User talk:24.8.191.137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New York Knicks

While the "Knickerbocker" name may be the team's official name, the use of the term "Knickerbockers" is too infrequent, and virtually EVERY media outlet refers to the team as the "Knicks", like ESPN, Fox Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc... Even the Knicks' home page lists the team as being the "New York Knicks", while refering to all the other teams by their longer names. Does this deligitimize their authenticity? Moreover, the team's official logo simply states "New York Knicks". At least for the other teams, the longer name is used in the team's official logo, like the T-Wolves or the Celts. Anyway, those shortened nicknames are adopted mostly by fans of the game. It's not the same situation concerning the Knicks nickname. While I agree the nickname factoid should get some mention on the team's own article, the nickname should just remain "Knicks" when listed among the other franchises. Dknights411 05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If I seemed impolite, than I am truly sorry. Hope you forgive me. Anyway, the NBA's talk page has a reply to your discusion now. You can go there. Dknights411 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the discussion page, and I have posted my argument there. Regarding logos, what about the old Philadelphia logo that just said, "Sixers," or the Chicago White Sox logo that just says, "Sox"? And, what about when everyone called the baseball team in the Bay Area the "Oakland A's"? ==MCB, 7/23/2006

The A's and the Sox all call themselves by their full names on their official website, and the "Sixers" logo is an alternate that they use (because they have always just used the word "Sixers" on their jerseys). Their main logo says 76ers: Image:Philadelphia 76ers logo.png

Hope this helps out.Dknights411 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There were no websites in the 1980s, but I could mail you an Oakland yearbook I have from 1982 or 1983, where the word "Athletics" does not appear once. (The logo and all the text in the book exclusively uses the name, "Oakland A's.") Does that prove anything? --MCB, 7/23/2006

[edit] Dude, like, get an account

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

• The use of a username of your choice
• The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
• Your own user page
• Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
• The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
• The ability to rename pages
• The ability to upload images
• The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• The eligibility to become an administrator
• The right to be heard in votes and elections
• Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian! —freak(talk) 14:49, Jul. 27, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalising the "t" of The in "The Beatles"

I have seen your comments over at Vera, Chuck & Dave's talkpage - this matter was the subject of debate earlier this year. Suffice to say that British English is the language of the article, since the subject matter and the majority of the contributors are British, and the capitalisation of "The" is correct by that manner. The question was also put to a group of Wikipedia grammarians who concluded that not only was it correct in British English but that it was not incorrect in American English either. If you wish, you can read the full debate on the talkpage of The Beatles project page.LessHeard vanU 12:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting. User 24.8.191.137 has only been contributing since 23 July 2006, or slightly earlier. He/she said, "I have contributed a great deal to many Beatles-related Wikipedia articles." How is this remotely possible? Are we replying to a previously blocked user here? Hmmm… andreasegde 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have been contributing to Wikipedia since December 2005. I have done so on three computers, each of which shows a different, unregistered user address. I briefly registered with a user name in April or May, but in July my son-in-law reinstalled Windows on this computer and, when he did that, my user name disappeared. I have made minor contributions to several Beatles-related Wikipedia articles, and I have made what I would consider significant contributions to some articles on American Beatles albums. (Much of the stuff I have put in articles on American Beatles albums comes from the unpubished manuscript I mentioned earlier. It had been my intention to contribute similar material to the other articles on American Beatles albums.) I have never been blocked by Wikipedia (and I am slightly offended that you have suggested that I have, especially as nothing in my history can even remotely be considered vandalism). If you want proof of my contributions to Beatles scholarship outside of Wikipedia, I can send it to you copies of articles I have written or books where I have been cited. I can also give you the names of three people who are nationally recognized for their Beatles scholarship, and they can vouch for me and my character; but I would only do so privately, not publicly. They don't deserve to be attacked by you guys, either. One last thing: There is a guy here that goes by the name Steelbeard. I think he knew me over a decade ago in a different forum. He might also be able to vouch for me.

I am getting tired of all the arguing and now the attacks. All I was trying to do was contribute to, and improve the quality of, Wikipedia's Beatles articles. And to get attacked for suggestion that we actually follow the style guidelines required by publishers! At this point, I am strongly tempted to stop participating in project. I do not see any point of taking further material from my manuscript on Beatles recordings and putting it here if I am going to be attacked like this. In fact, I have half a mind to delete my previous contributions. You guys have your little group, and you think no one else has anything else to contribute. You'd be surprised to find that there are actually other Beatles experts out there. MCB 8/22/2006

You have a valid point about the The, or not. The Beatles official page uses both versions, and often on the same page, but the answer is that nobody knows - and so it is a question of style, and not grammar. Even I am not quite sure, but I have to respect the concensus... (If you look at the archive page you will see how much this has been discussed.)

Can I give you a few pointers?... Nobody is attacking you. Editors on the/The Beatles page consider themselves to be some of the friendliest in WP. We like to work together, and to rightly applaud someone for a job well done. You seem like a well-informed and intelligent editor, and you would be very welcome, as long as you realize that getting stuck in specific arguments is non-productive. (The main problem we have is vandals who insist on putting silly comments in.) Come on in, and have fun. andreasegde 14:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]