User talk:Wikiwopbop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikiwopbop.

This is the User talk page for Wikiwopbop, where you can send messages and comments to Wikiwopbop.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Contents 1 Tiger Stadium 1.1 Moving the Tiger Stadium article 2 Nick Saban 3 LSU Tigers football 4 WikiProject New Orleans 5 Image tagging for Image:Stanford-Cal game 1969.jpg 6 Image tagging for Image:Princeton-Yale_game.jpg 7 Your post on my talk page 8 Kingdom of God (Roman Catholic interpretations section) 9 New Orleans metropolitan area

[edit] Tiger Stadium

Thanks for all the help with the LSU pages! As far as adding pictures of Tiger Stadium to the LSU Tigers football page, I don't think it's 100% necessary considering two overhead pictures are already on the main page for Tiger Stadium (LSU)...what do you think? Seancp 20:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the Tiger Stadium article

1. Please discuss controversial article moves BEFORE doing so.
2. If a page is moved, DO NOT cut and paste the entire article.
3. Use the MOVE option at the top of the page. The page edit history and talk page MUST be moved along with the article.
4. If there is a consensus to move the contents to Tiger Stadium (Detroit) it will be moved. However, the article Tiger Stadium (Detroit) as it stands does not preserve the edit history.
5. Please review Wikipedia:Requested moves. This is what you SHOULD have done instead.
6. Please ask any questions you have.

Flibirigit 05:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Saban

I don't understand why AntiVandalBot reverted you on Nick Saban, so I reverted the page back to how you left it (please review the subsequent change by an anon, which I've not restored). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LSU Tigers football

You make a good point about the logo you put on the LSU Tigers football page being more closely associated with the football program and I'm not altogether against it being there, however, I just don't think it is very attractive. I think the helmet and logo side by side are more attractive. Perhaps there's a way we can make the logo you put on the page more attractive, perhaps by making it smaller or something. I have plans to make a separate section for all the historical LSU helmet designs as seen on the Helmet Project.

By the way, I love all the new information you've added to this page. Do you think it would be possible to make the long tables you added collapsible? To see what I mean, check out the UNC-Duke rivalry page under the Scores Of Games (1960-2006) section.

Also, if I seem a little protective of this page, and other LSU pages, it's just because they're like my babies. I've been working on a lot of the LSU stuff for a while now and I just want to see it be the best that it can be. You've done a great job helping! Thanks for your hard work. Seancp 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject New Orleans

Hello, I noticed you edited a New Orleans related article, or you are from or currently living in New Orleans. If you wish you can join the new Wikipedia:WikiProject New Orleans. — Staroftheshow86 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Stanford-Cal game 1969.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Stanford-Cal game 1969.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Princeton-Yale_game.jpg

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

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your post on my talk page

For someone who presumes to lecture others about the intricacies of wikipedia's editing policy, I would think you'd hold yourself to those standards at least while doing so. I don't care that you violated wikipedia's policy, I just want to take you down a couple notches from your current pulpit. Perhaps unlike you, I don’t edit wikipedia based on my personal beliefs. As for me confusing “America's Most Interesting City” with “The most unique city in America,” thanks for trying to tell me what I’m thinking of, but I’ll do the thinking for myself, because that’s not what I was thinking of, and besides, the two aren’t exactly mutually exclusive. I don’t even see how you could have brought that up, since a) I wasn’t talking about a potential nickname for the city; you need to do a better job distinguishing nicknames and common descriptive phrases and b) None of my sources used that phrase. Speaking of sources, I don’t see a single one in the article for “America’s Most interesting City” as a nickname. My talk page isn’t the place to include anecdotal and unverifiable sources for your whimsical edits. Now if you'd been doing your job as an "editor" on here, you wouldn't have just hastily deleted my post and dismissed my sources--which admittedly, were lacking--and you'd have taken 5 minutes to look for better ones before making the call. Let's look at the issue fairly. Here's the original sentence, which you claim is MY view, and an incorrect one. "It is often called the most unique city in America." That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. So did I make it up? Before I prove that the statement is undeniably true, I need to address the quality of the sources first. Many of these sources have some clear potential for bias. This is going to be the case with any pontification. You can't really find many examples of a claim to be the "most" of something this subjective that use sources without some potential for bias. So having said that, there really are enough neutral sources to substantiate the claim, and more than enough sources in general to verify the "often" part of the claim. As for your comment about using Nagin’s quote as a source and comp airing this to his “Chocolate City” quote, this isn’t an isolated usage, as you’ll soon learn. If you took each and every usage of any description about anything and likened it to the example you gave, then of course it wouldn’t be sufficient by itself. If there were many, many independent references to New Orleans being referred to as “Chocolate City”, then why wouldn’t Nagin’s quote support the claim? That was a ridiculous and invalid comparison, because the fact that Nagin used “most unique city” it isn’t the reason it’s widely spoken, but rather because it's widely spoken. Here goes:[1], [2] (uh oh, it's a post...better dismiss it immediately, because you can't verify how widely people use a particular expression by including things that people from all over the country have posted at different times.), [3] This reference is found at the Institute for New Orleans History and Culture at Gwynedd-Mercy College, but I'm sure you know more than them. [4] Yet another easily dismissed article... [5] Another article...this one just says "one of the most unique...", so it obviously isn't relevant. [6] Yea, this is sponsored by New Orleans' city government, so immediately trash it. They shouldn't be included in discussions about frequent references to the city, because that's not the kind of thing they're into. [7] One of my personal favorites: Spike Lee directly uses the phrase to emphasize that not even his native New York can claim the superlative title. [8] This one is a tour guide, so of course you can't use it. After all, it's understood that statements that cities are "often referred to as..." excludes instances where the reference was made by people who describe cities for a living. [9] I'll stop there. I could keep going, but you get the point. I’m shocked at how little you understand the concept of editing on wikipedia. Without doing any research at all, you conclude that previous editors are guilty of faulty research and spend more time berating them than it would have taken to simply take a stab at it on your own. Speaking of bringing down the quality of wikipedia, people like you are the reason that you can’t use reply posts by normal internet users as reliable sources. [Of course, if you wanted to verify the second part of that statement, you’d have to consult reply posts by normal internet users—funny thing.] Please go educate yourself on these topics before posting anymore Wikipedia articles on major subjects such as the city of New Orleans.Wbbigtymer 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for trying to make you feel like an absolute moron. I was pissed at how terrible the New Orleans page is becoming and I took it out on you. I was being a complete dick when I wrote you a rude, judgmental message that was primary designed to belittle you. I'll write you a more respectful response on your talk page soon. Wikiwopbop 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It takes a special person (and an even more special internet user) to do what you just did, and I am humbled by it. I could easily have responded a lot better than I did, and I do sympathize with your reasons for being frustrated.Wbbigtymer 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of God (Roman Catholic interpretations section)

Concerning your deletion of the last paragraph on:

18:37, 28 November 2006 Wikiwopbop (Talk | contribs) (rearranged content into logical order, cut redundant content)

I doubt that many knowledgable persons would agree that the reference to John P. Meier's work was redundant. The content does not support your assertion. As a self-described new Wikipedian, may your future edits be guided by the principle of charity. Thomasmeeks 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting your paragraph. To be honest, the reason I deleted it is because it doesn't make sense to me. You say that, according to Meier, "the 'Message' is the Kingdom of God." However, you didn't include an explanation of what this means (as far as I can tell). That's why I deleted it. It'd be kind of you if you'd revise your paragraph to make it more clear (to people like me) what Meier's viewpoint is on the Kingdom of God. I, for one, would sincerely appreciate it. Wikiwopbop 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thx for your response. Well, the word after "the message" above is italicized in the original. (I did not bold it for aesthetic reasons.) The title of the book includes "Message" in it. So, putting those together, my intent was to say that Jesus' "message" was the Kingdom of God (that Jesus proclaimed), which the Old Testament could be seen as anticipating, which was to come, and which Jesus initiated in his lifetime. I think the principle problem here might be that the italics were not all that great. Thanks for your interest. Thomasmeeks 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I edited in response to your comment. Hope it helped. Thx. Thomasmeeks 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Orleans metropolitan area

Hi. I want to thank you for your work on improving New Orleans related articles. With your good work, however, I've sometimes been bothered by useful information getting removed from the article in your rewrite. The New Orleans metropolitan area had the listing of what communities were included in the East Bank section removed. As the other sections listed communities, I put the one for the East Bank back. If you think this is inappropriate, let's discuss how we should organize the article on the article talk page. Thanks. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)