User talk:Eagle4000

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hey, thanks for your work on the page, but I think this page should be left to the most important details, ie on Maine removing "and the second to do so with a legislature's vote (and the first with the governor's signature, i.e., no veto)." That could be left to Same-sex marriage in Maine. Your thoughts? CTJF83Talk 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I agree re deleting extraneous details. I will delete that clause. Eagle4000 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! We need lots of great editors on Wikipedia! CTJF83Talk 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouraging words. I'm new to Wikipedia. I am enjoying this new-found opportunity to use my editing skills for the benefit of others, i.e., Wikipedia readers. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to Roman Catholic Church they are an improvement! Welcome to Wikipedia! NancyHeise ^talk 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks also for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I'm glad I found it. Eagle4000 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle, when you describe your edit in the edit summary, you don't have to list each sentence that you have changed. Anyone who wants to see that can just click on the edit history. You can put that info in the edit summary if you want to, I just think it is too time consuming and usually just give a very brief decsription of what I've changed. NancyHeise ^talk 02:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nancy, for your suggestion. You're right, it is time-consuming and also uses up a lot of character spaces in the edit summary. Question: Should I continue to list each paragraph, or can people also see that? Please feel free to send me additional suggestions, now or in the future. Welcome to the Catholic Church. My parents were converts in their teens in the 1940s. God bless you. Eagle4000 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) -- I think I was supposed to put two colons in front of this, so I am doing that now. Eagle4000 (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nancy, for your suggestion. You're right, it is time-consuming and also uses up a lot of character spaces in the edit summary. Question: Should I continue to list each paragraph, or can people also see that? Please feel free to send me additional suggestions, now or in the future. Welcome to the Catholic Church. My parents were converts in their teens in the 1940s. God bless you. Eagle4000 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eagle, an easy way for you to see what I am talking about is to go into the edit history and click "undo". It shows you the text before and after the changes made in that edit with the actual changes highlighted in red. It also shows you which paragraph. If you go into "undo", don't click "save" otherwise it reverts the changes you are looking at - unless that is what you want to do. Also, when you are talking to people on the discussion pages, if you are responding to someone, you put one more colon at the beginning of your edit than that person. For example:

Here is person A's conversation.

Here is person B, responding to Person A

Here is person C, responding to Person A

Here is person D, responding to Person A

Here is Person A responding to the B, C, and D

Here is Person B responding to Person A's post just above this one.

And so forth. NancyHeise ^talk 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nancy. This is very helpful. Eagle4000 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the best way to use indents because the comments of person B, C, and D all run together. It is hard to go back and find person C's comments because it might look like one long post. You may want to try this

Here is person A's comments. (1)

Here is person C's comments to person A, on a new topic, made after person B below.(4)

Here is person A responding to the C.(5)

Here is person B's comments to person A (2)

Here is person D's comments to person A and B. (3)

Again, welcome.^{Carlaude:Talk} 08:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day.

Do keep in mind as you write on Wikipedia that many Wikipedians and Wikipedia users do not hail from the US like you and I; Wikipedia is worldwide. Sunray who answered you, for example, is from Canada. --^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Carlaude for her gentle reminder that Wiki is worldwide. I just posted an apology on "Talk:Catholic Church". Eagle4000 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know you're fairly new, so let me explain this. You don't put a category and its parent, it's redundant. Category on USNA grads is a subcategory of USNA alumni, so there's no need to list the alumni cat. Graduates is a subset of Alumni. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. As a new user, I have lots to learn. By the way, does my reply here get to you, or do I need to post it on your talk page? I will copy it to your talk page, in case you don't automatically get my reply. Eagle4000 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the notice on my talkpage when you posted it. I won't see this one unless I come back to the page to check or if I watchlist it and see it was updated on my watchlist. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete References sections as you did here. Ref sections are required in Wikipedia, and if there is an article without one it is deemed to be of poor-quality and possibly biased. Jrcla2 ^talk 06:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Actually, though, I did not delete the Ref's section; I merely moved it. My edit summary says: "delete Ref's section, as was just moved to above Ext Links." When you look at the history, you will see that I had first copied and moved the "Ref's" section to above the "External Links" section. As a new user, I had noticed that the Wiki format for ordering of sections seems to be: "See also", "Footnotes", "Ref's", and "External Links" (in that order). Because the said article had "Ref's" below "Ext Links", I first copied the "Ref's" section and pasted it above "Ext Links", so that it wouldn't be accidentally lost. After copying and pasting, I then deleted it from its original place below "Ext Links." Please feel free to give me additional tips and suggestions in the future. I love Wikipedia. Thank you for all that you and the other editors are doing. Eagle4000 (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add fencing everywhere. If a page has Template:National Collegiate Athletic Association at the bottom, it doesn't need to duplicate anything from that template in the see also section. For an article that doesn't have fencing, unless fencing has some relationship other than them both being sports, it doesn't need to be there. --B (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. The reason I added it elsewhere is that when I was looking at College baseball/basketball/football, those pages had cross-references to each of the other 2 sports. Mea culpa. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of it is a judgment call, but I wouldn't duplicate a template unless it's a really, really important link, eg, linking to the NCAA tournament from college basketball. College football, for instance, has a ridiculously large list that needs to be trimmed. --B (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re not duplicating a template. As a new user, I didn't realize the template already has links to each coll sport. I have a lot to learn as a new user. Thank you for your patience. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need this because it's covered in the first template at the bottom. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said before, policy is not to do this because it's a parent cat of a cat already there. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep adding parent cats? Also, the section is on legisltors, not all of whom are reps or senators. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. In my haste to try to be comprehensive and include various categories (for the benefit of users), I did not notice that USNA Graduates is a sub-category of USNA Alumni. I will try to check for parent cats before adding categories in the future. I love Wikipedia, but there is so much to learn. I hope you will be patient with me. I guess I'm like a newly licensed driver who does not have very much road experience. Eagle4000 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See responses on my talk page. Let's keep it there so we are not bouncing between two pages okay? Split threads hurt my brain. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle4000, first, I just want to say that you are doing a great job as a new editor. I wish I would have been as involved after my first few edits. But I did want to let you know about the article linked above. The information about the previous names of the trophy is in the hatnote at the top of the article, so it's unnecessary to put it in the prose. Same for the List of World Series champions link. We try to have as little redundancy as possible (especially in an article like this that is a good article but is already so short). Thanks so much for your contributions! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KV5, for your kind words and also for your comments. I will try to remember Wiki's goal of avoiding redundancy, etc. I try to be thorough and detailed, but that can lead to extra verbiage, redundancy, etc. Thanks for your patience, as I learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Eagle4000 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If there's anything you need help with or have a question about, please feel free to ask! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle4000, your recent addition of the Bastille Day parade was made in good faith I'm sure, but it is out of place. This article went through a bruising FAC less than a year ago and this was one of the photos dropped from the article during the process. Photo selection, sizing, and location were a major issue during the FAC. Additionally, it is generally frowned upon to place a photograph in the lead section of a FA. Further, the generally accepted standard for photos in an FA is to be "thumb-sized", no larger. The photo itself is a great photo, but IMO is out of place to be below the infobox and in the lead section of a FA. It would be better placed in the "cadet life" section or in an article about parades, or maybe even a sub-page of famous parades that west point cadets have marched in (presidential inagurations, funerals processions, ect.) I wanted to give you the courtesy before deleting or rolling back the photo addition. Thanks for your contributions elsewhere. Just be aware that this article has been through the previously mentioned FAC and was heavily edited/monitored on Memorial Day when it what the FA of the Day.  Ahodges7   ^talk 01:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and the courtesy and time you took to send me an explanation. I think I understand your explanation and the principles/guidelines you mention. I'm not sure what an FA, FAC, and IMO are, but I will see if I can find them on a Wiki page. Is there a way I can see if an article has been through an FAC, before I make any edits, or should I just try to follow the guideline of not putting photos in the lead section? Thank you for assuming my edits are in good faith. I try to do things that seem like an improvement or worthwhile addition to an article. I have so much to learn about Wikipedia. I am amazed at how much information is available via Wikipedia (including through links and "See also" cross-references). What an increasingly smaller world we live in, thanks to the Internet. Eagle4000 (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up FA and see that FA's feature a bronze star. When I see one, I'll now know I'm looking at an FA! Thank you for your patience. Eagle4000 (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I made (and still do) lots of mistakes during my earlier edits, and many more senior editors were patient with me. I'm sure you've figured this out by now, but FA = featured article, FAC = featured article candidate, and IMO = In My Opinion, sometimes also written as IMHO = In my humble opinion. Just be more cautious when you see an article with a bronze star. It means that it has been heavily reviewed by many of the most senior editors in the community and has passed muster. It doesn't mean that you can't make additions or corrections to an FA, but that you need to be more careful as it should already be pretty close to "as good as it could be". Another helpful tool, if you don't already do this, is to read the article's "Discussion" tab, which will explain the article's edit history and status. You might want to create a basic user page. Other editors will begin to take your edits more seriously if you did. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. It can be as simple as "Hi, this is my user page". I went through a lot of designs, mostly by copying the user pages of others and modifying them. My current layout came from Rlevse, a very experienced and senior editor who got it from another senior editor. Good luck and happy editing.  Ahodges7   ^talk 11:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there a way I can see if an article has been through an FAC,"...click on the talk page tab. If it's been through a GAC, FAC, FLC, etc. you'll see a template at the top. For FAC, click on the "identified" link and you can read the FAC discussion; similar method for other review processes. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't even know that I got the categories in that deletion. You can certainly restore them. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I will restore them now. I hope Lee's game last night was an aberration, so you will be able to add another World Series to the Phillies pages! Eagle4000 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good edits you made to Roman Catholic (term). Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I came across the article by chance. It's a much needed article, as the term does have several connotations and can be very confusing for Catholics and non-Catholics. Eagle4000 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chance reference is actually an important point. There are very few links to that article now, so very few people know that it exists. It needs to be in the "See also" section of more pages. If you think of where it will be suitable, please feel free to add a link. I will try to do the same. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately inserting provinces (which include all dioceses) + dioceses together on a long term basis, is incorrect. If this is being done as an interim measure, okay.

But it would be like calling a category "American cities" and then lumping in states. Or having a category "nations", and then throwing in continents. Lumping them together is redundant and incorrect. Student7 (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention which pages you are referring to. Would you please mention the pages so that I can take a look at my edits and then respond to your comment. Thank you. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this one kind of struck me. Student7 (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that another editor used this type of "See also" entry on another page. The reason I added it is that it allows the user to see all the provinces in one glance (on the catgeory page).

I do not view the insertion of provinces into a list of dioceses as either redundant or incorrect. The reason is that some articles cross diocesan lines. For example, when you go to Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Baltimore, you see that there are subcategories on the Catholic churches in Maryland (which is split between 3 dioceses) and Virginia (with 2 dioceses), e.g., Category:Roman Catholic churches in Maryland (which lists articles on various churches in the three dioceses of Maryland).

Rather than seeing it as redundant, I instead see it as a complementary approach, which allows the user to see more articles (on a province-wide basis). Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates says that:

"Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and Navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems (see WP:LISTS, WP:CAT, and WP:NAV).

"Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other.

"Category workers, list builders, and series box designers all endeavor to develop comprehensive networks of links for navigating the encyclopedia."

I believe that one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it allows millions of users to look for, come across, and find information in many various ways, thanks to the creativity of editors like you and me, with each of us using different but complementary ways to link information from one article to another.

Eagle4000 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great finds on all of those things! Just wanted to let you know that I standardized your reference format to match what was already in the article. Since this is nominated at featured list candidates right now, it's painfully important to make sure all the refs are consistent. Great work! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just added another reference, which includes a photo of Charlie hoisting the trophy last year. Good luck with the FLC review. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a bad format; just not consistent with the rest (unless the one I just fixed wasn't the one you just added. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the {{cite web}} template; it's not a requirement but it makes things a lot easier because they all format the same. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. If you're citing other things, WP:CITET has a wealth of templates to help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eagle4000, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [1] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 03:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry to revert your hard work on local rivalries in the World Series, but the former trivia section has historically just grown and grown out of control without strong efforts to control it. There are frequent suggestions, including one today at Talk:World Series, to eliminate the whole "local rivalries" section on grounds of space and relevancy, suggestions which have so far been successfully resisted. If it's any consolation, I also cut a couple of my own sentences at the beginning of that section.

Perhaps you could start a stand-alone or spin-off page on Baseball rivalries or add your material to existing articles such as Red Sox – Yankees rivalry. Best wishes, —— Shakescene (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and your kind words. I noticed that you are a New Yorker. I don't know if you are a Mets or Yankees fan. If the latter, please accept my congratulations -- as a Phillies fan -- for your team's resounding victory. The Yankees clearly were the better team, as well as the best team in baseball! Eagle4000 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, no! I live in Providence, Rhode Island, and root for the Red Sox, not the Evil Empire !! ;-) So I was rooting for the Phillies, too; they deserved a third title. But Pedro didn't deliver (cf. 2003 ALCS), and Johnny Damon played very intelligently until his calf disabled him in the 4th inning on Wednesday. [The closest I've come to rooting for New York was when everyone was a New York fan in 2001, when the Mets challenged the Yankees in 2000, and when I lived in the East Bay and supported the Giants if the A's were out of contention.] However, despite all my frenetic editing, I'm only a casual follower of baseball (having been born in London, England) and for that matter of New York politics. Editing Wikipedia has come about partly through wanting to learn more. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Lin and I have been trying to work out that section (local rivalries) and would welcome any thoughts or comments that others might have (including ideas about structure and organization), at Talk:World Series. By the way, there is a List of Major League Baseball rivalries (rather than Baseball rivalries, but it is more of a list than a discussion. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to help as best I can; editing navboxes can be a tricky subject to explain, with their many parameters.

At the bottom of the navbox code, you will see a parameter entitled "list18" with some code following it, then another parameter entitled "group19" with some code following. Copy the code for the "group19" parameter (all of it; the "group19" and "list19" parameters together and paste them above the current "group19". Change the value for the "group19" that you copied from "Defunct" to "Australia", and change the "list19" entries that you pasted from their current values to the names of the current leagues. Finally, change the original "group19" and "list19" parameters to "group20" and "list20". All in all, when you're done, the code should look like the following:

 | list18    = {{Navbox subgroup  | liststyle  = text-align:center; background:#ddddff;  | list1  = '''Oceania'''  }}   | group19    = Australia  | list19     =[[Greater Brisbane League]]{{·}} [[New South Wales Major League]]   | group20    = Defunct  | list20     =[[Australian Baseball League]]{{·}} [[International Baseball League of Australia]] }}<noinclude> 

If I can be of any further help, please let me know! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I've answered on my talk page. -- Nunh-huh 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes you've made to the 'big list' of dioceses. I'm hoping one day it will make the 'featured list category.' I greatly appreciate your efforts. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of Little League Baseball awards requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim Song (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching this and deleting the page. In my exuberance to add the awards to Wikipedia, I completely overlooked the copyright policies. Mea culpa. Eagle4000 (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE SOUTHERN CROSS PITCH The Australian Baseball Task Force Newsletter Issue 3 – December 2009

"Baseball is the only endeavor where a man can succeed three out of ten times and be considered a good performer. — Ted Williams News and announcements The last few months have seen a steady progression of articles being improved, with increases in numbers in all categories (except FA and GA) Welcome to the returning dan027, and to the new members of the task force: BigPadresDUDE Eagle4000 Halvorsen brian MascNL If you've got an idea for the newsletter or for the task force as a whole, please add it to the task force's talk page. Featured content The following articles have been promoted past start-class, or included in the task force's scrutiny, since the last edition: B-Class status: Ryan Rowland-Smith & Redcliffe Padres C-Class status: Australian Baseball League, Darwin Baseball League & Sydney Uni Baseball Club

News from the diamond Australian Baseball League: Canberra secures the 6th and final spot for the inaugural season of the reborn league, joining Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. The ABF has also launched the "Name Your ABL Team" competition, offering fans the chance to nominate the names and colour schemes of the six franchises. 2009 World Cup: Australia completed their run in the World Cup with their best ever finish in the tournament: 5th. Despite this result, they failed to improve their IBAF World Ranking, staying in 11th position behind  Puerto Rico From the Editor I just want to take this opportunity to wish everyone a (belated) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, that the holiday season so far has been good for you, and that what remains will be just as good, if not better. I'd also like to thank everyone who has been involved with the task force over the last year. I'd ask everyone to keep up the good work, and to invite anyone they can think of to join us: there's always room for more here. This newsletter was composed by  Afaber012 . If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please leave a message on the newsletter talk page. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter anymore, please remove your name from the subscribers list on the mainnewsletter page.

 Afaber012  (talk)  07:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated your article Wesley Brown Field House for DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Joe Chill. This is the first time an article written by me has been nominated for DYK. Eagle4000 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit linking to the Indoor section of Track and field athletics. The term for an All-Weather track is NOT specifically applied to Indoor, actually it is primarily an outdoor surface that is just now becoming popular as an overlay to wooden Indoor Tracks. And the link to the sport itself occurs in the following sentence. Sorry.Trackinfo (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eagle, you tried to add some information about ESPYs one to the article in the subject line back in August or so, but it didn't come out formatted right. I was wondering if you could take a look at it again, and possibly fix it up (including what player(s) won awards)? Thanks, umrguy42 16:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Umrguy42. Actually, I came across the ESPY award while working on other articles. I added the link and years to the Cardinals page in case a Cardinals fan wanted to follow up on it and fill in the names of the Cardinal awardees. In the meantime, if you are submitting the page for some sort of review, please feel free to delete the ESPY award. FYI, Bob Gibson is one of my favorite all-time pitchers. Also, on a cross-country trip, I went to the top of the Gateway Arch and visited the Old Cathedral. Go, Cardinals (unless they're playing the Phillies). Eagle4000 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. The same thing applies to St. Louis Cardinals award winners and league leaders#Major League Baseball All-Century Team, which I added to the pages of several of MLB's 30 teams, i.e., in case one of that team's fans wants to follow up on it and fill in the name(s). Eagle4000 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I put the wrong header; should be St. Louis Cardinals award winners and league leaders#MLB All-Century Team (1999). Eagle4000 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wesley Brown Field House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your efforts to improve women's ice hockey articles, I award you The Running Man Barnstar. Maple Leaf (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the kind words. You are more than welcome. Maple Leaf (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem, take a look at WP:CAT for more info on how categories work. --JD554 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have done some great work on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The other night, while on New Page Patrol, I found a new article called St. Bernadette of Lourdes School. It had been tagged for Speedy Delete which I declined due to its 62 year plus history. If you look at the article's talkpage, you can see what I wrote about improving the article. PA is a little out of my way as I focus mostly on the West Coast. Could you please look at this article and see if you can improve it? At the least, it can be added to the archdiocese article as a school. --Morenooso (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I will take a look at the article. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. St. Bernadette is in good hands. --Morenooso (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are an eager beaver. I outlined on the talkpage some improvements. Looks like the article creator visited it today. He pretty much lifted the article which was one of my concerns. With your editting skills, this will be great article. --Morenooso (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to interrupt you while you are on a roll, but does the Archdiocese of Philadelphia have an online history of the AD? I went to the website but couldn't find one. If you know where it, please list it here. Thanks and you're doing a marvelous job! --Morenooso (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words. If by "AD" you mean the archdiocese, there doesn't seem to be an online history. The closest thing seems to be at Archdiocese celebrates 200 years, at "Catholic Life" under the "Archdiocese" tab on the homepage.Eagle4000 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll look at it. --Morenooso (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You da man! I found it in one click - A Brief History of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. --Morenooso (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I stop you in your tracks? It's probably din-din time where you're at. Kick back; get a bite and enjoy that history. I love reading history like that. --Morenooso (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. As you may suspect, I often get side-tracked, as I follow a link here, a link there, etc. ...! Hmmm, I may have to take the Wikaholic (sp) test .... Eagle4000 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do that all the time. You're quite welcome! And, I owe you at least five edits for what you have done with West Coast articles. I just put a statement in the History section you built. You didn't step away from the computer. . . --Morenooso (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I'm not the only one who gets side-tracked. I'm curious, re your obvious interest in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Even though you're in California, are you originally from Philly? Eagle4000 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's payback for your building and editting of articles I have interest of. Obispo Alphonso was a friend of mine. --Morenooso (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! --Morenooso (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about coincidences (this same comment is being put on your talkpages), Nyttend complimented me about one Catholic related article and then Eagle4000 complimented me on another. To tell you the truth, I've very little other visit both your articles and done some minor edits. Nyttend has a couple of articles that might be considered eventually for GA status but needs an objective third-party copyeditor. Eagle4000 has those skills and might be able to help. In turn, Nyttend has good edit skills too and perhaps could lend a hand to Eagle4000's articles. Both of you can see my comments on my talkpage where I listed some wikilinks for GA resources. St. John the Baptist Catholic Church (Maria Stein, Ohio) and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia both will improve if you two users collaborate. --Morenooso (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Morenooso for the introduction to Nyttend. I've never been involved in GA, but I'll be happy to help either of you in any way I can. Wikipedia is wonderful. Eagle4000 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you placed your latest message on my talkpage just after the discussion about how to identify GA type articles, I thought that was a Godsend. Wow, look a copyeditor just snagged the line!!! --Morenooso (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you just stopped me in my tracks. I was working on Cathedral of Saint Vibiana where I grew up in a rough area just south of this former cathedral. I had to stop as I had multiple tabs open and figure where I was. I am probably now doing the same to you. ;) --Morenooso (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I too have little involvement with GA. My involvement with Catholic-related articles is almost entirely because of my interest in historic architecture — the articles I've put together are all for churches near my home that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and without National Register-related sources, I don't know what I could contribute. Nevertheless, I'll be happy to do what I can to help, if you ask. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet Philly has some historic registered churches. I mentioned Saint Vibiana which you might be interested in. There is mention of it being on a register but I don't know much about that. --Morenooso (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an article that gets a lot of vandalism, place its title here. I am a pretty good a pretty good wikidefender and that's probably my specialty. Use the Force, Luke. . .

I have nominated David J. Smith (Marine), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Smith (Marine). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, too, for helping to get the article into somewhat "presentable" state. Because the history is so fragmented, articles have been written that way, too. Hopefully our changes can at least as guide to sorting itDjflem (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that while your intentions were most certainly good, sometimes you have a tendency to overlink. For example, this and this (in reference to Hall of Fame, athlete, coach, sports) etc. The number one question that should be asked to oneself before making a link is: Will this link really add anything or enhance understanding without making it look cluttered? For things that 99.9% of the Wikipedia readers would already understand or capably grasp without the necessity of a wikilink, such as "sports", they should remain unlinked. The term "high school" is okay, since in the NFHS context it is an American way of schooling and so universally may not be understood. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, just to avoid future errors of the same nature, "high school" does not have a dash between words. Cheers. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind advice re overlinking and for the link to the article on linking, which I just looked at. I will try to curb my tendency to overlink. Re the hyphen in "high-scool", I was taught in elementary school (sometimes referred to as "grammar school" in the U.S.) that when a two-word phrase is used as a compound adjective, that you insert a hyphen, to preserve the integrity of the phrase and avoid ambiguity as to which word is an adjective of another. Of course, there is probably another school of grammar that says you don't need to add such a hyphen, as with the competing schools of thought re the insertion of a comma before the final item in a series (some add a comma, some do not). Thanks again. Eagle4000 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a {{seealso}} template in favor of plain text and linking to a parent article instead of the appropriate direct link, like you did at Philadelphia Phillies, is poor practice. Just a note. — KV5 • Talk • 15:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KV5. I recognize the point you are making, re poor practice. I did so, however, for two reasons. First, the direct-link article (Major League Baseball uniforms) has a topnote (?) that suggests a merger with Baseball uniforms (I think). Second, I noticed that the text of the parent article's "MLB uniforms" section (Major League Baseball #MLB uniforms) is different from the text of the direct-link article, i.e., it does not appear to be a summary of the "main" (direct-link) article. (The parent article's "MLB uniforms" section and the "main" article appear to have been written by two different people, without reference to the other writer's text.) The text in the parent article's section seems to be a concise three- or four-paragraph summary of MLB uniforms, which might of sufficient brevity for a user clicking on a link for cross-reference. The section then has a "See also" to the main article, which is more extensive in its treatment, if the user wants to see a more in-depth article. Thus, I thought linking to the parent article would give the user the best of both worlds (by linking to a concise text that has a "See also" to the main article). In light of your comment about "poor practice", however, I will defer to your expertise and instead add a "See also" in the main article to the parent article's "MLB uniforms" section. I guess that's a wonderful aspect of Wikipedia; there are various ways to accomplish the same goal, via links, categories, etc. Thank you for your comment. I am only in my second year as an editor and have much to learn. Thanks also for all your excellent work re the Phillies. I hope their offensive slump ends soon. Eagle4000 (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete Category:Sport in the People's Republic of China as a parent category of Category:Sport deaths in the People's Republic of China? To me it is a logical parent–sub category relationship, common to other subcategories of Category:Sport deaths by country. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that I noticed that Category:Sport in China has a note, stating that it is for sports items about the PRC and that there is a separate cat for the ROC (Republic of China) (Category:Sport in Taiwan). Therefore, I am moving all items from Category:Sport in the People's Republic of China to Category:Sport in China, to eliminate confusion. Before today, some sports were in Category:Sport in China, while other sports were in Category:Sport in the People's Republic of China; now they will all be in one category. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not a good idea. Sport existed in China before 1949. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem. Only three cat's concerned the PRC (post-1949 China), i.e., Category:Sport deaths in the People's Republic of China, Horseracing in PRC, and Swimming in PRC, both of which still have "PRC" in their names. All the other cat's had only "China" (not "PRC") in their name. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem if you are manually emptying a valid category. There were more than 3. What about Category:Sport in the People's Republic of China by province, Category:Sport in the People's Republic of China by city, State General Administration of Sports, Ping-Pong Diplomacy, Category:China at the Paralympics, Sport in the People's Republic of China, Category:Swimming in the People's Republic of China, etc.? All of these are limited in scope to the PRC too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've come up with a win-win. Before today, the cat's for the Chinese sports of Marathons, Chinese martial arts, Swimming, Table tennis, and Skateboarding were only in Category:Sport in the People's Republic of China (and not in Category:Sport in China), where all of China's other sports were located). Now, Marathons, Chinese martial arts, Swimming, Table tennis, and Skateboarding are in both cat's. Thanks for your intervention. I think that's one of the great things about Wikipedia. There are several ways to address a situation, so that users can find info in various ways and in various places. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the categories should be merged somehow, you can start a nomination using WP:CFD. For most topics, the general practice has been to keep categories for PRC and China, with the China one a parent of the PRC ones. But you could always try it out and see what others think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll leave well enough alone. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Major League Baseball has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {{{1}}}! From your edits, it looks like you're interested in Catholic canon law. Would you like to join the Canon law task force? You are most welcome. Thanks and God bless!

I am also a Catholic Phillies Phan. God bless you Eagle4000! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 17:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your corrections of catholic categories are wrong. Parishes are not the same as churches, and Roman Catholic churches are belong to parishes not opposite. Parish is part of diocese. --WlaKom (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WlaKom, I respectfully disagree when you say that my "corrections" of the Roman Catholic parishes and Roman Catholic churches categories "are wrong".

I agree with you when you say that "[p]arishes are not the same as churches" and that "Roman Catholic churches ... belong to parishes" and that a parish is part of the diocese.

It is also true, however, that at the local level many Catholics colloquially use the words "parish" and "church" interchangeably.

Like many words, the word "church" has many meanings. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) defines "church", in part, as follows:

• "Church. ... 3 often cap: a body or organization of religious believers: as a: the whole body of Christians b: DENOMINATION <the Presbyterian Church> c: CONGREGATION ...."

Regarding the last-quoted word in the preceding definition 3c for "church", the said dictionary defines "congregation", in part, as follows:

• "Congregation. ... b: a religious community: as (1): an organized body of believers in a particular locality ...."

As your message to me implied, we use the word "parish" to refer to the above definition of "congregation", i.e., "a religious community [such] as an organized body of believers in a particular locality". Thus, one of the many definitions of the word "church" is "parish", which is why many Catholics use the words interchangeably — not in the technical, canonical sense, but colloquially.

This interchangeable usage of the words "church" and "parish" is shown in the article on St. John's Catholic Church (Worcester, Massachusetts), whose lead paragraph starts, as follows: "St. John's Catholic Church, first established in 1834, is an historic Roman Catholic parish church in Worcester, Massachusetts. It is the oldest established Catholic religious institution in the city, and the oldest Catholic parish in New England outside of Boston." Later, however, in the article's section on Early establishment, it says: "After 2,000 parishioners had joined the church, a new building was needed. The current building, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, was constructed at number 44 Temple Street in 1845 and dedicated in honor of St. John in 1846." Also, one of the categories at the bottom of the article is Category:Religious organizations established in 1834. Thus, the author of this article on St. John's Catholic Church does not limit the word "church" to describe the actual church building, but also uses it to refer to the parish, as a "religious institution" and "religious organization" that parishioners can "join" (when the author states that "2,000 parishioners had joined the church (emphasis added)).

As you know, most parishes publish a weekly bulletin. Most Catholics refer to it as the "church bulletin", not the "parish bulletin". Also, most parishes describe themselves on the front page of the bulletin as "Church", e.g., "St. John's Catholic Church", not "St. John's Catholic Parish" (although some parishes do use the word "Parish" on their front cover).

In addition, the corporate name for most parishes (under civil law) uses the word "Church" instead of the word "Parish", e.g., "St. John's Catholic Church".

Because of the interchangeable usage of the words "parish" and "church", I wanted to somehow combine the two discrete categories into one overall category. To accomplish that, I decided to make one of the two categories in question a subcategory of the other, instead of either (1) changing the approximately 45 "churches" subcategories to "parishes" subcategories or (2) changing the 8 "parishes" categories to "church" categories.

The reason I chose to designate the 8 "parishes" categories as subcategories of the corresponding "churches" categories is that most Wikipedia editors appear to use the word "church" instead of "parish" for the title of the article and for categorization.

The 8 subcats in the Category:Roman Catholic parishes in the United States have the following number of pages: Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes (78 pages), CT (25), ME (2), MA (47), MI (1), NH (3), PA (1), RI (6). TOTAL: 163 pages.

The 45 or so subcats in the Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States have the following number of pages: AL (8 pages), AK (2), AZ (3), AR (1), CA (76), CO (3), DE (6), FL (16), GA (5), HI (11), ID (1), IL (43), IN (5), IA (47), KY (13), MD (28), MI (27), MN (16), MO (11), NE (6), NV (2), NJ (3), NM (6), NY (73), NC (11), OH (59), OR (6), PA (41), SC (6), SD (4), TX (8), VT (9), VA (5), WA (3), WV (1), WI (22). TOTAL: 587 pages.

Although I agree that parishes are not the same as church buildings and that Roman Catholic church buildings belong to parishes, I hope the above explanation shows why I made the editing changes in the various categories. The result is that when a user looks at the Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States, he or she will now have access to a combined total of approximately 750 pages (instead of only 587 pages) concerning Roman Catholic parishes/churches in the U.S.

May God continue to bless you and your loved ones. A fellow editor and Roman Catholic, Eagle4000 (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with most of your arguments, but "the corporate name" doesn't have anything to do with "religious organization".

Your course of action, more blurred the differences between the parish and the church. Not everyone knows the details of which you wrote. Most of them don't know what "Parish" means.

You know that: Parish = Church (building) + Congregation (souls) + Cemetery (land) and => Diocese. Of course, the diocese own valuable assets belonging to the parish.

Practically, only I was writing articles about parishes in the U.S, to explicitly show the difference from articles about "church". When a year ago I started to write an article about parishes in New England, established by Polish immigrants, I was attacked by wikipedians who wrote that article about the parish is not encyclopedic and should be removed. Finally after a long and unpleasant discussion, all articles are not removed, only some of the names are merged with the diocese. Since that time I stopped writing articles about parishes in the U.S. and Canada in English and I wrote it in Polish. God bless you. --WlaKom (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't typically edit wikipedia but I found it particularly offensive to see your addition of "U.S." to the patronage of Saint Joan of Arc. I don't know if this was accidental by automating the process of adding "U.S." to every instance of women appointed to voluntary emergency service (called "waves" in USA) or some mistaken patriotic campaign but I'm sure the taste of this is ever more foul to non-americans.

Since I'm unable to edit that page and don't care to register I'll just have to drop a line in discussion and hope someone picks it up before that blunder further tarnishes some non-american's view of us. (I can see it now... Large red-ink stamp "AMERICA WAS HERE THANK YOU" in stereotypical egotistical manner) 174.57.82.141 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC) A with an Anonymous[reply]

Because 174.57.82.141 (talk) has not registered, I am unable to respond directly, so I hope that user will look at my talk page (here) to see my reply. You (the said user) say that you "found it particularly offensive to see [my] addition of "U.S." to the patronage of Saint Joan of Arc." I just looked at the revision history for Saint Joan of Arc; it shows that I have not made any edits to that page/article. Thus, I do not know why "U.S." and "women appointed to voluntary emergency service (called "waves" in USA)" was added to the patronage of Saint Joan of Arc, in the infobox on her article page. You may wish to click on the "Discussion" box at the top of the Saint Joan of Arc article and ask that the U.S. patronage be deleted from the infobox. Any editor who has "Saint Joan of Arc" article on their watchlist will then see your request and may give a reply to your request. God bless you. Eagle4000 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this at Joan of Arc:

"Mea culpa. I just deleted "U.S." from the infobox, as I just discovered that I was in fact the user who added it (in Dec. 2009). When I first read the message on my talk page, I clicked on the link in the message for Saint Joan of Arc, not realizing that it was a redirect to Canonization of Joan of Arc. When I checked the revision history and saw that I had not made any edits, I made my replies on my talk page and the discussion page of Saint Joan of Arc (i.e., Canonization of Joan of Arc). When I realized that there was a separate page for Joan of Arc, I then left the above message. After doing so, I decided to check the revision history of Joan of Arc to see which user added "U.S." I then was surprised to discover that I was that user, back in December. As the other user noted, I was well-intentioned. I apologize for adding "U.S."; I must have "assumed" that WAVES and WACs were only U.S. units. I try not to be an "ugly American". Mea culpa."

Eagle4000 (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. My mistake over the confusion, I came across the page through a link to St. Joan of Arc and in typing up above, as the Joan of Arc article also states aka Saint Joan of Arc, I assumed Saint Joan of Arc would point there.

I didn't suspect you to be an "ugly American" so I hope I didn't come off offensive at all. And as a fellow whose blood also runs green I figured I'd give it the time to check back here :-) 174.57.82.141 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Anonypuss[reply]

Thank you for your patience and your reply. I'm glad we were able to correct the mistake I made in the said article. Eagle4000 (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The related Category:Parade High School All-Americans (basketball) has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Not looking to delete, just rename to designate the boys' team vs the girls. Please comment on the discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any more content for the article? I'd like to get it on Did You Know and give you credit for your efforts. I have a good hook even, but I'm coming up a bit short on length. Royalbroil 12:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the DYK. Go, Packers (except when they're playing the Eagles)! Eagle4000 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		It may be seen as a small thing by some but your contribution reminds us of quiet heros who serve selflessly to support their colleagues of all faiths and denominations, regardless of affiliation. Thank you for your service and your contributions. (P/S: I see you've been beat up a bit since landing in this weird realm and you have earned your blood stripes. Stay honest and sincere and you will be respected here. Semper Fi, Veriss (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (PP/S: We really do need a multi-denominational barnstar for general service)[reply]

Thank you for this wonderful barnstar and your kind and encouraging words. Regarding a "multi-denominational barnstar for general service", it would seem that The Christianity Barnstar does the job, i.e., by encompassing all Christian denominations. Thank you for your service to our nation as a Marine. Eagle4000 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Baseball in Oregon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Lord Chamberlain, the Renowned (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have hurt if you'd discussed this move first on Talk:USA Today All-USA high school football team. --bender235 (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eagle4000, I see that you have looked at and worked on a lot of the same pages about chaplains/chaplaincy that I have - but you have more experience - so I wonder if you could take a look at this article and answer a question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NearTheZoo/United_States_Military_Chaplain_Insignia. I think it has a lot of good info (I haven't added categories yet). There are a few notes that need citations/references, but I've tried to mark them "citations needed." However, the big question is what you think of the way I have identified missing images. Is that allowed? My thinking is that by switching this article from draft to published, others may have the missing images that I have not been able to find. But I haven't seen other articles created with "missing images" like this. Please let me know what you think, if you have time. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Published the article United States military chaplain symbols -- but its missing graphics for earlier versions of the current Army Chaplain Corps seal. If you have access to any, could you add them? Should be one showing Jewish and Christian symbols, and then one showing Jewish, Christian, and Muslim symbols. Thanks. NearTheZoo (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NearTheZoo. Congrats on an excellent new article. I don't have access to any graphics for earlier versions of the Army Chaplain Corps seal. You might wish, however, to post your query on the Talk:Chaplain Corps (United States Army) discussion page. An editor who has that article on their watchlist might be able to help. Eagle4000 (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Eagle4000. I actually made contact with the Director of the Army Chaplain Museum today, and she said she'll scan the missing images and email them to me. Thanks for the good words! NearTheZoo (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle4000, Just read your very gracious note on my talk page, and wanted to thank you once again -- both for the kind words and the sage advice. I hope you won't mind if I turn to you once in awhile with a question! I enjoy working on wikipedia because I always end up learning something (usually, a lot) and then can share that knowledge with others. And yes, people are people -- and although I've been pretty fortunate in terms of civility from others, I also read other discussions where I see "the good, the bad, and the ugly." Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to ask me any questions, now and in the future. I may not have the answer, but I'll do my best to help. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THE SOUTHERN CROSS PITCH The Australian Baseball Task Force Newsletter Issue 7 – May 2011]

"We did what you have to do to win. We got three very good starts, we played some outstanding defence and the bats came alive and we peaked at the right time." — Perth Heat manager Brooke Knight after winning the Australian Baseball League Championship News and announcements We have a new baseball-exclusive Good Article to take our tally up to three: 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season. New ABL-themed userboxes are now available to go on your user page. Each of the six teams have a standard one ready to go, while the Blue Sox have an additional one using the crowd chant as heard on Triple H FM. If fans of the other teams want a similarly adjusted userbox, let me know and I'll have it up as soon as I can. As always, if you've got an idea for the newsletter or for the task force as a whole, please add it to the task force's talk page. Featured content The following articles have been promoted past start-class, or included in the task force's scrutiny, since the last edition: Good Article status: 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season B-Class status: Australian Baseball League

News from the diamond Australian Baseball League: The inaugural ABL champions are the Perth Heat. They defeated the Adelaide Bite 2 games to 1 in the championship series, held at Baseball Park in Perth. In late breaking news, the Heat will now get the opportunity to compete in the Asia Series in November this year, against the winners of the Japan Series, Korean Series and Taiwan Series. Australia Women's Championships: Congratulations to the Victoria Blue team, defeating New South Wales in the final at Narrabundah Ballpark in Canberra to claim the National Championship. Country New South Wales defeated Western Australia to claim the bronze medal. Australian Provincial Championships: After the finals were washed out at Blacktown Olympic Park in Sydney, Western Australia were declared champions at the conclusion of round robin play. They finished in a three-way tie with Country New South Wales and Victoria with a 3–1 record, but finished ahead having given up fewer runs. With its head-to-head win, Country New South Wales claimed silver and Victory bronze. This newsletter was composed by  Afaber012 . If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please leave a message on the newsletter talk page. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter anymore, please remove your name from the subscribers list on the main newsletter page.

 Afaber012  (talk)  07:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evening. I reverted your recent changes to Rawlings Gold Glove Award, as Schmidt and Sandberg are not the MLB leaders at their respective positions in Gold Gloves won. Just a heads-up. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I misunderstood the infobox note; I thought the note meant "within each league". Eagle4000 (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Should probably be more specific, I'll check it out. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle, thank you for your edits to Father Tim. You might note I tagged numerous catolicmilitary.org external links. In searching their new website I found only 3 articles re Father Tim. Perhaps later I can get to them later, but I invite you to take a look now. --S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, S. Rich. If you don't mind my asking, did you ever meet Father Tim? On a less serious note, I like your "Mess" and "Less than 1,000 watchlist articles" userboxes ...! Thank you for your service in the military. I will take a look at the new catholicmilitary.org website. Eagle4000 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I met him. While not a Catholic, I attended his services in Mosul and happened to accept his blessing on 29 May. Later, as he was recovering well, I hoped to come up and see him. Alas, I was too late. So sprucing up his Wikipedia article is my small effort to return the benefit he gave to so many soldiers. --S. Rich (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I asked the question. May 29 -- was that the day he was wounded? Father Tim must have made an impression on you, for you to want to give back (via his Wikipedia article). Military chaplains must be a special breed of military, as they risk their lives for the sake of ministering to the troops. Then again, all military members put their lives on the line; yet, chaplains do it without even the benefit of a sidearm. I assume medics are the same. I think your userpage says you were a medic. I'm sure your troops were likewise gratified to know their medic would always be there for them .... Eagle4000 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All soldiers are special. Chaplains are actually the only ones who don't (normally) carry weapons. Medics do carry -- to protect their patients. (It was a long time ago that I was a medic.) And yes, it was May 29 when Father Tim got hit.--S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle4000, I know you're interested in chaplain articles, and wanted to share an interesting one I created: Joshua L. Goldberg. There will be a DYK for this article on Veterans Day. Interesting person! Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the FYI, NearTheZoo. I added some edits. Great article and -- yes -- Rabbi Goldberg is indeed a very interesting person -- what a background .... Eagle4000 (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eagle, I've noticed you're a major contributor to the list and I recently brought up some issues about the article on the Talk page that need to be addressed, your input on the issues would be valuable. Thanks Bhockey10 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BHockey, for the invitation to add input. Although the Flyers became the first team to lose twice in the Winter Classic, it still is a great new NHL tradition. Eagle4000 (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast responses. I saw you've done a lot of work on the list and I hope the issues didn't come across as too critical. I think starting conversations such as the Lady term being or not being a separate name, will help focus the list and also cut down some work for yourself and any other major contributors to the list. And hopefully some other editors can see and join the discussion. Bhockey10 (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. No worries; one benefit of my nearly three years as a Wikipedian is that my thin skin has gotten a little thicker .... I see your point about the Lady term and its effect on editing work. Eagle4000 (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the changes and like the use of the section for schools that use the prefix "Lady"... I still think that section might get to cumbersome but for now it works. Also even if it does get large, the true different nicknames have their own section. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Philadelphia Phillies award winners and league leaders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mark Davis, Jeff Stone, Michael Taylor and Chris Roberson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 19 have copy-edited at least one article, about the same as the last drive. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—August, September, and October 2011—by about 44%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 58 articles so far, to around 2600 articles. The biggest difference between this drive and the previous one is a stronger focus on large articles, so total word counts are still comparable. Don't forget about the Copy Edit of the Month contests! Voting for the August contest has been extended through the end of the month. You don't have to make a submission to vote! August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 30 (UTC). September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eagle4000, I thought you would like to know that I am trying to get the wikipedia Manual of Style changed to require capitalization of the word "Marine," as the USMC requests--and as more and more manuals of style dictate (including the AP, and as of 2009, the NY Times). Here's the discussion, in case you would like to offer an opinion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Military_terms:_Marines. Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact provide an explanation, "Updated dates". Terse, I know, but rather than simply reverting please compare the current article and my revision, and decide which is more timely. For example the current (reverted) article reads "Next Dinner: the 2010 dinner will ...". I intended to bring the article up to date. Mrgate3 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and the possibility the new List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave WP article could need some help. You could start by taking a look at the talk page. Thanks Pgarret (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I realize that you have not been active lately, but I am just letting you know that as the leading editor at Harvard Crimson, I thought you might want to commment at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tommy_Amaker/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Official ball supplier 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/Official ball supplier 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. – PeeJay 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of USA Today major-league baseball awards 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/List of USA Today major-league baseball awards 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. —Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Philadelphia Sports Writers Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Jim Murray, Danny Garcia and Bob Clarke

Baseball America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jimmy Williams

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United States high school national records in track and field may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
46-61/4, 1.93/6-4, 52.3 [3765]<br /> 15.5, 44.16/144-10, 4.43/14-61/2, 60.22/197-7, 4:53.0 [3894]) T&FN records do not mention Cain's indoor Mile mark, but recognize her Indoor oversized 3000)</ref> [[Category:High school track and field competitions in the United States|>]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Special Olympics USA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swimming (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) 08:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mercer County Community College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross country. 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) 08:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National sportsperson of the year by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 22:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]