:TenSleepWYchurch.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


When I went to do some additional work on the 1899 Cleveland situation, I then realized what happened: The clubs basically traded places in the standings. But the Brooklyn club did somewhat the same thing with the Baltimore club, which put the Dodgers into first place and the Cardinals ended up where the Spiders had been the previous year, in fifth. So it was a "significant" improvement for the not-quite-Cardinals in wins and losses, and presumably in paid attendance, but presumably far short of where they had hoped to be (based on their supposed nickname that year, the "Perfectos") which is why I called it "moderate" improvement originally. In terms of pure numbers, it was more than "moderate" for sure. But if they had left Cleveland alone, maybe the Cardinals would have been contracted instead, and the Browns might still be in St. Louis as the only game in town. d:) Baseball Bugs 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

your behavior on Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson[edit]

If you have a problem with my editing that you would like to raise, either by contacting me, or at ANI or some other place, that's fine. If not, I expect the snide comments and accusations to stop. Not only are they attacks on my character, but they are, no matter what, completely inappropriate on article talk pages. Let me also remind you that you are in violation of WP:BAN "it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them." I should also point out that in this case, you're mocking him for something he not only didn't do, but something he was completely and totally unconnected to. I made a suggestion, that was quickly shot down. Mocking me and accusing me of something that isn't true is not ok, and mocking Tecmo for my suggestion is beyong low. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:14, July 29 2007 (UTC)

Expect what you like, but I will say what I please. Your protest would carry more weight if you had not directly admitted to acting on behalf of a banned user, which is certainly a more explicit violation of rules than anything you have accused me of. Vidor 16:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Just notifying you. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:03, July 30 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You are by yourself on that discussion page. You have explicitly admitted to acting on behalf of a banned user. Do what you like. Vidor 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Really, where? Miss Mondegreen talk  09:40, July 31 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca Mark[edit]

Hi Vidor, I've just made some changes to the Rebecca Mark page. There's a lot of stuff about Azurix being listed on the NYSE but the sources I have say it was owned by one of Fastow's SPEs, Atlantic Water Trust. I just found something about it being listed but I don't know what the free float was. I think it likely the firm was controlled by Enron, everything else was... Chat back here I'll watch the page. Cheers --Dilaudid 00:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Checked this out the free float was only 33% - Enron owned 67% of the stock, half indirectly through Marlin (one of Fastow's SPEs). This is from 2000 so they obviously held control til the end. [1] --Dilaudid 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Violation of 3-revert rule:[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg You have violated the three-revert rule on Perfect game. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. Four reverts in under 19 hours: [2], [3], [4], [5].—DCGeist 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As you seem entirely unrepentant about your violation of the rule, I've reported you to the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. I'll be happy to remove the report if you revert your violation.—DCGeist 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You really are a terrible writer. Vidor 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I know! I've essentially written only six Featured Articles: B movie, Film Booking Offices of America, Kinetoscope, Mutual Broadcasting System, Leo Ornstein, and sound film. And I've done extensive writing and rewriting on only three others: heavy metal music, Panavision, and punk rock. I lie awake nights haunted by the thought of how much I could contribute if I was even a halfway decent writer.
3RR report withdrawn per your self-revert.—DCGeist 23:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Are they all as wordy as your perfect game article? Will you ever tell us how the coin flip in John Ward's game affected whether he was pitching in front of a home or away crowd? Will we ever find out what David Wells getting traded has to do with his perfect game? Inquiring minds want to know. And the "first-year player". That one's awesome. I wait for the day that Major League Baseball gives away separate awards for "Rookie of the Year" and "First-Year Player of the Year". Vidor 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
(1) Yup.
(2) To reiterate and explain still further: The coin flip meant that he pitched in the bottom rather than the top of each inning. There is a potential effect on strategy and thus performance. There is also a potential for misunderstanding by present-day readers. Someone scanning the boxscore could easily conclude that Ward was pitching away from home. The inclusion of the brief data point eliminates much of the possibility for confusion about the location and actual course of the game. As User:ww suggests, this sort of datum also educates the reader in one way the game and its basic rules have changed over the years.
(3) Ah...the article is not just about what given information "x" reveals about any given perfect game. It's also about what perfect games reveal about the rest of baseball. In this case, the fact that two of the three most recent perfect game pitchers were soon traded evidences that even such a remarkable achievement does nothing to secure a player's place with a team in contemporary MLB culture.—DCGeist 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone scanning the boxscore could easily conclude that Ward was pitching away from home. Except for the part in the table that says where the game was played. the article is not just about what given information "x" reveals about any given perfect game.--Precisely the problem that I have tried so very hard to fix. It's not an article about "contemporary MLB culture". It's an article about perfect games. Vidor 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Perfect game[edit]

That IP address is back, with typical inflammatory remarks, obvious trolling behavior seeking a reaction. I recommend that we make no further direct response to that user, as it only feeds into his game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, really, but it's way too much fun to antagonize him. I couldn't resist. Vidor 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That's up to you. If I had said something to him, it would have been along the lines of what you said, as in, "If you have such disdain for wikipedia, why are you still here?" Well, obviously, he's still here because he's a troll. My take on this in general is that you and DCGeist are engaged in a content dispute, whereas that IP address is just trying to cause trouble. Have fun. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gorkhi-Terelj National Park[edit]

I made that edit removing "Many Westerners were introduced to Gorkhi-Terelj National Park when" because Westerners aren't the only people who watch "The Amazing Race" (e.g. foreigners in the U.S., people overseas watching it dubbed or with subtitles, etc., and it might subtly and wrongly imply that non-Western foreigners in fact had heard of the place. A formulation like, "one of the first times the park had been featured in a foreign television show" might work better, but is probably unverifiable, so I thought a simple statement of the fact that it had been featured in the TV show would be best, and the readers could draw their own conclusions based on those facts. Your thoughts? cab 00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I guess. I suspect that the North American audience makes up the overwhelming majority of TAR viewers, but it's not important. Change it back if you like. Vidor 06:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of policy on biographies of living persons[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vidor, I have used a Level 3 warning because of the following 3 diffs (talk pages are explicitly included within the policy): [6], [7] (see [8]), and [9] (see [10]). John J. Bulten 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, that's a lie, as the material I provided was referenced. Vidor 03:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible vulnerability[edit]

Hi, I sympathise your attempts to use the word "ger" in article Architecture of Mongolia although I don't insist on that, as I don't think it's vitally important which of the 2 words is used.
However, I am afraid that your examples relating to the Nazi period, may be hurting for members from certain coutnries. You used such an example once before, which could pass as occasional. But repeated occurance maybe thought as systematic. This worry would be settled down if you delete the last sentence in the parentheses in your last comment in the Talk page of that article. Thank you for understanding. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think latebird once mentioned that he is not a German citizen, so he probably doesn't care. Yaan 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The example in question was meant to demonstrate the absurdity of demanding common English words in every instance; nothing less and nothing more. I also cited "Tsar" as another foreign-language word with the English equivalent "king" (or, as was pointed out in the article, the closer equivalent "Caesar"). Vidor 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem was not with translating Mongolian words into English with native English words (ger = tent or house), but using loan word (Yurt) with the same sense just present in English.Bogomolov.PL 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ger is neither tent nor house. The Mongolian for tent is maihan and for house is baishin. It's ui (үй) in Kazakh, which refers to ger-yurt, home and house. Yurt (ger) and tent are completely different things. Gantuya eng 16:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It was an example of impossibility to define extraneous conception using native English words. So loan word is necessary, but English has this word yet - yurt. Is it reasonable add to the English vocabulary ui, ger etc. with the same sense as yurt? Bogomolov.PL 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Buuz is known in Buryatia as poz (different spelling of the same word, these nations are relative), Manti is turkic name of buuz, and special article is present in WP. Also Mandu (dumpling) is present in Korean cuisine. So almost all Asia (from Tukey to Korea) knows buuz as manti-mandu. May bu you will fill a need add link to your buuz in the related manti-mandu articles. Bogomolov.PL 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You could do that yourself if you like, as you know more about it than me. Vidor 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 St. Louis Cardinals season[edit]

Referring to this edit, I don't see anything wrong with a spring training schedule.   jj137 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do, and here it is: they're exhibitions. They don't count in the standings, they don't count in the statistics, they involve a great deal of players who will not appear for the regular St. Louis Cardinals in 2008, and they clutter up an article that already stands to be filled with a lot of stuff when you consider the regular season game log and all the regular season statistics. If you look at the talk page for the '08 season project, you will see that I am not alone in this opinion. If you look at other teams' season pages, you will see that they do not have spring training game logs. Vidor (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

These games may not count in the standings, but they do provide legitimate information, and there is no problem in showing these games, until at least the regular season starts. They don't mention any "players" (or ST standings) as your rant about them mentions. I (probably) would have no problem with its removal AFTER the regular season starts, if it truly upsets you that much to see those 32 games listed.

If you really have a problem with it (until Mar. 31), I have a simple solution for you: ignore the page until April 1. How does that sound? Katydidit (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

they do provide legitimate information. Not really. ignore the page until April 1. No. But, if it will pacify you, I will agree to leave the spring training log in the article until the regular season starts. Afterwards I will delete it. Vidor (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. I was considering removing it myself after the regular season starts, anyway. I've noticed you have been warned at least twice on your reverts and violations of policy rules. Maybe you should take the hint you are on slippery ground with those repeated warnings on your attempts to disobey the rules. Better wise up, and fast or you might get blocked from further edits. Katydidit (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I won't be nice anymore. You are ignorant, and have no idea what you are talking about. I deleted your pointless, stupid addition of exhibition games to the page because it is pointless and stupid. Making edits is not "disobeying the rules". I am not required to ask your permission. I am on no slippery ground. I bet you didn't bother to check any of the other articles, did you? I bet you never looked at the format, did you? I bet you never noticed that the other 29 season articles don't have spring training logs, did you? I bet you never noticed that the 2006 and 2007 Cardinal season articles don't have spring training logs, did you?
I am, as I said above, willing to leave the spring training log in there until the actual season starts. It is pointless, and stupid, but I'll leave it. I will thank you in return not to insult or threaten me anymore. If you do, I'll just go ahead and delete the spring training log now, in accordance with the standard format for baseball season articles. Vidor (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
See WP:WAX. It is not the exact same thing but it is pretty much what you two are arguing about. You can't get rid of the spring training game log simply because the other 29 don't have it. It's called expanding the article. Plus, if you think they take up too much space, then just make them collapsible. It's not that hard.   jj137 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Plus, I don't have a problem with it being removed when the regular season starts.   jj137 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Plus, if you think they take up too much space, then just make them collapsible. It's not that hard.--Or, I could just delete them. I think I am on pretty solid ground, given that these season articles have been going for two or three years now and none of them have had a spring training log. If this "katydidit" person will stop making threats, then I will cooperate with her [him] by leaving the spring training log up until the regular season starts. I will not update it, because it's a waste of time, but I won't delete it. I would appreciate in turn not to be threatened and for the snide editing comments to cease. Vidor (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't insult your intelligence or threaten you, since the lack of the former is already apparent to everyone and the latter isn't appropriate. I'll just keep re-adding the ST games no matter how many times you delete them. BTW, you lied when you promised you would leave them up until Opening Day. ["...but I won't delete it."] Your credibility is now trash for all to see. Katydidit (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you must have thought real hard to come up with all that. Vidor (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Just commenting, the season articles have not been going for two or three years now, in fact, we didn't start creating many of them until less than a year ago.   jj137 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, things don't always have to stay the same. There's always room for change.   jj137 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thing. If you want a consensus on this, just take it to to WT:MLB (but seriously, keep your initial post NPOV).   jj137 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Game logs[edit]

There is a discussion at WT:MLB concerning how to treat the game logs for the 2008 season articles. Check it out, and comment as appropriate. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortened Cardinals history[edit]

I wanted to specifically invite you to look over this User:Timpcrk87/sandbox/Cardinals before I posted it in the main article, since you have recently done a great deal of editing work on the Cardinals article. Discussion has been here. Timpcrk87 (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Barnstar-goldrun7.png The Running Man Barnstar
Your sports editing is top-notch. I also like the fact that your talk page is a great read, and you seem to be a sh*t disturber. (That's a compliment...) Keep up the good work! Roscoestl (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


for all the work on the Garfield assassination page. Your doing a great job!!!Remember (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Vidor (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


"Finally, 33 years after being fired by the band, Best cashed in". Is this encyclopedic?--andreasegde (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Have a nice day. Vidor (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. Have a nice day yourself, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and just because you left this message, I'm going to go back and change it. Bye! Vidor (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it[edit]

Replacing the names at Auschwitz concentration camp with the english form rather than german? You've been told before about this, and surely the reversion of your previous edits was a clear sign they were a bad idea. The discussion on the talk page showed you were clearly in the wrong; immediately changing the page to conform to your ideas of "standards" before the discussion is even finished is at best simply a bad idea. The use of germanic characters is part of wikipedia policy, something which was explained to you; you can't simply disregard it because you think said policy should be different. If you have an issue, start a proposal to get it changed, don't just go around changing the format of names. Expect to hear something more about this from me or WilliamH in the next few days. Ironholds 09:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • the english form rather than german. Yes. surely the reversion of your previous edits was a clear sign they were a bad idea No, it shows that there are certain people who unfortunately are determined to use non-English characters in English-language articles. The discussion on the talk page showed you were clearly in the wrong No, it showed that some people believe English-language articles should use English letters, and some don't. The use of germanic characters is part of wikipedia policy Turns out it isn't: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". Whoops! don't just go around changing the format of names "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Expect to hear something more about this from me or WilliamH in the next few days. A threat! Goodness. Vidor (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I seem to have misunderstood the situation. I'll leave this between you and WilliamH. Ironholds 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter[edit]

--  jj137 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna Anderson[edit]

I will not agree to stating as a certainty that she was Franziska Schanzkowska. Yes, it is likely, which the article already says, but there are still a number of people who have raised questions about that identity. She wasn't Anastasia; it isn't a certainty she was Franziska. All the DNA testing indicated was that her mtDNA was a match to a great-nephew's of Franziska's. A number of other people not closely related to that family probably share the same mtDNA profile. It isn't extraordinarily rare. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • That's unfortunate, since DNA tests have shown she was. Vidor (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No, DNA tests indicate it was LIKELY that she was Franziska and have proven beyond a doubt that she wasn't Grand Duchess Anastasia. She shared mtDNA with a great-nephew of one of Franziska's sisters. That isn't an absolute identity since people who aren't closely related can also share mtDNA. Her supporters still say there were differences in things like hair color, shoe size, height, languages spoken, etc. etc. etc. between Franziska and Anna Anderson. Franziska's brother denied that she was his sister. The article already says what is known, that she was PROBABLY Franziska. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your username[edit]

This has absolutely nothing to do with your recent edits, except that I noticed your username and that you were editing articles about serial killers (some of which I keep on my watchlist, mostly to watch for extreme vandalism). Why I noted it was because an early film actor and director was named King Vidor and he was investigating the mysterious murder of film director William Desmond Taylor. Every time I see your username pop up on my watchlist, I wonder if your name came from anything to do with that. Cheers! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • That is exactly where I got my username. Big, big fan of King Vidor's 1920s silents. Probably the greatest American director of that decade and it's a pity you can't even get his films on DVD. Vidor (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That's terrific to know, it's reinforced my belief in my gut instinct. Then have you read A Cast of Killers that was supposed to be based on Vidor's investigation? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Never read anything about him. Have seen several of his movies. Vidor (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Hanssen[edit]

I left you a NOTE in the subsection "Page is a mess". Hag2 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WP Newsletter[edit]

Bill James[edit]

Please stop reverting this article without discussing things on the talk page. The end.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Why? The end. Vidor (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul[edit]

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln assassination[edit]

I'm not trying to stir up an argument. But I would like a statement from you that the information about Rathbone is not in the source cited. It's fine to point out another source that does not include the information. But please respond specifically as to whether you know that the Rathbone information is not in the Swanson source. If you don't know, then you are taking the wrong approach. Rather than deleting the information about Rathbone, you should discuss the discrepancies between two reputable sources. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know of any reputable source, Swanson or anybody else, that states Rathbone and Booth exchanged words in the box. I can tell you that Steers in his book describes Booth entering the box and shooting Lincoln without stopping to chat with anybody. This is on pages 117-118 of Steers' book, which you can see on a free preview at Google Books. You might be thinking of Charles Forbes, the valet, who was seated OUTSIDE the box. Booth in fact did show his card to Forbes, who said he could go into the box. See page 116 of the Steers book, also available at Google. I have both Steers' book and Swanson's book at home but I am at work so I can't check them at the moment. Consider that it would be most unlikely for Booth to have been able to sneak up on Lincoln and shoot him in the back of the head if Rathbone had talked to Booth and thus Lincoln had known Booth was in the box. Vidor (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
When you get access to the Swanson source, I would appreciate your stating that you know with certainty that the information about Rathbone is not in the Swanson source? Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the historical falsehood of Rathbone and Booth exchanging words was reinserted into the article. Vidor (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BundyvictimsLevyBowman.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BundyvictimsLevyBowman.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks!  LATICS  talk  02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No. Vidor (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill James more[edit]

I see you removed "James' argument was that the evidence available to Dowd at the time was insufficient to reach the coincidentally correct conclusion." As I recall, there was some debate about this awhile back. It occurs to me that that statement is basically a restatement of what the previous paragraph said, so it's arguably redundant. However, the intent of the remaining sentence seems to be to "show up" Bill James, and that's why the extra line had been added... to point out that he was going with what the Dowd report said, and it's not fair to knock him just because Rose later 'fessed up, sort of. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the statement was to show that James was incorrect in his advocacy for Pete Rose and his attacks on the Dowd Report. This is factual, as I hope you'll agree. This is also something the article needs to include if it is going to address James' advocacy for Rose at all. Stating that the Report was 'coincidentally correct' is non-verifiable POV, and an attempt to whitewash James's error. Vidor (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Except that it wasn't an error regarding Rose, it was just that his interpretation of the Dowd report was that it failed to show that Rose bet on baseball. Obviously, the Commissioner thought the Dowd report did demonstrate that, which we know because we heard him say it on TV in his famous (and sadly) farewell speech. It's possible that his belief in Rose clouded his judgment about the Dowd report, but it was still his opinion on the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You should read a Baseball Prospectus article written before Rose's confession. The Prospectus article is here. James called Rose's story that the gambler Janszen was using Rose's name to be "reasonable"; we know it to be false. James repeatedly mischaracterized the evidence. And James' opinion was shown to be wrong when Rose confessed. And, again, the assertion that the Dowd Report was "coincidentally correct" is POV, and in fact it is fair to "knock" James for being an advocate for Rose. Vidor (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If I'm hearing you right, you're saying James was not misreading the Dowd report, but was purposely mischaracterizing it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess there's no telling if James was misreading the Report or mischaracterizing it on purpose. Here's what I think about that section. If the article is going to talk about Bill James and the Dowd Report, it should include the statement that the Dowd Report is correct (Rose did confirm it to be so) and it should not include the POV that the Report was "coincidentally correct". How would you write the paragraph? If we're going to mention it then frankly we should mention that James was shown up when Rose confessed, not torture the article into implying that James was somehow right all along. Vidor (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Whether he was shown up or not depends entirely on whether he was innocently misinterpreting it or deliberately mischaracterizing it. There's no question James was wrong about Rose. The question is whether he really thought he was right, or whether he was being purposely misleading. And if we don't know the answer to that, we can't just say, "Ha ha! He was wrong!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we say he was wrong? He WAS wrong. It should be pointed out that he was wrong. I never put anything in that article suggesting that James was deliberately deceptive. Vidor (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Would James still be "wrong" if Rose hadn't admitted the Dowd report was correct, i.e. if Rose continued to insist that he had not bet on baseball? The link "Evaluating the Dowd Report" makes a good case for James having gotten it wrong, but that author engages in some of the same kind of speculation and connecting the dots that James did, except on the other side of the issue.
Here's how it reads currently:

James was a strong critic of the Dowd Report, which was the most thorough investigation (commissioned by baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti) on the gambling activities of Pete Rose. James, in his Baseball Book 1990, dismissed Dowd's conclusion that the former Cincinnati Reds manager bet on baseball games, for lack of evidence. James reproached commissioner Giamatti and his successor, Fay Vincent, for their acceptance of the Dowd Report as the final word on Rose's gambling.[1]

In 2004, Rose admitted he had bet on baseball and confirmed the Dowd Report was correct.

Here's another way to word it that essentially assumes James was sincere but simply got it wrong, thus giving him the benefit of the doubt. Just let me know if I've got the facts right:

James was a strong critic of the Dowd Report, which was the most thorough investigation (commissioned by baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti) on the gambling activities of Pete Rose. James, in his Baseball Book 1990, dismissed Dowd's conclusion that the former Cincinnati Reds manager bet on baseball games, for lack of evidence. James reproached commissioner Giamatti and his successor, Fay Vincent, for their acceptance of the Dowd Report as the final word on Rose's gambling. A writer named Derek Zumsteg examined the Dowd Report and James' arguments, and concluded that James' reasoning for doubting the report was flawed. [2] In 2004, Rose admitted he had bet on baseball and confirmed that the Dowd Report was correct in its evidence and its conclusions.

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that paragraph as you wrote it and would be perfectly OK if you put it in the article. Vidor (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for your help. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Treblinka extermination camp[edit]

Hi. I noticed you while patrolling for vandalism that you removed a large amount of discussion from this page without indicating what you were doing in your edit summary. You appear to have removed a number of comments (most anonymous) that were denying the holocaust. While I sympathize with your opinion, I am very aware that it is indeed an opinion and that to erase someone else's opinion is a form of censorship. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not censored. I also do not see the discussions you removed as a form of vandalism. I have therefore restored the material you removed. If you wish to discuss the removal of the material further, I invite you to contact me on my talk page. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss it here. Holocaust denial is in fact vandalism of Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Vidor (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You are of course entitled to your opinion. I'm not aware of any official policy of Wikipedia that says questioning that the Holocaust happened is a form of vandalism. However, from my point of view, removing what appear to be good faith comments of others (even if misinformed comments) that you happen to disagree with, without leaving an edit summary, as you did here, here, and here are clear violations of wikipedia's vandalism policy (See WP:VANDALISM). Although it may be rhetorically convenient for you label me as a friend of Holocaust deniers (something I suspect you are intelligent enough to know is not true), to clarify, I am an advocate for freedom of speech, and an opponent of those who would censor free speech. In case you didn't know, personal attacks on other editors on wikipedia also violates policy. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Lies are not commonly held to be under the protection of "free speech". Nor is removal of lies and disinformation from an encyclopedia usually regarded as censorship. For that matter, altering Wikipedia to indicate that actual events did not happen certainly would seem to be vandalism. Would it not be vandalism if I went to the Julius Caesar article and littered the talk page with assertions that Caesar never existed? How about if I went to the Sand Creek massacre article and said that never happened? Would that be an honest, good faith contribution to Wikipedia, or would it be vandalism? But as far as the talk page goes, you may rest assured that I will make no further attempt to remove the comments by the Holocaust deniers; their lies will remain on the talk page. Vidor (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll respond at the talk page so this discussion is more open to comment.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Heinrich Himmler[edit]

I went and restored the inforamtion about Allach porcelain because it was important to Himmler. It is relitive infromation because it show a side of him that is not normaly seen. He had a love for the art of porcelain. Sure he used it for political and propaganda reasons but it was something he probably enjoyed. He also had the Julleuchter made by Allach porcelain and given to all SS soldiers. It fits in with his occultism as well.

No it isn't. Vidor (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


I like this! Gwen Gale (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Put that in the John Franklin article nearly two years ago, got taken out at some point. Seems like the summary helps. Glad you like it. Vidor (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I had some fuzzy memory of that, I guess. Happy to see it back. It pulls the story together. It makes me think of putting in a few more of Hall's Inuit tales, though dating them might be tough, I'd have to look. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


This image name is discussed at en:wiki image page.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good EL![edit]

Hi Vidor, the EL you added a Ted Bundy is good! Thanks a lot. --Bluptr (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Vidor. Nice article. But I'm not too sure that you should trust RedSpruce's mug shot upload "location". It claims the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Yet the "Inmate Locater" at the BOP does not provide that sort of service. When I attempted a similar search for Michael Riconosciuto, I eventually wrote a letter to the California federal prison where he was located (Terminal Island), and the public relation officer wrote back in words or substance that the prisons do not provide that sort of information about inmates. Hanssen's mug shot is a nice addition, but I think sooner or later someone will realize that RedSpruce's upload at Commons is bogus. —Dixie Brown (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "FBI". It's in public domain in any case. Vidor (talk)

Administrative stuff[edit]

Hi there, could you please state formally that you're the author of this picture? It's just been moved to Commons and policy there requires an explicit statement. Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Okey dokey. Vidor (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It didn't have to be that formal though, a simple confirmation here would have been ok I guess. Sorry for the trouble. --Eusebius (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer[edit]

By the way, just thought I'd say that I think the recent edits you made to this article look good. There's so much negativity all the time I like to consciously remember to comment on useful additions now and then. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you...that article was pretty rough. Vidor (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

champs, chimps, and chumps[edit]

I'm still snickering at your latest comments at the World Series talk page. And I thought I was "out there". Go get 'em! :) :) :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Man is that guy annoying. Vidor (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:TedBundyincustody.jpg)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ely, Nevada[edit]

You left a hanging ref tag in the Ely, Nevada article.

It is like hitting the O'dog in the back of the head.

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tedbundydentalevidence.jpg)[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


In the past, I would have tried to address the additions made to this article today, but since you've been working on it so diligently lately, I thought perhaps you would have a better idea of the appropriateness and placement for the edits made today and how they fit (or don't) in your vision of the article. If not, let me know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with those additions. Do you? Vidor (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Erast Fandorin[edit]

I am conducting a reassessment as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found come concerns which need addressing if this article is to keep its GA status, which may be found at Talk:Erast Fandorin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:CalienteNV.jpg[edit]

File:CalienteNV.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:CalienteNV.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:CalienteNV.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

3 revert warning[edit]

Please avoid an edit war on Shroud of Turin. You have 2 editors reverting you. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I have reverted that page exactly once. You should focus your attention on those who insist on having a novel-length opening section. Nor do I know what standing you have to give me a warning. Vidor (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not need a standing to issue a warning. History2007 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, then I guess I don't need a standing to say I don't care what you think. Vidor (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • However, you and Mr Searson have reverted each other enough times, that should you attempt to revert again, and anyone responds, you will cross the 3R line first and will be blocked. Please avoid that. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This warning would be more interesting if you were issuing it to anyone else, or making any input on the topic at hand. Which, by the way, I am right about. Vidor (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not deciding if you are right/wrong. Just that shoot fast deletions and I will revert in 5 seconds comments are to be avoided. Period. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you have not made any notations to Mike Searson's talk page, not to warn him as you have me or threaten him as you have me or insult him as you have me. So we would both be better off if you would stop pretending to be a neutral arbiter. BTW, is "Period." supposed to make me pay more attention? Vidor (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 7b6191870d16fd0dc334f70aeb1601ba[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


I've had this article sitting in an open tab all day, contemplating looking more deeply into the massive changes done to it. I've been hesitant to tackle it mostly because I've crossed paths with the editor before and I fear he'd think I'm picking on him. There are some stylistic things I'm comfortable in addressing but I'm glad to see you pop up on the talk page. I'm hoping since you said you are reading the book right now, that you might look it over and ensure it hasn't had incorrect or erroneous changes. Let me know if you are thinking of editing the article. There are a lot of people who edit crime related articles, but few I trust. You are one of them I trust. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I think most of the massive changes were done by me. The entire section devoted to Dr. Helen Morrison was removed by me. The photos of the eight John Does were removed by me, on the grounds that they all look alike (seriously, you can check this by accessing an old version of the article). The photos of Gacy with Rosalynn Carter and Gacy's drawing were added by me. I am rereading "Killer Clown" right now in part to resolve the discrepancy cited in the talk page re: number of victims. I will probably edit that one way or another but I have no more large ideas for the article right now. Thank you for your compliment above. It seems serial killer articles in particular are magnets for morons and vandals. Vidor (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I noted your edits. The new changes were by someone who came in this week and rewrote and expanded quite a lot of content here, which concerns me. These are the additions/changes that bother me a bit. Serial killer articles are just magnets, even for relatively normal persons. If you have time, could you possibly look over the changes I noted? This will allow me to escape offending the editor even more and allow for checking. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the new edits, really. Vidor (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

29 in the basement and 4 in the river, if I recall correctly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't. 26 in the basement, one in the kitchen floorboards, one under the barbecue pit, one in the garage, 29 total at 8213 West Summerdale. 4 more in the river. Vidor (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Aha. 4 in the river and 29 in various places in the house, as he presumably started to run out of room. That can happen when someone gets carried away with their hobby. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Death of John Lennon[edit]

The event happened in the United States, but articles about Lennon are subject to WP:ENGVAR and so UK dates are appropriate. In either case, linking full dates is deprecated. Regarding "tragedy" versus "event", the latter is neutral. I consider Lennon's death a tragedy, and I presume you do, too, but editors are not supposed to impose their point of view on readers. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please show a citation showing that all articles about John Lennon are to use UK dates. His murder happened in New York City, not London. Vidor (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Guidelines in both WP:ENGVAR and WP:DATE indicate that articles should be consistent, and the other dates in Death of John Lennon are in UK format. WP:DATE makes the specific comment that British format dates should be used if the article concerns a British subject, and John Lennon is a British subject. WP:DATE further says, "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason." — John Cardinal (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
the other dates in Death of John Lennon are in UK format Hm. I might have to change them all, then. Vidor (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You asked for "a citation", and I gave you a couple. Was that really so you could ignore them? Did you miss the part that "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason"? — John Cardinal (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a cousin named Reggie? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that's funny, stop it, it hurts to laugh so hard. No one ever noticed that "Cardinal" is the name of a bird before, ouch, can't breathe, oh, ha-ha. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
My backup comment was going to be to ask whether you like to sit on a Cardinal cushin'. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Another zinger! And on a page that has a Cardinals section header! — John Cardinal (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a Ginsu. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the style should vary depending on where he was living when a particular event happened. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe that's a discussion for the WP:ENGVAR and WP:DATE pages. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, that's a lot of messages. Vidor (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Documentary w/ Bundy[edit]

Hi, Vidor. I'm sorry, but the "video=bad" edit summary is not only incorrect, but it is obvious (at least to me) that you are wanting to deny the facts from being presented in the article. If you read my response to you on the Bundy talk page, you will see that the video does not equal "bad", but it equals "correct". Why are you insisting on removing a valid reference from this article as well as removing that which is factual? Is there something within Wikipedia's standards that states erroneous references are to supercede factual references that I am unaware of? Just because it's in Rule's book does not make it correct (especially if you view the video as I did and was able to note the incorrect "quote" from Cowart in comparison to the words actually coming out of his mouth). Please, let's discuss this on the article's talk page and not just keep reverting edits back and forth, okay? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

video=bad Vidor (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Fine. You don't want to discuss but would rather turn this into a mono-syllabic battle? I'll just take it up with the appropriate admin board. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Make sure to tell the admin board that you are a minority of one and that every other user who's commented on the talk page agrees that using a video as a reference is not a sound practice. Vidor (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
If this goes to a board I'd appreciate being informed since I am also active there. I am trying to see if there is a consensus for either or right now as you are aware. Maybe if a consensus shows up we can put this to rest already without any administrator actions necessary. All I want is to have this come to an end as peacefully as possible. Thanks and sorry for butting in on this discussion. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Vidor, have you looked at the video? I finally got to see the youtube one but not the documentary that is now said to be used because I can't find the judges words. The dif that was supplied was more generic than useful for finding what we need in it. I found the youtube video poorly done because you can't understand the beginning of it. Then Moonriddengirl explained that it violated WP:Copyright rules so it was out and then this new dif was supplied but when asked where in the dif is the judge's words I keep being referred to watch the youtube video. I wouldn't mind the video of the documentary if there is actually a video of the judge's words in the documentary. It would be of better quality and it would pass the inclusions of the use of videos. I thought the strawpoll would put this to rest but it seems I was entirely wrong about that and it's just made things even more confusing, at least it has to me. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Vidor! I fully understand the inadmissible nature of the YouTube video (and the endlessly tiresome "argument" surrounding it ;>), but I strongly feel we should keep the written quote from Rule. I was agreeing with SRQueen only about the preferable inclusion of the court transcript/video/audio - IF it were able to be included on WP, and it is not as of yet. The sources must always be clear, easily citable and verifiable, such as Rule, and not an unreliable source (like YouTube). Happy New Year! Doc9871 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


You should be aware that your name came up in a complaint filed at WP:WQA#User:Wildhartlivie as a member of a "conspiracy of bullies" named by SkagitRiverQueen, if you are interested. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • What a drama queen. Vidor (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
At least. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ted_Bundy_murder_tools_police_photo.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Ted_Bundy_murder_tools_police_photo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is this free image to replace the existing one, Rockfang? It's an official police photograph of the specific items in the specific case. Why on earth do you feel this image is more easily replaced by a "free" one? Doc9871 (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As Doc9871 says, I have no idea where the claim that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found comes from. The contents of Ted Bundy's bag are not on display at a museum for an individual to take a picture of and post under a public domain license. No FBI member ever took a picture of the bag's contents that could be displayed under a "federal employee in the course of his official duties" tag. And the photo is very important to the article because it demonstrates the reason why Bundy was arrested in August 1975 and how he was linked to the DaRonch kidnapping and Kent murder. I would like to hear Rockfang's basis for making this seemingly unsupportable claim. Vidor (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a bunch of spiteful nonsense from Rockfang. I just smoked him and his admin buddy by correcting a very simple link mistake on a very big page that they should have caught, not a lowly little "peon" editor like me (see the recent history of WP:NFCC). Instead, they went about chopping up my personal User page to make an example of some bad thing I probably did to one of their cronies somewhere down the line. I think I know where this originally stems from - but, hell! Bring it on! I only get stronger and learn quicker and more efficiently in the face of adversity. "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women..." Doc9871 (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak to Rockfang's past history but I think the contention made here is pretty plainly false. Please pitch in with your input on the talk page for the image as well. Vidor (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the image is gone now. That's what happens when an image gets nominated for deletion, period. Why don't you put it back up with an iron-clad rationale? Just a suggestion (if I had the image, I'd put it up under a...) I've said too much. Let's get the image back up (e-mail me if you care to)... Doc9871 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find your email on your page. Feel free to email me at and we can discuss this. Vidor (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


I have tagged File:Ted_Bundy_murder_kit.JPG as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. Melesse (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to ask you about this, what happened to the image in the article? It was there, now it's not. I guess I'll take a walk down history to see what happened. When you get a chance, if I don't get to it, please return it to the article. It took a lot of work by you to get it here, now it's just plain strange that it's gone. :) Hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, Rockfang struck again. Shrank the picture dramatically. I have reverted to the version that I posted on Jan. 27. Please weigh in on the talk pages for the article and the image. Vidor (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I responded after you did. We do have consensus on our side so hopefully this takes care of it again. Oh and I think you should know that you are mentioned here. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I didn't want to clutter your page about images of Ted Bundy so I thought here would be a location for some thoughts I have that I would like to run past you. :) First this section I think the mugshot should be a lot smaller. I would do it but actually I don't know how to. I think it's too big and the reason I think it should be smaller is that there are a lot of good images on this article and I don't want others to start thinking that the images have taken over. There are quite a few mugshots of him also, so I think they should be about the same size. Thoughts? I would love to be able to find one or even some of the sketches made during the hunt for the ellusive 'Ted'. I found some, even one where they were spread out on a table but they were all copywrite protected. Just thought I would put this out there because you are good at finding images that are usuable. Thanks for your time and I personally appreciate the work you've done to get the images into this article, and others. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To change the size of a photo just go to Edit and change the pixel size--you will see it in the article as "150px" for that photo. Bigger the number, bigger the photo. As for images taking over the article, I don't think we're there yet but we could always start making choices. I think the photo of Ted leaning against the wall and the photo of him in cuffs walking to a car with a folder full of documents could both go, if necessary. As might either the Utah mugshot at the top or the FBI mugshot I just added. As for what photos would be good, your idea of the police sketch is good. I'd like to see another picture of a victim (here is a lovely, and sad, picture of Caryn Campbell) and a picture of Ted before he became a murder suspect. But I don't know where you'd find one that wasn't under copyright. Vidor (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless there's a "limit" to how many free images can be included in an article, I don't see any need to "cull" any images from this article at all. These are irreplaceable historical records, placed appropriately within the article. There are so many articles that can't have the images they deserve because those images aren't free; no reason that I can see to lessen the number of valuable images in this article in any way. Keep up the good work, Vidor! Doc9871 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Vidor about telling me how to size, I just couldn't remember and was too tired at the time to locate it when I tried. I just needed a reminder, yet again. :( As for the sketches and the other pictures, yea they would be a great addition. I'll try to keep an eye out too for any. Doc, I wasn't suggesting culling the images. I suggested sizing them down so that others didn't claim there were too many of them. I've seen editors claim that an article is overwhelmed with images before and then the images came under attack for deletion, I believe the Charles Whitman article had this claimed at one time. I don't want to see this happen with this article. I just feared that the recent deletion requests on the articles images was because it was noticed that there were a lot of images so that was the reason for that editor to start questioning the images one by one. I think that is what was happening with the tool kit and then the mugshot ones. I think as long as we keep the images a reasonable size, there shouldn't be a problem plus if there does become a problem like in the past we would be able to justify their uses like we've be able to. I really wish we could find the sketch(es) though, I think that would be a great addition. Oh well. Thanks guys, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need to cull any images now. I was speaking hypothetically, in case we were able to find some more images for the article. It IS possible for an article to have too many images. The Auschwitz concentration camp had so many images they made a picture gallery. If we were to find a way to include the Campbell photo, and a photo of Bundy b/f he was a murder suspect, and a "Ted" sketch, and one of the crime scene diagrams from the hardback edition of "The Only Living Witness"...but we aren't at that point and might never be. Vidor (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, we'll be driving through Colorado this summer, and the wife specifically requested to stop in Aspen. I thought I might take a snapshot of the Wildwood Inn walkway in Snowmass. I wonder if the same courthouse is in use in Aspen? Would it be possible to find out exactly what window Ted jumped out of? Vidor (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be a good addition. I am pretty sure he jumped through a second floor window per Ann Rule in a A Stranger Beside Me. Can't help with the courthouse question. Maybe you ask when you get there, I'm sure they would know if that's where Bundy jumped from. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
A quick google search revealed that the same courthouse has been in use for 120 years. Which window is a tougher question. Vidor (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Bench docket specifying sentences for conviction in the Chi Omega trial. Signed by Judge Cowart. Interesting, but probably not useful enough to put in the article. Vidor (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bundy and his religion/lack of religion[edit]

I hope you're around to help explain stuff to SRQ. --Tuudder (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'll keep a watch on the page now that I've seen this. Vidor (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Miracle on Ice and File:Sports Illustrated Miracle on Ice cover.jpg[edit]

Couple of things - edit summaries like "lovely!" and "much better!" are not helpful as they don't provide any valid reasons for your edit or address other editors' concern in any way. Plus, non-free content like the SI magazine covers are not to be used for decoration, but in context within the article body. Finally, the historic image tag is only valid when and where the image's significance is discussed, but that's already covered by the magazine cover tag so it's redundant, and invalid if you move the image to the top of the article. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. --Mosmof (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason is that the article is better my way, and worse your way. And no, I don't have any questions. Vidor (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you be more explicit? I'm open to the possibility that you are right, but your edit summaries don't help me understand why. --Mosmof (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Old news[edit]

It's real old news, but can you explain this? I looked through the entire article, including all the notes, but could not find a rationale. I ask also because I came across a comment at User_talk:Benjaminsp, from an editor who hasn't returned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes I can. That game was not pitched in an official Negro League game. It was pitched in a Florida winter league. So I deleted it. If there were a record of a perfect game being played in official Negro League competition I'd support its inclusion within the article, but, so far as I know, there isn't. That maybe isn't surprising as perfect games are rare to begin with, and the Negro Leagues played considerably shorter seasons than MLB did (less than 100 games, sometimes 60 or less, sometimes much less; see the Negro National League standings for 1939). BTW, this was discussed on the talk page for the article, here. Vidor (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Excellent, thanks--and I see now that the editor in fact responded, but just never removed the complaint from their talk page. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ted Bundy new image[edit]

Hi, is there a better picture than this one? This one is too far away and the trees are in the way of the second story windows. The way it is I personally don't find it helpful to the article since the article has enough images in it, at least in my opinion. You are realy good at find images so I thought I'd ask. Thanks and hope all is well, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Not one that shows the whole building. That was taken from directly across the street. BTW I didn't find that image--I took it myself yesterday. Am here in Aspen. Would you prefer an end-on view that shows just the corner and Ted's window? Vidor (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know. Can you email it to me so I can see it? Wow, you're in Aspen, vacation, work or a little of both? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Vacation. Yesterday I took several closeups of the window and linked to them at the end of the article discussion page. Look at those and see what you think. Vidor (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I responded there in case you missed me. :) It sounds like a lovely vacation. I'm jealous. :) I hope you had a wonderful time. Our anniversary is close, 35 years, and I was hoping to be able to do something special but it can't be done because of a fall my mother, she'll be 80 this Dec., took yesterday. I have to be here to help her out which is my first priority. You take care, and the photos are all good. I just picked the one I think works the best but seriously I won't object to any you decide to use. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Enough of this idle chit-chat! We have work to do! Sorry, but I'm sufficiently blind that I'm not seeing the links to the close-ups the OP took. Could you link them here? Also, we need more close-ups of ol' Ted himself. He's got kind of a unique look in his eyes. Reminds me of photos I've seen of corpses with their eyes still open. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Okey doke, here they are. 4708?4709? 4712? 4715? 4716? 4717? Feel free to weigh in on if one of the photos above would better serve our purposes by showing the window Ted jumped out of. As for photographs of Ted, we are, as always, limited by the tyranny of copyright. Fairly few Ted photos floating around out there that aren't under copyright. I think I've found just about all of them, frankly. Vidor (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Those are all good photos. I like the first one, because it shows the window in question, and also shows most of the building, so you have better context. That one could be used in place of the one in the article currently. As far as Bundy himself is concerned, realistically we've probably got sufficient photos of that character in the article. I'd like to see one of him post-frying, with his eyes open, and see if he looks any different dead than he did when alive. But a photo like that might be hard to come by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The original photo is not so bad at full size File:Pitkin County Courthouse.jpg but the lighting makes it look too dark at small size. The newer ones, taken on a somewhat overcast day and with better light on that side of the building, and at a better angle, make it a good candidate to replace the current one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a photo of Ted post-frying with his eyes open. Here it is. It's part of this gallery, which contains 257 images--some of which are the familiar ones from the books, some of which are photoshopped jokes, some of which are quite rare and striking (Ted on Death Row with his little girl riding on his shoulders), and some of which are definitely NSFW and disturbing (Chi Omega autopsy photos, a closeup of Caryn Campbell showing how animals ate her face off). There's one photo there that I'd love to stick in the article, and that's this one. It's in color, it's a juxtaposition of Ted with a woman that looks like a perfect fit for his victim profile, and he's got that creepy smile that makes him look like a wolf. Vidor (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Trading Places[edit]

Hi, just started a discussion about the section in dispute on the Trading Places article; would appreciate your input! Thanks! DP76764 (Talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Caryn Campbell Ted Bundy victim.jpg[edit]


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


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:MuralSouthLakeTahoeCA.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MuralSouthLakeTahoeCA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly hi! 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Continued copyright violations[edit]

Uploading File:Mongolian Parliament.JPG under a different name doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation. If you upload it again, I will block you. --Carnildo (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When did Mongolian copyright law apply to the English wikipedia? And for that matter, why is only one image being deleted? There are six pictures of buildings on the Ulan Bator page right now. Please don't pretend that you are applying your rules in anything resembling a fair and equitable manner. Vidor (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Kay - here's the problem. Your last deletion edit left broken references: are you going to fix that? I'm not going to babysit the two of you for every edit, but one wants to add a bunch of stuff and the other wants to remove it. Guess who's who. Not cool to leave broken references, and you should know this. Doc talk 08:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Which are the broken references? As for who wants to add stuff and who wants to delete it, is it a given that adding things is good and deleting things is bad? Vidor (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
See that ugly red text at the bottom of the reflist? It wasn't there before your culling. You need to fix it, as it doesn't help the article. Doc talk 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Okey doke, then. That's just cleanup. Do you disagree with the substantive decision to remove the link to that photo, which is unsourced and not verified to be authentic? Is the article better for having a link to a photo of unknown origin? Vidor (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Better :> As I said, I'm Switzerland in this one, and we've got two editors that want this to be their article. Never a good thing. We'll see how it goes - I'm gonna submit it for the goons at WP:GAN just to end this bullplop once and for all. Something neither of you may want, but that's what has to happen, apparently. Cheers ;> Doc talk 08:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I will try to be flexible. I only deleted 3000 bytes this time, as opposed to 10,000 bytes when I came to the article a few days ago. If it really were my article, I'd take great big whacks out of it, but as it stands most of what DoctorJoeE added remains. Vidor (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I just want this to be recognized as a good article because it IS a good article. One of the best I've seen. We can all work this out, but I fear a revert-war between the two of you (again). We can't have that. I don't necessari trust their judgement over at GAN (and some will have to recuse themselves) but this MUST be rated a GA. It should be a FA. We'll see what DoctorJoeE does before I put it on the slab. Cheers :> Doc talk 09:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svgThis user helped promote the article Ted Bundy to good article status.
FA is next, and thanks for your many and continued improvements. Doc talk 07:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Where the hell are ya? As the #1 all-time contributor (by a freakin' long shot) to the article I would think you'd want to be a part of the recent developments. Your contributions and commitment to this article have been invaluable, and I hope you'll resurface again. Cheers! Doc talk 05:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Been away from Wikipedia for a while. This is good to hear. Vidor (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ted Bundy/archive1[edit]

There are two issues with the Florida archive images. Both are serious, but the first is more serious than the second. Firstly, on what authority does the Florida archive release these images freely? Who created the images, and why does Florida own them? It's all well and good the organisation saying we can use them, but if they do not own the copyright, that's kind of useless. Even if they have a claim to the copyright of the majority of the pictures, there may still be problems- the photograph of photographs, for instance. The second issue is that they may have been released under a free license, but that does not mean we should be listing them as released under a specific Creative Commons license on a whim. If they are released freely, the specific terms of their release should be listed, not just a Creative Commons license that someone reckons sounds about right. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to take that up with Wikimedia Commons and the state of Florida, as the Florida Legislature released the pictures, and the Commons deemed that acceptable and even created a category to that effect. There is a large collection of photos from the Florida Memory Project at the Commons. Vidor (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This goes way beyond the scope of this article and into WP Commons and Florida state laws. The "picture of two pictures" clearly appears to be a photograph of a court exhibit (but I'm no expert). How Florida has decided that these images can be used is not our job to figure out - but I will be happy to contact them and clarify with absolute certainty what they are talking about. I've dealt with Corbis before, and it's a simple matter of an e-mail. Doc talk 03:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of James A. Garfield[edit]

Would you please explain why your recent edits of Assassination of James A. Garfield removed information that was properly cited. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    • Because it was pointless. Vidor (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Khalkhyn Gol[edit]

You have previously moved the article on Khalkhyn Gol. The article has been proposed for moving again, see Talk:Halh River#Requested move (again). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In One for the Road (Cheers), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Ken Levine (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) 10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Small-pox pic[edit]

Hi Vidor about 3 years ago you provided a great pic of a smallpox patient. I'd like to use it in a paper - it's labelled Illinois Department of Public Health, 1912. Do you have any further details of its citation. Many thanks

Porturology (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Collection at the Illnois Department of Public Health website, see [here].

Proposed deletion of Game Six of the 2011 World Series[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Game Six of the 2011 World Series has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable outside of 2011 World Series

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Game Six of the 2011 World Series for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Game Six of the 2011 World Series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Six of the 2011 World Series until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 1992 National League Championship Series Game 7 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1992 National League Championship Series Game 7 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992 National League Championship Series Game 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for efforts to save Game Six of the 2011 World Series[edit]

Vidor, Thank you for your efforts to help save the dedicated article for Game Six of the 2011 World Series. I was reading through some of your comments and posts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Six of the 2011 World Series , and I was proud to see a fellow editor stand up against the troll-like behavior exhibited by some other editors. Clearly, things like censorship, and a disregard for Wikipedia's own guidelines, such as WP:SPORTSEVENT, might be issues fellow editors will have to contend with going forward. That said, I encourage you to keep up your good work on baseball-related edits. Cheers! Monowi (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't know how much Wikipedia editing I'll be doing--incidents like that and other incidents at the Commons have kind of turned me off the whole project, in all honesty. I do, however, sometimes toy with the idea of going to the 2011 World Series article and greatly expanding the Game Six subsection. I remain boggled that anyone would think Game Six was not notable. Especially given some of the trash that litters Wikipedia. Thanks for the support. Vidor (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Hello, Vidor.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden sombrero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Flanagan (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) 11:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Given your prior opinion in the matter, I thought you might like to weigh in regarding a proposed page move.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Vidor! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1900–09 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1900–09, Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1910–19, Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1930–39, Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1940–49, Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1960–69, Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1970–79, and Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1980–89 are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted or redirected.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1900–09 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stephen Glass Jukt Micronics site.gif[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Evaluating the Dowd Report", Derek Zumsteg, Baseball Prospectus
  2. ^ "Evaluating the Dowd Report", Derek Zumsteg, Baseball Prospectus