User talk:Robert K S/Archive01

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a full episode of Jeopardy! that is not listed in the J! Archive. It's dated 5/10/1996 and it's the fifth quarterfinal match of the 1995-96 Teen Tournament. Do you know who I should contact on submitting the information so it can be read online? Maple Leaf fan '04 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm transferring the episode to DVD now. The next step will be an overnight encoding using software I have that is specific to the job and then after I upload the file, you should expect a download link as early as Monday. The file size will be around 195 MB. Maple Leaf fan '04 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point about use of the word "reunited", and I will not revert again. It was your explanation that I reacted to, that they weren't in the studio at the same time. Recording in the studio at the same time is not the defining characteristic of being a band because they often recorded separately on Beatles albums after they had the technology to do so. Ward3001 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see this comment now, Robert, but why would I have seen it before I wrote that edit summary? Nothing was on the article's talk page, and I saw three editors (including me) reverting to the established wording with one changing it (coming up to 3RR which I didn't invoke, by the way). I think when you find yourself being reverted by different editors it's time to have a discussion where the people who edit that piece can weigh in - I see you've now started one, so let's continue it there. Tvoz |talk 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article if taken verbatim is confusing so I attempted to condense by clearly attributing what Watson actually said, vs what Grubbe seemingly plucks from the ether, which is why I left it in originally and reverted your edit that blurs the distinction between actual Watson quotes and Grubbes extrapolation (oo, it's a day for long words); unfortunately Grubbe is a terrible writer, and that the actual piece is unclear as to who, what or when the comments were made by Watson (i.e. it makes no indication of it being the same conversation, year, date, event, or even the same topic) so it's difficult to attribute to him comments that Grubbe does not actually quote as coming out of his mouth (or pen).

I have changed the section to the below based on going back to the original Times article and more clearly defining what Watson says and what Grubbe asserts based on those selected quotes. I'd appreciate your feedback and/or any edits you feel would clarify the piece for the reader. Unfortunately working with broken goods makes it harder to mesh into a good piece without looking like you're either trying to white-wash the comments, or bury him under someone elses attributed beliefs.

Cheers

Hunt-Grubbe quoted Watson as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" as "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really". Hunt-Grubbe suggests that Watsons "hope" is that "everyone is equal" but quotes him as having said "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". Further-more Grubbe asserts Watsons stance as being that "you should not

discriminate on the basis of colour" by quoting him as having said "There are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level".--Koncorde (talk

) 11:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have the correct contributor here, so please correct me if I'm wrong...but if I do have the right person, is there any reason why you feel changing direct quotes from first-hand sources is a good wiki idea? If you have a good reason, I'd be very willing to hear it. As a constantly criticised wiki contributor myself, I try to learn all I can.JiggeryPokery (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The person who is changing direct and accurate quotes into his/her own idea of what someone might say isn't using a username and I tried to do a little detecting. Obviously, I failed. Again, I apologize. JiggeryPokery (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. My mistake. --Jnelson09 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I just figured that it should be mentioned in the main article, because it's referenced in a footnote. --Jnelson09 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have to be bold to remove the gossips. Doing that will no doubt offends some editors, who deem the gossips "interesting". Interesting! :( Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question regarding my edits to the Richard Cordray article, I have recently created Category:State treasurers of Ohio as a subcategory of Category:State treasurers of the United States. I removed him from the latter category because it would redundant to list him in both a parent category and one its subcategories. I hope my response clarifies my intentions. --TommyBoy (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for a list of of

An article that you have been involved in editing, Internets, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internets. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bulgaria switch has happened only once by an IP in the past week, and it's more of a content dispute anyway. east.718 at 03:48, December 28, 2007

I've been keeping my eye on this, and it looks like one IP every few days. If the disruption continues, it can be solved with a block. east.718 at 01:58, December 31, 2007

Robert,

How can you say that a tribute site is personal advertising? Doesn't make sense to me that a tribute site that generates zero revenue and is exclusively for the movie A Hole in the Head. Have you seen the tribute site? I would appreciate you take a look at it Tribute Site and you will see how it is important it is to have this tribute site a part of the film's biography. IMDB feels its important enough to link it to their site. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvSiegs (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC) (MarvSiegs (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

Haha, my title even rhymes... What a wonderful coincidence. Anyhow, from our discussions I can only say that you are not very bright. Please do not consider this as a personal attack, for it is a mild form of communication in comparison to the subjectively driven vandalism you have imposed on one notable Bulgarian-American. If someone were to edit only Bulgaria related articles, how would that be construed as a negative act? After all, some people have better knowledge of Bulgaria than others. Obviously you fit the latter category and I the former. As such I also edit the Atanasoff article and despite the presented evidence to the contrary, you consistently impose your opinion that Atanasoff's biological and self-proclaimed Bulgarian identity and ancestry is not important! I would never say that Atanasoff was only Bulgarian, because unlike you I understand the fact that identity can link multiple nations in rather notable ways that are beyond your level of comprehension. Please tell an American of African descent that they are not African-American and you will find a 'simple' answer, relevant to our argument, that is neatly packaged within the confines of a 'complex' Pandora’s box. You've opened this one up with your biased edits and now this "discussion" between you and I will go on forever if it must... :)--Monshuai (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! :) - Please check this out:

Melty girl disputed your version and removed it completely. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I placed {{

Those numbers appear to be difference than my reference. Do you have a source where you obtained these? I am temporarly watching your Talk Page, so you can put you source here - thanks!--Doug ^talk 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a source. If you have good reason for removing the numbers--e.g., the don't match some cited source--then remove them. I thought maybe you were just removing the template because you thought it was redundant and didn't realize the significance of its printing the geolocation at the top of the article (a handy and unobtrusive feature of the encyclopedia). Robert K S (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts and input on this - and the other improvements you made to the article. Thanks! I'll go ahead and remove the template at the bottom. Should you find a source then go ahead and put it back. The template also uses the word "is" where there are two time capsules and the word "are" is better - which the template can not do. The source I am using (which is basically the main reference source for most of the article pertaining to the 1938 time capsule) is the Book of Record of the time capsule cupaloy put out by Westinghouse in 1938 when they made the first time capsule. Also I am using The Story of the Time Capsule which was put out by Westinghouse in 1939 giving details about the 1938 time capsule. The video of this 1938 time capsule is also an excellent source and gives many details about this time capsule.--Doug ^talk 14:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looked up both coordinates and clicking on Google maps, your numbers appear to be 200 feet to the West. If the people of the seventieth century went digging there they would probably never find the capsules. However even the referenced coordinates might not be good either, because of earthquakes and other geological events that probably will accure meanwhile and move the capsules anyway. What really concerns me however, is that the second capsule was not marked in any way on its exterior - so if somebody comes across it at the bottom of some river bed they might assume it is just an old 20th century bomb and just blow it to smithereens. Perhaps someone should go dig it up and put an inscription on it - then put it back (either of these being an unlikely event). I doubt the marker that is there today will even be there then and if it is the inscription will be long gone. Perhaps a new technology should be devised to track and locate these Westinghouse times capsules of 1938 and 1965. Maybe some sort of permanent emitting signal for a GPS?--Doug ^talk 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Should work now. Please find an alternate source for it if possible though. Suite101 is not as reliable and is more prone to original research than other sources.

I'll check the guidelines before the next rounds of edit, but please be aware that these changes are by proxy by Dr. Ramachandran (I'm a graduate student in his lab). If you'd like to confirm any of the changes or authenticity, please email him at [email protected]. While we appreciate your adherence to a common look and feel to the biographies, please use restraint when Dr. Ramachandran deletes personal information; he does not want information regarding his children or date of birth to appear in this page. From what I'm starting to read from the Presumption in favor of privacy section, this does not seem like an outrageous request.

Some of the information on the page is also incorrect, mainly in the introduction (e.g. he did not specialize in surgery). I'll upload a new introduction this weekend, with these errors corrected, without the information Dr. Ramachandran deems personal, and hopefully to the set forth guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrang (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the naming rights deal, user:Gimmetrow deleted the page's history. I cannot delete pages. 2008BaseballFan (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit about the "ref cleanup". Collapsing the citation templates like you did makes the prose easier to edit, but makes viewing and editing the citations themselves much more difficult. Since citations may need to be corrected or edited, it makes sense to keep them easy to edit. This is especially relevant in that newer users have trouble using template variables and errors in references tend to go uncorrected more so than errors in the main text. Drop me a line if you want to discuss this further. —dgies^t_c 06:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain Paul had a career in ceramics -- he's noted for some prominent lines, though. I'll be in touch with Henry B. Adams shortly -- who currated the Viktor Schreckengost exhibit at the Clevland Institute. He's now with Case Western Reserve U. and he'll know more about Paul and how to get references on it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 2008-01-29T20:42:11

On Cooper Canada Ltd., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--

I noticed that you have edited David Shuster's bio and am wondering why no one has provided additional Internet related information about him. I have been reading a lot about him over the past two days and there is a lot of information circulating about his having made false statements about various issues. Is the Shuster page a vanity page? It certainly looks like it to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.66.59 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that British is given more than English is not true. See The Rolling Stones and The Kinks just as two examples. Please cease edit warring and discuss on talk, then wait for consensus before changing. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being very underhanded. The article has said English for MANY months. I merely changed it back to the way it was. I cannot change now because of 3RR. For that reason also, YOU need to be the one to seek consensus. And I think it's safe to say that MOST articles use English. If you have any sense of fairness you will revert it yourself until there is a consensus to change the way it was. Otherwise I will change it in 24 hours if no one else does. Ward3001 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is no consensus in the nationality discussions, then by default The Beatles should remain as English because it has been that way for a very long time. If the consensus changes, then it can be changed. Again, I think you're being very sneaky. I can change it in a few hours, and if you continue to revert I will consider it edit warring until a new consensus is reached. Ward3001 (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm even more convinced of your underhanded tactics. You take the very articles that I point out as examples contrary to your POV (with no consensus) and change them. If I had any respect for the possibility of reasonable discussion with you, it's quickly evaporating. I ask you politely to wait for a change in consensus before making this change again to any article. Likewise, I will not change British to English in articles that have long used British. Ward3001 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll "hang tight" if you stop POV-pushing. You're the one who needs to hang tight. And any discussions will not be completed in a matter of hours. Leave everything the way it is until there is consensus. I plan to change The Beatles back to English when I can because that's its long-standing status, but I will not make any other changes unless you do. Ward3001 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale argument must trump "consensus-by-inaction": How convenient for you to reach that conclusion. I happen to disagree because the "rationale" does not yet have a consensus, and consensus trumps everything that is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. I am much more perturbed by your POV-pushing that you try to hide as "rationale" than I am by whether it eventually ends up British or English. I've got your number. You assume that you're POV is always the right one, and proceed with that until someone slaps you down for POV-pushing. I'm changing The Beatles to English until there is a consensus otherwise, and I don't care to discuss this issue any further with someone who uses your tactics. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How have you determined that there was a consensus to change before you posted the discussion of the issue on the Talk page rather than waiting for others to express their opinions? Ward3001 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment was focused on the unilateral action that was taken before consensus, regardless of the user. If you really want to work toward consensus and fairness, you'll change The Beatles back to English until there is a consensus to change. End of discussion between you and me. I'm not adding more to The Beatles talk page unless others respond to my comment, and I'm certainly not discussing this any further with you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a pity that I had to argue so much with you because you decided that your opinion was more important than waiting for consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert, I was "bold" and changed the photo in Template:WikiProject The Beatles. Let's see if it stays ... Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work, WWGB. I have no idea how the French photo could have been used so often (and it has) but good work that you (both?) spotted it. --andreasegde (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Robert! Could you please point out which image I deleted? The only image of yours that I can find that I deleted was Image:USCMainEntranceExpositionBoulevard.jpg, and that was over a month ago. east.718 at 11:35, February 16, 2008

Sorry about that - I did delete it way too fast. Admins are supposed to wait ten minutes or so before deleting images under CSD I3, but I usually don't check the times if there's a really big backlog. Again, my apologies and glad to see that you were able to upload it again. east.718 at 14:13, February 16, 2008

It's to deter uploaders from uploading non-free images under free licenses, which takes lots of time to sort out. When you try to upload an image as non-commercial/educational/for Wikipedia's use only, it hits you with a huge warning that the image will be deleted and instructs you what to do, all before the upload. If the uploader doesn't bother to read that and continues, the image gets deleted. east.718 at 14:45, February 16, 2008

I see your issue now, and am personally quite bewildered as to why

Wikipedia:Upload

doesn't offer an option to upload free images, but instead points you towards the Commons. I didn't design that uploader, nor am I a fan of it, but I'll try to poke some people and get that fixed. I've added a quick line to the bottom of the upload interface for now, and will see to making the rest more user-friendly.

Regarding donated images, it's usually fine if the image can't be found anywhere else... but if it's up on a website somewhere and the license is unclear, it's best to shoot an email over to [email protected]. east.718 at 20:44, February 16, 2008

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. --andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Road ... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo: To-do list for User:Robert K S/Archive01: A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

RKS, thanks for the generous thought. You more than made up for the tirade I received from another editor the same day who would disagree with your assessment. Good to have you around.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert, the editor with whom you're currently discussing the merits and validity of the sourcing of the Jeopardy! pages is having an identical (and equally belligerent) discussion about the Wheel of Fortune pages. A group of us who've spent a lot of time on those articles have suddenly been told by someone who's never contributed to them that our work is trivia, fancruft, unacceptably sourced (e.g., the show's Website is not a reliable source of information on itself), etc., and two of our sub-pages have been unilaterally nominated for AfD with no prior discussion. An ongoing discussion about article revisions taking place amongst ourselves on the articles' talk pages was apparently ignored. Like you, we would also have been happy to discuss the editor's concerns with him/her ahead of time. Instead, we've been subjected to a unilateral (and, IMO, unreasonable) interpretation of the rules and an utter lack of respect for our work. I wanted you to know that your discussion isn't the only one going on with this person, and any suggestions you might have as to how to deal with this would be appreciated. Thanks, your fellow former Merv Griffin-created game show contestant JTRH (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight and suggestions. If the consensus is to delete the articles, I'll follow your advice. JTRH (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. It's not the substance of her comments that bothers me, it's the attitude she brings with them. If she'd phrased her comments in the form of a suggestion rather than a demand, I might well have taken her advice already. As it stands at the moment, one of her AfD motions is losing narrowly, and the other's losing 6-1. Thanks again. JTRH (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PPS. As I was working on cutting down the pages (which does need to be done), she blocked a vandal who was reverting everything I took out. I expressed my thanks to her. Just wanted to let you know that she and I are now working cooperatively. Hope your experience turns out similarly. JTRH (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree with the contention that quotes are best sited in Wikiquotes, and that would have exactly been where I would have placed the Capra quote. Since there was only one, it did not appear to be overtly a major section, I decided to restore and leave the quote in place. If there were a series of quotes or more than one, I would have preferred to move the section to Wikiquotes. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the citation information and the clean up. I admit I "cheat" most times and use Wikicite, which I guess hasn't been updated to reflect the new template. I'll make every effort to manually make the changes in the citations that the tool generates. I came upon Drew Casper in the backlog and figured, "Hey, I can fix that one." I like that feeling :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The

(copied from here) Well, I have to say I'm impressed. All requests for rollback I've had thus far have been from people that unfortunatly should not have Rollback. You're the first exception to the rule :). The only thing that I'd say is that your number of edits without an edit summary is a little higher than I'd like, but I'm still willing to grant you rollback access ;). _TalkIslander 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

I didn't bother to cite it in the article, because I only changed the number in the infobox. Broadcasting Weekly, March 31, 1975, confirmed what I'd been told in a response to a message board query when I looked into this a couple of months ago. Best, JTRH (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an article in the 1975 issue of Broadcasting said 39, whereas the ad in the 1974 issue advertised that 36 would be made available. JTRH (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Chronologically, the message board response came to me first, and the Broadcasting piece was the confirmation. JTRH (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert, you may not be aware that Fred R. is in the process of legally changing his name and gender. I don't know who made the edits, but the IP was from NYC. 271828182 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am inclined to keep the record as it was at the time of the game. It avoids confusion. But I figured you might want to know. As for me, I emerged from Fred's last game. 271828182 (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Emerged" is, I think, the least self-congratulatory verb to describe the aftermath of that game. I just noticed, however, that the WP MOS may contradict our inclinations in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 271828182 (talk • contribs) 2008-05-14T12:56:36

By "last" I mean Ramen's last game in 2005. I agree that the MoS stipulation strikes me as arbitrary (as much WP rule mongering does), but I noticed it and figured you should be prepared for what potential edit conflicts may come. 271828182 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment -- Will do, please give me the rest of today (Sunday) to shrink it back down without losing the corrections. (I have to go to work today, but I'll have the spare time to do it). The Tetrast (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus at the opera wikiproject. The project's policy is to not include info boxes on opera singer articles (a policy that was made through discussion with broad consensus across project members) I suggest you bring it up there if you feel that Maria Callas should have one. There have been several major problems with info boxes on opera singer articles hense the policy.

What is this header anyway? I keep looking at the different versions of the article and I don't really see a header anywhere. Could you enlighten me??? Shahrdad (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. What is the purpose of the header, and why should we or shouldn't we have it there? Thanks Robert! Shahrdad (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning behind the change was that, without the colour, it is being non-judgemental and does not imply what is "good" or "bad". comment added by TedColes (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it, but I only asked for more evidence; I didn't object as such. And at the time (I can't remember the numbers) Google showed up a lot more for MVW than MW (but most of the time it changes because of caching). It therefore didn't strike me as an uncontroversial move, so I moved it to the disputed section so I could have more substantial evidence that it was uncontroversial, which you've now provided me with. That was all; I didn't object. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, although "silly" seems a bit strong. But I don't go all the way with you. Firstly, trying to be less judgemental is surely in the spirit of Wikepedia. Secondly, development is not simply linear. Who is to say whether, as with automobiles, advances that were real progress at the time should now be, in efffect, condemed? TedColes (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But you are discussing simple, uncontentious facts about US presidents, not judgements about which developments led on to the characteristics of today's computers, and you must admit that there is contention around "firsts" in computing (one only has to look at all the energy expended on whether the ABC was a computer or a calculator). Also, there is no doubt that red implies danger, if not "bad" and green the opposite. I am afraid I still think it better to avoid drawing the parallels implied by the original colour coding. TedColes (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection and research, I find myself more, not less, adherent to my previous view. So we shall have to agree to differ.TedColes (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, if that makes it conform to conventions. My reason for inserting it at that early point was that the whole subject matter of the article relates to the First Draft, and yet it is not mentioned until way down the page. TedColes (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Do you think ther might be a case for merging the First Draft article with this one?TedColes (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Robert. Thanks for the message you left at the talk page. please feel free to introduce the disambig as you see fit, I have no problem with that, and I am sure nobody else does. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 23:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and additions to the Dover Beach page. I never did like that weasel wording in the intro. Thanks for fixing it. As for the comment about the article sounding like somebody's English paper, I'm not sure what you mean by that. (As the editor of the bulk of the material on this page, I can assure you it is not.) Can you be more specific about your concerns on the discussion page? (Am I wrong, I thought such comments belonged on the discussion page?) Mddietz (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You have undone two of my edits that said that the ABC is considered by many to be, in today's terminology, a calculator rather than a computer. Is your concern with what I am saying, or with the way that I have tried to say it?TedColes (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect the fact that you have more experience in editing Wikipedia articles than me, but I am puzzled by your vehemence over this matter and find your intemperate language to be contrary to the guidance in the article on Wikipedia etiquette. However, I agree with you at one level, that the distinction between a computer and a calculator is not very meaningful, but the level of sophistication and level of attribution that you appear to want is, in my view, inappropriate for this type of article. Why make a simple thing complicated?

I am not trying “attack” ABC’s capability and efficacy or to make an abstruse semantic argument, merely to present factual information in a neutral way that clarifies things for an ordinary 21st century reader. Such a person may read in the Wikipedia article on computers that:

The ability to store and execute lists of instructions called programs makes computers extremely versatile and distinguishes them from calculators.

and the article on calculators which includes:

A calculator is an electronic device for performing mathematical calculations, distinguished from a computer by a limited problem solving ability and an interface optimized for interactive calculation rather than programming.

Do you disagree with these statements? If you do not, how can you object to the substance of what I have written? My aim is genuinely to express a neutral point of view, not a biased one. How do you think that we can move forward on this matter?TedColes (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite and constructive response, I will consider what you say.TedColes (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert, I take it that you were not commenting upon my additions. Is this correct? William R. Buckley (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While the year-hyphen-month-hyphen-day method has its appeal, to be sure, if one is spelling out the month, giving the day in numerals, and following that with a comma and the year, another comma should follow the year if the sentence continues.

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) 05:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Which banner still has the French road? I thought I changed them all.--andreasegde (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a comment you sent to User:Kingboyk at 02:48, 13 February 2008. You are right about the French road being on a lot of talk pages (I just checked) but the ones on the project page have been updated.--andreasegde (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize the value of episode status, however it would be better if the information was included in the versions section. We dont need an entirely dedicated section to status of TAPES. No other show page on Wikipedia has that. Also before that information is included, citations must be found. As far as anyone is concerned it could be made up information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahambrunk (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I should better state that i didnt mean Jeopardy was the only show with this, but it appears to be the only show that has a section dedicated to this which i find ridiculous. The information needs to be included in the sections that talk about the different version of the show. We dont need to do a whole other section on different eras of the show to just talk about tape status, especially if we arent even sure if the info is true. I would leave it be till it could be integrated if the info was cited, but it isnt, therefore it shouldnt be there! If you wanna work on integrating it into the other content and citing it than do so. Until then i will keep reverting it. Grahambrunk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also i think you are letting your "being a fan" for the show Jeopardy stand in the way of article accuracy. Grahambrunk (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are letting your being a fan of the show stand in the way. I mention this because you have no idea where these tapes are! I will tell you that for the past year I have interned at a rather large television archive in Miami. We get tons of stuff all the time. Currently we have several very old american versions jeopardy in our possession. We have not really made this public info, had i not mentioned this, you would not have known that. Therefore i believe because the jeopardy episode tapes and reels are spread all over the place at different archives, there is no real way to know where all are. The info should be integrated into the sections that talk about each era of the show! There does not need to be a separate section about the tapes. --Grahambrunk (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You are just as guilty of making person accusations. You are letting your joy for the show stand in the way of accuracy. I am not using my personal knowledge because i didnt post anything, i just removed what i knew not to be true. There are NO citations to prove me wrong, so i am within my full power to do so. As for the archive. Very often we get stuff donated to us that has been passed from studio to archive to studio and then eventually donated to us when someone is cleaning out in house programming. I do know that there are Jeopardy stuff there as i have handled them. The Museum of Communications in Chicago has some episodes also. I THINK what we have is on U-matic. Since i am not sure i dont post. But i do know for a fact that what is posted there may not be entirely accurate. I see that you found a source, GOOD! I am not saying this information doesnt belong! I am saying that it should be INTEGRATED into the ARTICLE. --Grahambrunk (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Robert K S. You have new messages at Xymmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see you're very interested in Jeopardy! and help maintain a website for it. Hopefully I'll be on it in the near future...I did my second round tryout in Savannah last week and I think I did really well on everything! Perhaps you'll see me this season. :) Mike H. Fierce! 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.