User talk:Crunch

Paula Creamer to B-class?

Do they know the truth about who you really are "crunch"?. It's just a matter of time before everyone knows... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.184.42.8 (talk • contribs) at 19:24, 1 January 2012‎

I've done some work on the Paula Creamer article and feel that it deserves an upgrade, but Grovermj, the leader of the Golf WikiProject, is apparently on a school break. You work on more LPGA bios than anyone else here, so could you please take a look at it and tell me if it's ready for a B rating among Golf articles, and if not, what it needs? Thanks. Giants2008 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll work on the things you pointed out and get back to you. While working on the article I found a problem with one of the templates. For more details please read the following message. Giants2008 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After several days of editing, the article looks a lot better. Here's what I did:

• I more than doubled the number of references. A couple of statements that were false or unverifiable were removed.
• The dashes should be fine now. I also made a few grammar changes to the article. I won't guarantee that I caught everything, though.
• Several unreliable websites were removed. All links now look good to me.
• She's no longer "cruising" "with ease" (especially not with her showing this week). As for the other statement, I reworded it to: "After her strong first-year performance, Creamer's 2006 season was not as successful." Hopefully that works better.
• I moved the two sections today. I agree with you that they are a better fit there.

When you finish updating pages following the final round today, please let me know if it's good enough for B-class now. Giants2008 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Success! I took the article to WikiProject Biography/Assessment, and within 20 minutes got an upgrade to B-Class. Thanks again for the help! Giants2008 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Solheim Cup template

Do they know the truth about who you really are "crunch"?. It's just a matter of time before everyone knows... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.184.42.8 (talk • contribs) at 19:24, 1 January 2012‎

The template for the 2007 U.S. Solheim Cup team has an omission. It should be stated that Beth Daniel was the assistant captain, but the template doesn't indicate that, unlike the European template. You would think the American team had 13 players, when we both know that isn't true. Once the information is added, the template will gain an extra line, possibly messing up the formatting. I am still relatively new here, and am unsure of myself when it comes to formatting issues. Could you please give me a hand with this one? Giants2008 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After giving it some thought, I now think the assistant captains shouldn't be in either the U.S. or European templates. The Ryder Cup templates don't mention assistants, and the articles don't either. The only information about team Europe's assistant that I found said she was announced by the captain. It doesn't say that she was named by Helen Alfredsson.[1] This article on the American team is also unclear.[2] Since you seem to be the leading authority on women's golf here, I'll let you make the final call. Giants2008 (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the European template. After I noticed your change, I removed Daniel from the American template myself. They are consistent with the Ryder Cup templates now, which is how it should be. With this issue taken care of, I will now get back to my other work. Giants2008 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Thank you. I will remember to list what kind of edits I am making in the future.Koollatter (talk) 5:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome, and the resources as well. I'm curious about your comment that the page isn't only limited to Bivens's tenure as commissioner; I'm new to the world of Wikipedia, so it may be the mathematician in me speaking, but doesn't the article's classification as a golf-related article delimit the scope of relevant information to events pertaining to her activities in that particular domain? Or does golf-related serve as a symlink, to point golf-interested people to articles that may have some but not exclusive relevance to the world of golf? Wikitology (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I hadn't caught your full explanation on the discussion page. That clarifies things. Cheers, Wikitology (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Category confusion

What is the purpose of Category:Female golfers? At first glance, it seems like it should be for female golfers who aren't/weren't members of a major tour. This has recently been added to Paula Creamer and Annika Sörenstam, and a couple other LPGA golfers already had it. The user who added them was the same one who added Category:LPGA Tour golfers to Michelle Wie. Should this category be added to all other female golfers, or are these good-faith edits gone wrong? (P.S. - Good luck fighting the Australian vandals. I'll watch for suspicious edits as well.) Giants2008 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to golf tournament names

Yes, the changes are quite irritating. I hadn't noticed the LPGA changes, but this user (or users) have been changing Ladies European Tour names for almost a year now, on and off. Look at the page history :-) The IP address changes frequently, but they all seem to come from Australia. It started last June 1, right when Golf Punk magazine became the title sponsor for one of the events (timing may have been a coincidence). Most of the time the sponsors are more-or-less correct, but these full names go well beyond even what the ladieseuropeantour.com schedule has. They have also changed the external schedule link on the LET page to a Japanese-language LPGA of Japan schedule (this past february) and xtube.com (just recently). I also recall changes to the Evian Masters page, but I had not noticed these IPs changing other articles recently, but obviously they have. I'm really not sure what can be done, especially since the IP changes so much (and between entirely different network blocks too). The name-changers have never once discussed anything on a talk page, as far as I've seen. The name changes on the LET page have been nearly identical every time. Very odd situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah interesting, I hadn't seen that the LPGA changes started even earlier than the LET ones (though they are more persistent on the latter). I was never sure if it was really vandalism... at one point they changed the LET schedule link to the Japanese-language LPGA of Japan schedule... at that point I was wondering if this was a non-English speaker. Other changes like using formal names for players though were also odd... and the recent linking to xtube.com pretty much shows that it was vandalism. It is still pretty odd, and I'm not sure there is much that can be done except continue to revert. Maybe short-term semiprotection on days they are active; these articles usually don't need to change that often. Thanks for the help though ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a good addition?

I have another question for you: Should this incident be added to the relevant biographies?[3] This was not added at the time, but the articles were smaller back then. I'm concerned about this both ways. There are no controversial moments in Creamer's article, and Sorenstam's only controversy is her PGA Tour appearance, which is unreferenced with the exception of Vijay's comments. At the same time, I don't want to put undue weight on this. I trust your opinion, so your thoughts would be appreciated. Giants2008 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your guidance. The major problem in my eyes is that this doesn't seem to fit anywhere. I don't believe a Criticism section should be added for one incident. In related articles, I've only seen a similar section for Michelle Wie, a player who has had numerous controversies and provokes strong opinions. My plan was to add a sentence or two at the end of the 2005 season, mentioning how Creamer wanted to knock off Annika, but this may not flow that well either. In the end, it looks like WP:UNDUE applies here. Giants2008 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dollar amounts for Wie Ladies German Open

Crunch, you entered the dollar amount 11,274 for Wie's winnings (8750 euro) I then entered the correct amount and proved a link for how it was calculated ie 13,601 as at that exchange rate on that day. link reference: http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=8750 euro in dollars&meta=

You then proceeded to change my entry to a new figure 12,156 Where did you get either of these figures ie 11,274 and 12,156 My figures are correct. Please undo your latest entry. --Stanley delaney2 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Crunch for that. Just to let you know, the figure I quoted ie 13601 was from the exchange rate the day the money was won (probably most accurate to use), but your new figure 13563 is close enough, so I'm happy enough to leave it at that. Thanks for your speedy response. --Stanley delaney2 (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you three guesses who this is about

After all the work I put in to get Paula Creamer promoted to B-class, a new C-class is being adopted, and B-class standards will be raised. This is a great thing for the site, but I'm concerned that Creamer's article could be in line for a demotion. I feel bad asking you for more advice, but I'm interested to see what your opinion is on this. For your convenience here's a link to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, where the new guidelines are being discussed (look under Rewrite process, B-class). Thanks for this and all your previous help. Giants2008 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian edits issue

thanks for the background of the issue. You're right - it's high time the admins cooperate, whom shall we contact then ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmigda (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mastercardclassic.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jee Young Lee

Is her name not Lee Jee-young as per Korean naming standards? bigissue (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Her notability is not is question, just the order of her names. Unless she has a preference for the westernised order, I would still be inclined to change it as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). bigissue (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there are a large number of articles that are potentially wrongly titled, not just golfers. I suspect the majority are because the creators are unaware of the naming conventions and should be changed. If I ever get time, I'll think of some way of dealing with them. --bigissue (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Williams sonomalogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Williams sonomalogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Sure, some of them are redundant (ie the same book has its info spelled out several times when it just needs to do it once and add a ref name), some are missing info like authors, some have unused parameters, etc. Plus, it helps to be consistent on a page, so writing all dates like 2008-12-19, writing them horizontally rather than long vertical lists, etc. Joshdboz (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just an aesthetic choice with regard to vertical or horizontal refs (granted, nobody reading the article will notice anything different!). If you want to change them all to vertical maybe just mention it on the Talk page first. Joshdboz (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Years in golf

A don't know why the Template:Years in golf doesn't work right yet. I've seen other templates do this for a short time and then they work fine. I think it has something to do with how the templates are transcluded. Tewapack (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

I figured out that if you edit an article - then the template gets updated. Tewapack (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirsten Gillibrand

I semi-protected this article to prevent vandalism due to rumors. The semi-protection is for six hours (overnight) and the move protect is for one day. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

LPGA International

I was wondering if I can recruit you to help fill the page for LPGA International, a golf course in Daytona Beach? I don't even play golf, but I live in Daytona Beach and wanted to add some new pages. I am kind of weak on the section about tournaments held there - I'm sure there are plenty that I am not aware of. Thanks for your time. Gamweb (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama

This user helped promote Inauguration of Barack Obama to good article status.

Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New LPGA players photos

Hello, there's bunch of new high quality photos uploaded from flickr into wiki commons, authored by Keith Allison. They can be found in the 'LPGA photos taken by Keith Allison' commons category. Please consider embeding them into existing players' wiki profiles and update this page accordingly. I've sent this message to User:Giants2008, User:Dale Arnett, and User:Mudforce so please synchronize :). BR, Wmigda (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Section move

I was curious as to why you moved the Personal life section in Paula Creamer below the tables, given that you told me last year that it should be above them. Has the recommended organization of golf articles changed during this time? Giants2008 (17-14) 14:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New LPGA players photos

Hello, Keith Allison has made a trip to LPGA Championship again and released another set of photos on flickr. The ones I've transfered into commons are now under the commons:Category:2009 LPGA Championship category. I guess you will want to use them in relevant infoboxes/articles. There is still a bunch of those where I couldn't identify the players pictured - a volunteer with a good eye will come handy :) BR, Wmigda (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gathered some of the unidentified photos here: commons:User:Wmigda/sandbox/KeithAllison2009 unknown. As for Katherine Hull I've added her 3 hrs ago :) Song Hee - on Getty Images she's usualy wearing a Titleist or PING cap. Where would FILA come from ? For Dana Bates my guess was Sue Ginter (http://www.lpgascoring.com/18449/scorecards/80710.html) ? Wmigda (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes - you're right !! http://danabates.com/Photo Gallery.html Wmigda (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The "FILA girl" is Eun-Hee Ji :) Wmigda (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Eun-Hee Ji Page

I'm the one who originally added the reference to her part in the English policy controversy. The edit you did is mostly fine with me, but I need out one thing and ask about something else.

You used a blog as a source for whether Ji speaks English or not. Aren't blogs considered not a legitimate source for references?

The placement of controversy section is way too low on the page. Golfers involved with controversy, Jane Blalock for one, have the section above their wins sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wie edits

Thats not what I did at all. "I knew the rule wrong" is a portion of a very long quote taken from an interview. I merely decided to do a paraphrase because it is improper to cherry pick a portion of a quote, rather than include the whole quote. The whole quote is long and hence why I chose to redo it as a paraphrase. Note I did change the edit back leaving the quote in and then paraphrasing the wrest of her quote as a compromise. The paraphrase was of the exact meaning of her statement only shorter. Did you read the whole quote? its a long one, or did an article cherry pick this quote from the interview, and you read the article. The quote comes from a television interview. MATThematical (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is another reason why I chose not to include the whole quote. It is filled with things like "ums", repeats of previous statements, and in general bad English. It would hurt the flow of the article to include it. Basically "I knew the rule wrong" didn't really explain whether she didn't know she wasn't allowed to ground the club, or whether hitting a loose impediment on a back swing before continuously swinging through it is grounding the club. Its notable that the announcers agreed with her at the time, so apparently many people know the rule wrong. The quote makes it seem like this is just a simple rule she new wrong, when in fact it is an obscure rule that most golfers are unaware of, even at the professional level. I will retry to write the quote with a few ...s, to try make it shorter and more readable. But definitely review my work on this. I am not used to editing quotes. I tried to keep a very neutral point of view in my paraphrase. MATThematical (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree if the section is about her bad grammar, or if the quote is still understandable despite the bad grammar. But in a section about about a particular topic a quote that has bad grammar can distract the reader from the topic at hand. I don't care about casting Wie in a good or bad light, I prefer to keep a neutral point of view. If you want to add a bad grammar section to the article, go ahead, but you have to understand that this is an encyclopedia, and that means sticking to an organized structure. You can't just stick quotes throughout the article with bad grammar haphazardly. Do you think adding Michelle Wie's response to this incident really adds anything to the article anyway, can you please tell me why you think it should be included. By the way, I added the exact quote, with one "..." where she talks about some irrelevant stuff, pretty much all the bad grammar is included, its not atrocious enough that it distracts from the meaning or is any worse than most sports persons interviews.

Most articles on golfers do not have the golfers response to the incident, unless they added something interesting or pointed out something knew. The statement to the effect of, I knew the rule wrong...I thought if you swung through it everything would be ok, doesn't really add anything to the description of the incident in my opinion. But now that it explains how she knew the rule wrong I think its better. Before it was a worthless quote for an encyclopedic article. MATThematical (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Solheim Cup teams photos

Hi there,

I've uploaded a selection of photographs of Solheim Cup teams and members to commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2009_Solheim_Cup I hope they will come handy. Cheers, Wmigda (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the access was not restricted. David Cannon and his colleague were shooting from the stands. Some other people were there as well so we joined the crowd. I began shooting and nobody complained. You wouldn't believe how big my smile was :) I still got lots of images from the event itself to upload. I'll let you know when these are all ready too. Wmigda (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Stevertigo#Talk: Ted Kennedy

-Stevertigo 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kara Kennedy Allen

A tag has been placed on Kara Kennedy Allen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a mightily impromper speedy to me – it's two years after the original AfD, the content of the new article isn't just a repost, and there's at least a plausible argument that her notability level has changed since then. I think the place to appeal it is WP:DRV. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The instructions are at Wikipedia:DRV#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review. But per those instructions, you should probably first post something about this at User talk:Jake Wartenberg, since he's the admin who did the speedy. Looks like you contact two other admins, which is less effective. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The history is at the empty Kara Kennedy Allen page in the red box at the top. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Streamlining the Wie article

I just made an attempt to help streamline the article, based on the consensus on the talk page that has been up for a while. It had a ridiculous amount of detail, and still does. I deleted some results in tournaments that were just silly to mention. However, I did not delete very many (if any I don't remember) missed cuts because someone might view that as not being neutral, but I think a lot of it needs to go. I think only her (a) near wins, not just a top 10 finish but one where she was in the running in the final few holes, (b) results in majors, (c) results in male tournaments, (d) interesting facts and tid bits, and (e) controversial withdraws/dqs are worthy of mentioning. I also deleted her results chart that had every tournament result in it she has ever competed in as a professional, that was just silly and a waste of space I think, no other golfer has this. Anyways, I was wandering if you would be willing to look over my changes and cut some more stuff out yourself. I think you would probably do a much better job than me, but i thought I would get the ball running for other editors. thanks, MATThematical (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being disrespectful to the wiki process, there was a discussion about this you started a while back on the talk page 2006 - 2008, and of those chiming in everyone agreed upon streamlining. You claimed that this was resolved, but how is anyone suppose to know that when you don't say anything about resolving it on the talk page. Clearly the article looks like this discussion was not resolved, although if you acted on it a year ago, I can see how it probably has come forth again. I guess you made the edit about a year ago, since that is when someonesle agreed upon the streamline after you did. Did you really wait 2 years to take action? If you made the edit beofre then, didn't then the newer comment shows that other people don't think the issue was resolved.

I never intended to do a wide spread edit without consensus. Don't make it sound like I just made this up out of no where, and that there is "obviously" no such discussion on the issue. You knew what discussion I was referring to, and all you had to say was "matthematical made an edit referring to a consensus in 2008 that was resolved. Since then the problem has reoccurred and so he likely edited this article thinking that the original discussion was not acted upon." The way the statement is currently phrased, it practically calls me a liar. I really feel like the statement should be revised so that it gives me the benefit of the doubt.

On a separate issue, I am not sure what the etiquette is for editing the wiki after making a suggestion on the talk page. Do you have to wait until someone replies to the suggestion before you do it? In that case you would have to wait 2 years before you could make the changes you proposed in 2006. Is this standard or does it have to do with it being an article of a living person? Or is no one commenting on the suggestion after a given period of time justification for doing the edit. If so how long is long enough before one can just go ahead and do the edit? These tricky questions are what led me to just doing the edit and then commenting on people's talk pages who frequently edit the wie article to go over the changes, that and the discussion that was apparently acted upon a while ago but based on the current state it didn't look like it was acted upon. Those two issues is what made me go ahead and do the edit. I wouldn't just do the edit without thinking there was some consensus. MATThematical (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not a prankster, my history shows that, and my edits were very reasonable (although granted major and deserved a larger discussion). If I were a prankster why would i ask you to take a look at my changes. Anyway, based on your response it sounds like you made the change in 2006 even though no one replied to your suggestion. So Ill ask again, as it was the most important part of my above post (I am trying to learn wiki etiquette). How long in general should one wait for a reply before doing a major edit? Wikipedia has a different etiquette as does wikispot wikis so I am trying to learn it by reading the basic pages on it, but there seems to be many nuances that are not covered. To be honest, when I first made the edit I didn't notice that your edit was 2006, I just saw the post below it and assumed that it was a fairly current conversion, and stupidly didn't check the dates. They looked like the same issue to me, but i have no idea what the page looked like in 2006. MATThematical (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

sounds great. MATThematical (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

LPGA Tour wins

Hi Crunch, I was thinking that LPGA tour wins for individual players should be put into a wikitable. This is how it is down for the PGA tour players and I think it is an important upgrade for woman's golf. thanks, Leominster 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leominster 1 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats sounds like a great idea! I have already updated some of the players majors wins, such as Karrie Webb, Lorena Ochoa, Suzann Pettersen, and Christie Kerr. If you are looking for information, golfobsever.com has complete data on all LPGA events from 1950 to present day. thanks, Leominster 1

Here is the link: golfobserver.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leominster 1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

LPGA Tour Championship and ADT Championship

Some months back you moved the ADT article to LPGA Tour Championship. They are not considered the same tournament. I'll cite the LPGA's microsite as proof.

http://www.lpga.com/tournament_microsite.aspx?id=18532

It clearly states the 2009 version is the inaugural event. I could also add there was a golf article written today that says the ADT may be back in 2011.

These two tournaments then need to be divided into two separate Wikipedia articles.William 21:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 LPGA Tour

Hi, in the introductory part you mentioned that Rookie of the Year was won by Anna Nordqvist, whilst it was Shin who was awarded with it (just as mentioned under the Awards secion). Wmigda (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping us improve wikipedia.

This user helped promote Inauguration of Barack Obama to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn/Sandbox New Infobox Golfer

Go look here and tell me what you think of this new infobox!BLUE_DOG^TN 18:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please also see related discussion at the existing template talk page. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Golf Tournament

I was not previously aware of any conflicting use regarding the to-par field, but evidently there is. I have removed the offending documentation from the talk page, since it doesn't belong there and there is some already attached to the template page.
I have also started a discussion regarding the to-par field if you wish to offer your view on it. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 10:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts on the to-par and location fields. Tewapack (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Luke List

I created this article, see if you can expand it, please!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Gilliam

Created this article see if there's any changes that need to be made! GOOD DAY!69.137.120.81 (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GOLF

I started a section to exclude the awards sections in golfers article or in the infobox or to let both be included, double standards need to be stopped apart of this project!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am gone, You don't do half the editing that I do!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The LPGA Championship is over. Go to lpga.com for the results (that's where I am editing them from). Why not check this out before undoing all the edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.208.107 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 U.S. Women's Open

I noticed you were the one who changed an edit of mine regarding the entrants with the comment (paraphrasing), "show all or show none." I'll tell you why I did it my way.

I planned to show players in the same manner that they're listed in all articles for the men's major championships—for example, the 2010 U.S. (men's) Open. The standard for listing the fields in articles on individual men's majors is to show players EXACTLY ONCE in the first category by which they are qualified, but list remaining categories with each player in parentheses.

Hope you understand my rationale...  :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

I would be glad to nominate you for this permission if you want me to do so!BLUE_DOG^TN 18:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, how do you like those List of Women's Major championship tournament articles?BLUE_DOG^TN 18:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Kraft Nabisco Championship champions

Hello Crunch, I have this article up for FLC nomination, which means if you want to go look at it and make a comment you are more than welcome to do so! Have a nice day.BLUE_DOG^TN 23:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Women's Major Champions

Hello Crunch, go through all of them with the exception of the Titleholders and Western because I am not going to try to get those two FL right now, which all I need you to do is give the other four your thorough examination.BLUE_DOG^TN 00:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yani Tseng and Patty Berg

I saw you needed to ammend what I wrote. First of all, I wrote that Tseng was the youngest in the modern era. Second of all, Berg's Titleholder wins count as Major Championships by the LPGA even though the LPGA wasn't founded then. I emailed Mike Scanlan at the LPGA to notify him of the discovery. Six months ago I found out via an old news article on the internet that Kathy Whitworth won the same tournament five times just like Se Ri Pak, Annika Sorenstam, and Mickey Wright. The press reported Pak, Sorenstam, and Wright as only doing it. Guess what? Check the LPGA record books have been corrected.

Are wikipedia articles supposed to have wrong information because a source or sources are mistaken when at the same time another source is out there with the correct information? I mean articles on Whitworth, Minnie Rojas, and Kristin Gilibrand would all have to be changed. You'll find dozens of articles or blog posts written in 2009 after Nick Adenhart died that said Minnie Rojas was paralyzed in 1968 or 1969 when in fact you search Google news and find out it happened in 1970.- William 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A point to one of your points at my talk section. You said the LPGA says Tseng is the youngest to win three majors. In 2007 the LPGA also said Pak, Sorenstam, and Wright were the only LPGA golfers to win the same tournament five times.

http://www.lpga.com/content_1.aspx?mid=4&pid=11801

http://lpga.com/content/Alltimerecords.pdf

Look at their record books today, their press release in 2007 was wrong.- William 01:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Middle vs Maiden

Hi Crunch. As you can see in that video, she says her full name is Julia McWilliams Child. It is her maiden name but after she was married, it became her middle name. Shouldn't that be in the lead? Thanks, Tommy! [message] 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to nee McWilliams. Thanks for the help. Tommy! [message] 20:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Rite Cathedral

I usually don't chase on AfD comments, but your vote rationale is directly contradictory to facts in the article. The basis of the AfD is that the building is not (and this is clearly stated in the article) on the National Register of Historic Places and is therefore not notable. It is eligible, but its listing was declined by the owner. So I've got a minor issue with your vote of "keep because it's on the NRHP" (because it isn't). Your vote is up to you, but could you at least do something with the rationale? MSJapan (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have paid attention to the source a little more (I lookeda t the title and not the URL), so let me further clarify - nhrp.com is not considered a reliable source by the NHRP WP, because it is often incorrect (as it is in this case). MSJapan (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is technically correct of MSJapan to point out that the NRHP.COM webpage is incorrect in the NRHP listing status of this one; the place is not in fact NRHP-listed due to an owner objection, which the NRHP.COM website does not capture/portray properly. However, the NRHP.COM mention is just an imperfect indicator of the status of this place within the NRHP's official NRIS database, where in fact it is indicated as NRHP-eligible on the given date. NRHP.COM just gets the status wrong, not the actual notability of the place, which it gets correctly, along with other facts about the place. --doncram (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Project Runway

Hey, thanks for taking the time to weed through that Fancrufty summary. I thought mine was succinct, but at least expanded just enough to make it relevant, but fantards always take it further. I was too lazy to sift through and remove the excess of that other Wiki-user, but I appreciate it =).

Oh, and I also agree about Peach only being singled out via the editing, especially because it didn't find the precedent of 'being the last two remaining in contention for the win'. Only if the other four were dismissed, I suppose, would it qualify. Agreed?

P.S. Just for kicks, do you have any favorites? I'd have to go with Valerie and Mondo--they're the most consistent and intriguing. But I like most/all of Team Underdog, plus Michael C., especially April and Peach, because they're the most entertaining. After all, this is a TV show.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of bullying and bad faith

I would encourage you to be more careful about making accusations of bad faith, and to seriously look to yourself before you accuse anyone of being a bully. I've noticed quite a "my way or the highway" approach to edits on your part. Drmargi (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Drmargi just reverted your edits from a week or so ago at "List of Iron Chef America Episodes". This was shortly after she lied about sockpuppetry to get Dreadstar to block one user and semi-protect the article. I guess she figured if she waited you wouldn't be paying attention any more.75.198.134.10 (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Campos-Duffy

I do not know that it is documented; It is merely my observation after editing so many biographical articles in the past five and a half years. Generally, material on a person's life from their birth to when they're career started falls under "Early life" (child actors being a notable exception). The phrase pertains to everything up when a person's career began, and/or when they became a public, and thus "and education" is redundant. Nightscream (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rob Oppenheim

The article Rob Oppenheim has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet the notability requirements set out for golfers at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2010 tabLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2010 tabLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback

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

Itzgrund and WP:LOCAL

I have reverted your edit as Itzgrund is not within the scope of WP:LOCAL being the community itself and not a place of local interest therein. Between the translation wikiproject and WP Germany we are working at expanding these articles so a tag is not needed. Agathoclea (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Bobmathias time.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bobmathias time.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Marlene Hagge and Paula Creamer

You edited in- (In 2005, Paula Creamer set the record for the youngest winner of a 72-hole tournament; Creamer was 18 years 9 months and 17 days at the time.)

I edited it out. The LPGA doesn't differentiate records between 54 and 72 hole tournaments except for total scoring.

http://lpga.com/content/Alltimerecords.pdf

If the LPGA doesn't recognize the difference in tournaments that Hagge and Creamer won in, neither should Wikipedia- William 22:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Young Tom Morris

Actually, he won his four at the age of 21, which makes your edit to Yani Tseng invalid. The golf channel's Rich Learner brought that up just yesterday on the golf channel telecast. Plus, even an article on the website specifies youngest to win four LPGA majors Golf Channel.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to get Yani Tseng in the news section on the main page, which this could keep it off until it is resolved.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I left you a comment on my page.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Youngest since 1872, Young Tom Morris is that man. The term modern era is an ambigiously vague undefinable mess. weasel words is what modern era is to Yani Tseng. This is the sentence that should idealy go their regardless if it makes the main page in the news. "Tseng is the youngest golfer male or female since 1872 to win four major championships." I would highly advise you to take out modern era, unless you can find some reliable sources to define it and make use of it in this context. My sentence is correct and straightest the point. I just want wikipedia to be historically correct and not use terms unless we can correctly define them. This is not to be taken as an afront to you, but just a difference amongst good wikipedia editors. I respect what you have meant to the golf project and community!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

True that "modern era" is vaguge, but obviously Morris won his tournaments in a completely different era when there were far fewer tournaments. Simply saying, "since 1872" doesn't work I don't because it implies that in 1872 golf was even remotely similar to what it is now and it wasn't. I can work to clarify this later today. I don't have time now. --Crunch (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Navbox color changes

I just wanted to draw your attention to color changes by another user on the following Navboxes The Open Championships, U.S. Open Golf Championships, and PGA Championship. The user has not touched the Masters Tournament, yet.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews article on Yani's victory

Hi, I've just completed a draft of the wikinews article on Yani Tseng's victory: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Editing_Yani_Tseng_captures_Women's_British_Open_title_for_a_record_fifth_major. If you could check it for grammar/style and such it will help a lot. Later today I'll try to move it into a review stage and attach some photos. I'm leaving the same message to SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow, so maybe you two could work together helping make it published on wikinews ? Thank you in advance, Wmigda (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with this article and my previous attempts - we got it published! Wmigda (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Candie Kung is a United States Citizen

From a interview at the 2008 Evian Masters

Q. Is it true that you learned how to play in the states not in Korea? CANDIE KUNG: First of all, I'm not from Korea. I'm from Taiwan. Yes, I didn't play golf when I was in Taiwan. I picked up golf when we moved to the U.S.

DANA GROSS-RHODE: When was that? CANDIE KUNG: That was back in 1995.

Q. Are you a U.S. citizen as well? CANDIE KUNG: Yes I am.

Q. How long have you been a U.S. citizen? CANDIE KUNG: I would say about three, four years.

Q. Does that mean you have a dual nationality, dual citizenship? You have two citizenships? CANDIE KUNG: No. I only have U.S. passport.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080728084639/http://www.ladieseuropeantour.com/content/let_content_interview.php?Id=15849

Kung calls herself a U.S. citizen. Case closed and the LPGA, who insists on still having her as Taiwanese, is wrong- William 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It was your recent edits here[4] and here[5] that listed Kung as Taiwanese. BTW you can reply back to me here. I will see it.William 00:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was following the designation listed in the official results. She's listed as Taiwanese in all official results. I don't think it's our job to change the official results and she may have a reason for choosing to designate her nationality as Taiwanese even though she no longer reported that she no longer holds a Taiwan passport. --Crunch (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No its the LPGA and the media being lazy or sloppy.(Look at the same media interview. Somebody in the press tent thought Kung was South Korean! I can cite a Florida golf writer who called Brazilian born US Naturalized citizen Angela Park 'South Korean'. His reply- Angela Park's parents both are South Korean. She was born while they were living in Basil. I think it would be an insult to her not to acknowledge her natural heritage. He decides she's South Korean) Trust me as someone who has ferreted out mistakes in the LPGA recordbooks, two examples Kathy Whitworth not being listed as a 5-time winner of the same LPGA tournament and Patty Berg actually being the youngest LPGA major champion, Mickey Wright shooting double eagle before Marilynn Smith did, the tour knows they're mistakes but will or won't fix them on a individual basis.

Kung is the decided on the case. She said no she has no to having two citizenships.- William 00:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. One interview, that was translated from French to English by the way, is not the definitive source. The definitive source for tournament results is the official tournament results. End of story. If you have ever seen her play in person you will notice she also has a Taiwan flag on her golf bag. That generally signifies nationality. I'm wondering if the 2008 interview was just an errant translation.--Crunch (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing lost in the translation at all. From the LPGA's own website!

http://web.archive.org/web/20080806032307/http://www.lpga.com/content_1.aspx?mid=2&pid=16670 English speaking interviewer, English speaking interviewee, English speaking people transcribing the press conference.- William 00:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the transcript again. In it she is first asked if she has US citizenship as well and she says yes, which indicates dual citizenship, then when pressed she says she only has one passport. I think it's obvious she didn't understand the question. She can be a dual citizen and not have a Taiwanese passport. I believe she is a dual citizen and I doubt the LPGA has been getting it wrong all these years. I think our conversation here is done. --Crunch (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I got to say one more thing. For you to be twisting the interview to support your idea she is a dual citizen is completely two-faced because when this conversation started the first thing you brought up here[6]

I am very aware of Candie Kung's citizenship status. In fact, it was me who added the information about her citizenship and the reference you just posted on my Talk page. I added this in 2009. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Candie_Kung&oldid=292556103) Was your latest comment to me in relation to something I've added or edited recently?

You yourself put in the reference from the LET website to back up she was a U.S. citizen without dual citizenship. Now you're arguing she might be dual. That's so like Tewapack. One reference for a nickname is perfectly valid if he puts it in, not so good for another editor(till they supply a backup reference). Both of you set your policies on which way the wind blows- William 01:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Your less than brilliant LPGA Corning Classic edit

Why don't you make sure what the heck you're doing in the first place. Recently I corrected[7] your horrendously wrong edit[8] to Reilly Rankin. Today I cleaned up your work[9] on the LPGA Corning Classic. Instead of correcting the wrong information that Yani Tseng held both the aggregate and to par records for the tournament, you instead changed the to par to the lowest 18 hole marks. The to par, is for under par for the length of the tournament. I cite for you Honda LPGA Thailand, ShopRite LPGA Classic, Jamie Farr Owens Corning Classic for examples. Tseng shot 267 -21 in 2009 but Juli Inkster shot 264 -24 in 2003. You even Juli in your mistaken edit! The right answers were right in front of you. I keep cleaning up other people's garbage in these articles. It's a long list.- William 19:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not continue to address me in the rude manner you have, here: Your_less_than_brilliant_LPGA_Corning_Classic_edit The error you fixed on LPGA Corning Classic and claim to be have been made by me, was not by me, but by User:Paralympic at 20:58 on 12 July 2009. The Rankin year error was a typo and was my mistake. We all make them as this post from you on my Talk page proves ("You even Juli in your mistaken edit!"). Anyway, I'm sure User:Paralympic appreciates the correction on LPGA Corning Classic and I appreciate the correction on Reilley Rankin. Cleaning up errors, formatting, grammar, etc. is part of what happens on Wikipedia. If it frustrates you to "clean up other people's garbage," perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. Again, I ask that you follow Wikipedia etiquette and please be civil. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You apparently have trouble reading. The edit had you changing the to par scores from one wrong edit to another. Look closely, -10 Juli Inkster, Yani Tseng, and Mika Miyazato was added by you. It's in red and the edit[10] is yours. What is so hard to see? Just like Tewapack you can't admit your double standards or mistakes you make.- William 22:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of blogs as sources for golf sources

You edited[11] one out as a reference once saying in your summary 'remove blog reference per Wikipedia standards'

The self published and questionable sources part of WP:reliable sources states- "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

There are quite a few golf journalists that blog. Randall Mell and Beth Ann Baldry of Golfweek, Ron Sirak of Golf World, Craig Dolch of PGATour.com. The reference you removed, was a blog at the Palm Beach Post newspaper, written by Edgar Thompson. These are media journalists(and others like them) per the WP guidelines and can be considered reliable sources.

Here's another area you may be less familar with. Individual bloggers who have been credentialed to write at Pro golf tournaments. Stephanie Wei of Wei Under Par, Geoff Schakelford, The Constructivist at Mostly Harmless, and Bill Jempty at OTB Sports[12] to name a few. Using these as sources, if any of these bloggers are doing independent reporting, can be used for references but you have to scrutinize what they're writing. All four I mention above are pretty clear if they're reporting on their own or just taking news from another site via a link.

Trust me that these bloggers when reporting have to be careful. The tours can pull credentials very easy or use the threat as leverage. I know from personal experience. I'm one of those four independent bloggers I listed up above, Bill Jempty.

This is a heads up. I didn't look at the reference you pulled except to see who the source was. Whether it helped the article or not, I don't know- William 22:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Crunch! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Catriona Matthew

She has 9 not 10 professional victories. You are the second editor in the last day that's double counted her 2009 Women's British Open victory.- William 14:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Beth Daniel, Helen Alfredsson, Juli Inkster

You are a complete idiot. You edited out of Daniel and Alfredsson playoff result boxes. Are you a imbecile plus in need of a seeing eye dog????

As for Inkster, we don't do citations in win boxes. Point me out one where its done like that?- William 00:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And BTW you called my edition of a playoff box non-sensical. If that's not a personal attack, what is? You have proved this week you can't either count[13] or read[14].- William 01:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in an alternate universe

but in the real world Anna Nordqvist did not win 2009 LPGA Rookie of the Year like you wrote in an early edit[15] of 2009 LPGA Tour. JiYai Shin was ROY.[16] I fixed it but two years after the erroneous information was first put up. Anyone who followed the LPGA in 2009 knows Shin was trying to become the first golfer since Nancy Lopez to get POY and ROY honors.- William 02:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Occ-logo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The LPGA can't be wrong about a tournament's name....Try again

Case in point- The 1976 Women's International. It is listed here [17] and here[18]] by the name Ladies Masters at Moss Creek at the LPGA website.

Read this and its references- When the tournament was first announced in January 1976 it was titled the Ladies Masters and sponsors said they would pattern the event similar to the Masters Tournament.Ladies Masters added to LPGA slate in May. A little over a month later the LPGA announced the tournament's name was being changed to the Women's International. Ladies' Masters changes name This happened after Masters Tournament officials contacted the tournament's sponsor and threatened to go to court unless the word Masters wasn't removed from the tournament title.

LPGA is denied Masters name

Sally Little, an eventual winner of 15 LPGA tournaments including two major championships, won the inaugural Women's International by one shot over Jan Stephenson after holing out from a sand trap on the tournament's 72nd hole.Sally Little captures first LPGA win

The Tournament was the Women's International not the Ladies Masters as the LPGA says. I consider we reopen the Sanford Women's Open and retitle it appropriately. I'm posting this to tewapack's and the the tournament discussion page. Make comment at the latter if you have any.- William 20:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Harry Parker (rower), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1984 Olympic Games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you a stalker?

Because you come over to my talk page and again to revert things like you have done before[19] that you've already been told doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines.[20] You also seem to have a needless fixation to put in duplicate signatures[21] to comments I make on talk pages which administrators had to revert.[22] Between these actions of yours a pretty good case of stalking can be made. Either that you're totally incompetent. Which is it?

If you ever repeat this behavior on my talk page, I will report you to the appropriate authorities. Do not reply to this message at my talk page either.- William 14:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Golf in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Golf for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness

You previously commented on the article Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness, where the controversy of how to balance competing claims that he had polio or GBS has again arisen. Would you be interested in commenting again to help move the article to a long-term resolution? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

This comment[23], is more appropriately placed on the user in question's talk page, not on the article talk page. See WP:Talk. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD Marathon Sports (retailer)

As you participated in the original AfD, I thought you should be notified about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marathon Sports (retailer) (2nd nomination) Widefox; talk 18:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 U.S. Women's Open Golf Championship 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:

• *''Japan LPGA Tour:'' [[Mi-Jeong Jeon]] (13,14) ((declined to participate), [[Bo-Mee Lee]], [[Chie Arimura]], [[Sun-Ju Ahn]] (13), [[Miki Saiki]] <

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect views on wiki guidelines

"As I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for being new to Wikipedia and not understanding that you can't go in and make widespread changes without asking for discussion and getting some sort of consensus." Please see [Wikipedia:Be_bold], as this statement isn't true. You absolutely can do this, editing and reverting is part of the proper wikipedia process. Even mentioning the word "prankster" to describe my edits even if it starts with something like "I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a prankster" is inappropriate. It would be like me starting off with "I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a bully who goes around ..." In addition words like "obviously" should be avoided in pretty much any discussion. If it's truly obvious you wouldn't need to say it. MATThematical (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What discussion or article is this in reference to? --Crunch (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I am referring to the old Wie discussion. Anyways, I don't understand why you keep on making statements like "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current news report only reporting what is most recent." Of course I know this, and to imply that anything I did or said is opposed to this philosophy is just out right wrong (or at best a subjective opinion). I never said controversies should be deleted. I said the quotes by Wie section should be deleted because it goes against Wikipedia:Trivia_sections. I did say that controversies should be succinctly summarized and located in one place (either the controversies section or the play by play section) and not repeated. And I also said that controversies that are from minority points of view (like the one on her attire) should not be given undue weight. For major controversies related to play by play a quick one sentence or less description can be placed in the play by play section with the controversy section going into more detail, but any more repeats than that violates wikipedia's undue weight guidelines. I put a lot of work into cutting a lot of unnecessary language, more logically structuring some of the sections for better readability, and succinctly summarizing non-notable slumps, poor performance and average performances. I don't disagree with your new edits. They are fairly minor, and help improve the article. Thank you. MATThematical (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Crunch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hondalpga.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Crunch. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Olympic club.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Crunch. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Crunch. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Micihelob ultra.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Micihelob ultra.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jonteemil (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)