Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bugs, happy new year to you. I was wondering about this comment you made - "The IP's all emanate from England, which figures, as we seem to get a lot of trolling from there" - is that a wikipedia fact or is it well known or has there been some discussion that asserts that to be true, or is it your opinion or what? Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its fair to label a country in that way, and IMO it is clearly not true at all, trolls come from all over. Could you please edit it to make it clear that it is just your opinion? Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Rob, Bugs has a habit of offering up not-entirely-relevant comments at ANI. I always assumed it was for purposes of humo(u)r. I can just imagine someone on the German language wikipedia remarking that they seem to get a lot of trolling from Germany. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I added a note and bugs has clarified, so... I think as bugs added, we get trolls from all over and singling out a race of people as the main culprits is a bit undue. Its so easy to take things the wrong way when communication is behind a blank screen through a keyboard - best wishes to you guys throughout 2011, happy new year. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't canvassing, since I don't know where your own opinions (finely balanced between playfulness and vandalphobia) would fall, but you might be interested in this discussion I noted in browsing my watchlist:
Hope you don't have too bad a hangover from all those double carrot juice cocktails you quaffed for Hogmanay (A hare of the dog...) But a seasoned (hold the thyme, sage and mint!) bunny of your experience should know his limit by now, and should anyway feel entitled to little harmless annual fun. (No one need know the provenance of the carrots.) Happy New Year! —— Shakescene (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guess who's back...
blanking his talkpage here and at Commons (hey wait, weren't his pages on Commons protected so he couldn't undo the crosslinking?)... → ROUX₪21:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm predicting an unblock request that some admin who can't be arsed looking at the history will simply grant, and then in three months it'll be the same thing all over again. → ROUX₪21:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's still on my watchlist, though I overlooked the blanking here. At commons, the only block either of his two known guises have had was a 2-hour item back in the fall. We'll be watching him, and I'm sure he'll be watching us watching him. >:) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:ParamountLogo1930s.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. Courcelles03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Standing up to me?
You really think that posting on AN/I to ask whether it's cool that I might edit ED (before I even had a chance to address the question) was an example of "standing up to me?" You yourself admitted it was a bad idea, at the time, and now it's an act of "standing up" to an abusive admin? Bizarre. I hope MF files a case against me; then we'll all learn a bit. Don't worry; I'm not watchlisting your talk page, nor do I hope to communicate w/ you again. -GTBacchus(talk)04:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it twice in 6 years. That's "typical" in your calculations? You're in a very exclusive club of people who managed to get under my skin. Very exclusive; you must be proud. -GTBacchus(talk)04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do try and be calm. People have seen fit to award me for doing just that, on multiple occasions, though per advice I once saw you give (though I've also seen you refrain from taking it), I prefer to listen to my critics with a closer ear than I listen to my supporters. I've flown off the handle four times in my six years here, and apparently that makes me quite the hot-head in your book. Frankly, I don't care what you think about me. I invite scrutiny of my actions, anytime, and I have always been an administrator open to recall.
I remember almost nothing of it except for that below-the-belt rant of yours. I actually do take the advice of critics... when they're right. There's a short list of trusted admins who let me know when I've gone too far. As far as your twice-in-so-many-years, I'll have to take your word for it, as I have no interest in scanning through your thousands of contribs to look for evidence. If you behave yourself henceforth, you'll be fine. And if you don't, you'll get enough folks mad at you that they'll give you the boot without needing any input from me at all. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've looked, out of curiosity, I can say that your memory is comically inaccurate. You don't want people comparing our actual history to your recollection. Malleus has fallen silent, and I expect this all to vanish, somewhat disappointingly. I feel entirely vindicated. -GTBacchus(talk)07:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he means is that ANI is mostly a cockpit of irrelevancy, and that less is more. And also something to the effect of Verb Sap. Slightsmile (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's saying that ANI is the part of the irrelevancy the pilot and co-pilot sit in and that a small bit is really giant. Also, he thinks someone named "Verb" is either an idiot or a combat engineer. HalfShadow17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I forgot about our collaboration. I don't know if I'll be able to edit extensively anytime soon so maybe we should just hold off on this idea for the moment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note, and I bring it up here because it is a matter of contention between the combatants, NIM is apparently blind and uses a screen reader to communicate; it leads to some foe-net-ick-all spellings which are not strictly correct. Kainaw claims he is making it all up about being blind; I am unconvinced of that, but its actually part of the problem here. Just thought you should know, in light of your well meaning joke, that it may be taken badly in the context of the particular dispute. --Jayron3220:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, I stand by what I say but I hope you don't take offence. The great thing about Wikipedia is that we can debate issues such as this. No hard feelings :-) Zarcadia (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for helping move content to the Commons. Just remember that capitalisation matters; a link to .JPG will no longer work here if the Commons file is at .jpg. If everything, including the capitalisation, is not identical, they should be reported as being moved under a different name, to help admins who clean the backlog up. Thanks. Courcelles00:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "disengenius" thing was funny too. Too bad it wasn't spelled "disingenious", because I was going to ask what an "ingenious" douche would be. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
If you mgs to me was intended as a peace offering, its accepted; hows it going. If it was a shot against the bow, that's fine too, motherfucker. I'd prefer the first option though. I'll give you one thing, you have good, tearse, way of communicating that gets you in trouble, but is undoubtaly sincere, and always amusing. So peace. Ceoil11:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree File:Adlai Stevenson statue at airport.jpg
Is this a better signature? N.I.M. (talk) Go behind the line. because if it is, then that An/I turned from a complaint about Franamax to a new and improved signature. N.I.M. (talk) Go behind the line. 05:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@N.I.M. - When complaints are brought to AN/I, all aspects of the complaint are looked into, including the behavior of the complaining editor. Your complaint about Franamax got no traction because it was meritless, and it is your behavior that is now under scrutiny. As has been expressed, your "signal to noise" ratio is extremely low, meaning that your contributions to the encyclopedia are very much overwhelmed by extraneous discussions. You need to change that, stop chatting, and start contributing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Westboro
I actually saw those morons with my own eyes a couple months ago at the funeral of a Marine who had been killed in action. I try to take heart that it's a tangible reminder that freedom of speech still exists. Kellyhi!18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my fantasies, the Phelps group gathers with their picket signs, someone with a large car puts them in their sights, so to speak, and heads toward them at full speed. Except it being Arizona, there might not be a pond to jump into. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, I'm perfectly aware of it. I've been around longer than you have. However, you're yet to point out what it's so essential that Beta should have learnt, all you've done is sat there feeling important because you're pointing out how evil he is. As far as I can see, he did nothing wrong in this case, and, no matter how much cynicism you have thrown around, you haven't actually said what it is he "should" have learnt but didn't. All I can see is you thinking "Betacommand? Non-free content? HOLY SHIT BLOCK HIM". J Milburn (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on supporting him, if you're of a mind to. Previously, he got even his supporters mad at him and he was banned. I predict it will happen again. But whatever. He's been set free, and he's your baby now. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support policies, not people. His actions were completely inline with the NFCC, and all he got was suspicion and the assumption of wrongdoing from the denizens of the noticeboard. Your reply, again, ignores the fact he did nothing wrong and just assumes he's a villain. J Milburn (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're so mysterious. Seriously, why can't you just accept that he did nothing wrong? You are still insisting on treating him like a villain. Yes, I know he has been blocked multiple times (incivility, unauthorised bot use, edit warring, etc) but tht doesn't mean he doesn't do good work, and it certainly doesn't mean he's always in the wrong when issues are raised on AN/I. As was pointed out, raising issues like that is what he was being told to do. He enforced policy, he encountered resistance, he requested help, he got abuse. Somewhere on that line, something went wrong, and the problem certainly wasn't with him. It's the prejudice and unhelpful comments from the likes of you have not helped, but have certainly hindered. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look for this image in each of the four versions. With the label: Logo to commemorate the stadium's final season. It is removed twice (by Beta) and restored twice (by BB). CIreland (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I missed it the first time because he buried it in a hundred other edits. It took me awhile just to find the first one. It doesn't matter. His "up yours" attitude toward other wikipedians will never change. The only solution is a permanent ban, and that's not going to happen while he's got his apologists defending every freakin' thing he does. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hey Bugs..
I've worked with you before, so I understand you're wound up about this Betacommand/Delta thing. However, I think it'd be useful for you to step back a bit.. I understand you feel strongly in this area about the work he's doing, but to be honest, you are emitting more heat then light here, and it may prove to be counterproductive. I'm not saying don't speak up about this area, or what have you, but referring to apologists, etcetera isn't really going to reflect well and may be counter to what you're trying to accomplish. Just a friendly thought (no threat, no warning, just trying to defuse a situation). SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the idea that something I say is going to somehow support B/D's side. I was just hoping I would never have to deal with that character again, and I got sucked into this. If they really want to fix the problem, they should (1) ban B/D permanently; and (2) delete ALL non-free images and let the editors start over. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, you're still doing it. Anyway, I made my attempt, and I can say I tried. Hope you're having a good one (and you're not about to get clobbered with the snowstorm we here in the Northeast are about to get killed with) SirFozzie (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, some states do literally 'offer' methods of executions. That guy they shot in Utah recently, lethal injection is the standard method in the state, but the firing squad was still on the books and he picked it. All states that use methods besides injection (firing squad, hanging, lethal gas, and the electric chair), executions are default lethal injection, unless the condemned rejects otherwise. 'Our special tonight is lethal gas...'
Czolgolz (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is he was afraid of needles, didn't want to hang around, wasn't interested in having a gas, found the chair shocking and so he decided to give it a shot. HalfShadow22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Time to take one of my periodic breaks from the Palin articles as the POV-pushers are starting to get to me. How did you handle this stuff on the Obama articles? There is one problem at those articles that seems insoluble...what to do when the actual POV-pushing is done by outlets that are normally reliable sources. The narrative about the Tucson shootings was scurrilous from the beginning, and even the people who started the speculation admit that now. But because it was in RS's it HAS to be included, according to many. Did you have this problem with Obama?
Not a single admin will commit to monitoring the Palin articles. KillerChihuahua used to do it, but not anymore. I think those articles will forever remain a swamp. Ah well, back to gnoming with free images. Kellyhi!22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, this isn't going to help; the plan seems to be to get this user to agree to a constructive editing path before unblocking, (I have my doubts, but it's a plan), and engaging with him in any other way is not going to make this any easier. pablo13:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mug shots aren't exactly planned to show their subjects in the most favorable light — they always look both ugly and as guilty as Hell. But the provenance and relevance of the photo are clear, and it obviously belongs in the article. If the smirk seems damning, that's his fault. PhGustaf (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. I was thinking a good caption for that photo could be, "Why is this man smiling?" In fact, I could create a gallery on that subject, including Nixon and that comet character [Marshall Applewhite] from the late 90s. But I can't use it on my page here, as it's apparently not a free photo. Another great idea down the drain. :( ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Baseball Bugs. I saw your comments on the ANI page and this reply seemed off topic there so I am bring it here. Your points are well made; but, a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is not possible in an Arizona state trial. Instead, it would be guilty but insane.[4] The major difference is that in the later case, if the defendant is ever declared "sane", they go to prison to complete their sentence and are not released. WTucker (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. I was going to say that the synthetic voice of NOAA Weather has branched out into music, except he's more of a baritone than a tenor. I wouldn't say I prefer McCormack's version. The one used in Das Boot is a great recording. Recordings in the early days had serious limitations. Imagine what guys like McCormack and Burr and Caruso and other great artists of that era could have done with modern recording equipment. But at least we have something. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
So here we go again, you post irrelevant stuff on the RD (Attempting German translation with Google this time) and it is clear that you know nothing about German but still have an uncontrollable urge to write something. You are obviously a bright person from some of your responses but you must be close to the winner of the "Most Slapped Down on the RD Award" because you sure do seem to get up some noses. OK, that may not bother you but as a fellow human being and Wikipedian I have a fraternal itch to let you know what an annoying sod you can be sometimes. I am not here to insult you, you bring a joie-de-vive (occasionally) to the RD and that is good but if you were a real man you'd own up sometimes and admit you are wrong or out-of-order when you clearly are. Oh, finally just to empty my spleen completely, (nah, just kidding) have you ever thought about thinking something through before you post so that you don't have to keep reposting bits all down the page. No, there's no rule against it, but accuracy and depth is better than speed. You are free to carry on doing it but it does not have a positive effect on your image. I repeat, you are a good wikipedian with a load of good work under your belt, but think first. Big hug buddie Caesar's Daddy (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really do appreciate your taking my concerns seriously.
I am highly disturbed by your implication about me here. If you think that I misuse my tools to advance my own prejudices, then I invite you to take up action at whatever forum you find appropriate, but please bring along some evidence to show that I give preferential treatment to one or some races/nationalities over others. To suggest that I softened a block because of some racial or national bias on my part is a pretty gross violation of Wikipedia:Civility. It's offensive and hurtful, to say the least. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you meant, would you please refactor your comment at ANI to clarify that? As I read it, and I believe as it probably would generally imply, you think I would have indeffed if it were a comment against African Americans. It's possible that my block is too lenient; I don't do a lot in that area, and I'm generally reluctant to block people. But it's not because I don't respect the seriousness of the issue. I'm using to blowing off accusations of impropriety from people I encounter in copyright cleanup or other admin work, but it's really distressing to me when it seems to be coming from somebody I respect. :( --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Meanwhile, the saga continues. Since the block, he's uploaded File:Pijak_mafla_indon.jpg, the name alone of which demonstrates defiance since he's still using the racial slur. I'm trying to figure out what "Pija Maflak Indon" means. Pija means "foot". Maflak? No clue yet. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I probably have. The word is used here, where the translation via google translate is "4 pictures from the bottom .. fans wear tudung .. fans hold mafla malaysia..terry picture greeting .. Zamani picture heading .." There's also this. At this point, I think it must mean banner or something like that. It makes contextual sense with the new uploaded "Foot on the "Indon" banner", as that's what it is. Without the slur, it would be a sports thing, but the fact that he's holding onto the slur is an issue in itself. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Muffler! That works. :) I agree that the image in itself is relatively harmless; the use of the slur in the title is a problem. I'm not an admin on Commons, so (as you know) I've asked SatuSuro, who is, at ANI if anything can be done about the title. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about wikipedia policy that I'd like to ask you. I'm sure you can find out the specific edits to which I am referring (they aren't that interesting) but I hope to ask this without names so as not to infer that I am planning to take any action against anyone at all (I'm definitely not...I'm a fan of direct communication much more than formal reporting issues).
So, an IP user (let's call him IP) made an edit on an article talk page that wasn't nice, but probably wasn't an actionable uncivil edit. An admin (let's call him Admin) reverted the edit because he said it was a personal attack (it contained an accusation of article ownership). I didn't know Admin was an admin, but reverted the edit because I didn't think it was that bad, and because I hoped that my response could foster some positive discussion. I made a post on Admin's talk page explaining why I had reverted him. The discussion at the article talk page indeed continued in a civil manner for a dozen or so posts. Then, Admin archived it during the middle of the discussion. There were still several outstaning points, and so I reverted the archiving (again not knowing that Admin was an admin and again explaining myself).
Admin then warned me that I if I further interfered with his "administrative actions" I would be treated as a disruptive editor and could lose my privilege of posting at all.
My questions are as follows: Are reversions on the talk page and archiving of threads edits which can either be administrative actions or not, depending on the circumstances? If they are considered "administrative actions", is there a wikipedia policy on how or whether I can change them that is different than how I would treat those actions if they were made by a regular editor (or if they were made by an administrator who was not taking "administrative action")?
Thank you for your fast reponse. I had generally agreed with your policy regarding not removing talk page comments unless they are egregious violations, which is why I reverted Admin's deletion of IP's post.
I don't particularly care if you know the specifics (as I said, you could easily find out just based on my edit history) but I wasn't sure that they were necessary to the question. I gave the general set up more as an example of how my more general question arises. In general, are deletions to a talk page made by an admin an "administrative action" when made by an admin and a normal edit when made by a normal editor? If so, are there different rules to reverting this action (and restoring the removed text)?
If you need the specific edits to answer, I'll supply them. However, I don't want to disparage an admin and make more enemies than my personality naturally makes.LedRush (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You got to the bottom of it quickly enough :) The admin hadn't posted on the page in the 5 weeks I've been on the site, and the IP hadn't made any inflammatory posts during that time either, so I'm not sure that the admin was working on the history. Of course, this article has been a source of contention in the past, so that definitely weighs in the admin's favor.
But aside from this specific action, I'm really trying to better understand general policy on these types of issues. In general, are deletions to a talk page made by an admin an "administrative action" when made by an admin and a normal edit when made by a normal editor? If so, are there different rules to reverting this action (and restoring the removed text)? (BTW, sorry for dominating your attention for this, but I am trying to take a lessor or two out of this experience)LedRush (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Did you notice that Xanderliptak's heraldry has been removed from Commons because of DMCA takedowns? [6]. I don't know what the story is, but I suspect he filed the takedown, and someone at the Foundation, unfamiliar with his situation, removed them, thus giving him what he wanted. I find that amusing, if true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. I'm just curious how he managed to tag them as copyvios. Must have been using an IP or some other sock. But it does explain why his normal ID got all bent out of shape about the handling of his user ID's, and then seemingly disappeared. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked her directly, who originated those "takedowns"? My guess is that it was a sock of Xanderlip's. But at this point, we're just as well off without that moron. His precious little creations can be just as easily done by someone else. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your carrots bit in user name amused me -should contributions then be sticks? An unkind friend who plays hurling a savage local precursor of hockey, dismissed baseball as rounders; 'a game fit for girls and played by girls in this country". I told him not to be so xenophobic.--— ⦿⨦⨀TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk16:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That might well be true in the British Isles. Not so much in countries that play competitive baseball. I'm fairly familiar with hurling, which is a brutal sport that's fun to watch from a distance. But I'd like to see him stand in the batter's box and face a 100-MPH, up-and-in pitch, and see if "hurling" might take on a different meaning. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read your catty comments about me in collusion with Radh's slander about me "whitewashing" Stalin and about me being on a shortlived "crusade." I've been on wikipedia longer than you have and you should have showed more class and far less bias as an admin or whatever you are. I hate Stalin and I never defended him. You really messed up.
(talk page stalker) The instructions at WP:DIFF help a ton for providing actual diffs, unlike the illegible mess above. If you've been here longer than Mr. Bugs, you should be able to pull them out of your "wazoo", like I can, at any given moment (& I haven't been here nearly as long as either of you). Sorry Bugs for "hopping in"... Doctalk04:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is just fun for me, its not a lifestyle thus I don't know how many of the inner workings function. What I said still stands.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 5:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the diff of what you just posted[7]. That's how you do 'em. There's no "lifestyle" to it: it's simple stuff, really. Cheers :> Doctalk05:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bug, can I ask you a question, then have you answer, and then ask if you uderstood the question correclty, and repeat the smae question again in different words? SOunds like fun! - BilCat (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you noticed this, but this article is up for deletion. I have no idea what your views may be on the subject, but I suspect you have some and the discussion would be the better for your participation. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this report, but, as I'm a complete softie, I'm prone to assuming good faith. I do see some personal attacks, but I don't see blatant vandalism; this editor looks to need a lesson in etiquette, not a block. What leads you to say they are a sock? m.o.p01:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not definitive proof in any shape or form. Some people bathe in controversial subjects - so far, I see no reason to block the editor, though I will keep an eye on them for the time being. You're welcome to get another administrator's opinion if you'd like.
Hi, Bugs. I have a sandbox where I'm working on an article called Palin Derangement Syndrome. It didn't have noindex. I went to Google and searched Palin Derangement Syndrome wikipedia kenatipo, and it didn't find anything. Are we certain that search engines search sandboxes? --Kenatipospeak!02:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't mind my templating this message, but as there are several users whom I wish to express more or less the same thoughts to, it seemed appropriate.
Of course it's a shame things turned out how they did with regard to the thread on ANI about Someone65, but no great harm has been done and he will eventually get his comeuppance. I'd like to thank you for your support there - it's been noted :)
Claims that no-one else states their opinions on the Ref Desk may be a little...optimistic, but Tag is right, Bugs; we don't need to sense your clear and open hostility towards Julian Assange in every post you make on every thread which discusses him. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you could tone it back, please.
I was going to post this as a response on the thread in question, but I figured it was too off-topic and personal to go there. Your talk page seemed the best option. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if BilCat was being humorous or something, but in fact Wikilinks pretty much started out by leaking material from China. And Iran, or at least some other Muslim country. Funnily enough, while Assange was doing that, there was no interest at all in what he did or didn't get up to in Sweden. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be humorous. I hadn't heard that he's leaked any groundshaking material from China or Iran, but it must not have been very newsworthy to the US media (which isn't a good measure by any means). Egypt is an interesting place now for westerners too, especially the media. ;) - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. Another version is here, and a really long and even weirder one is here. I'd say we have a fellow who needs medication, and hopefully he will get the help he needs. Doctalk09:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an excerpt from a thread on another chat blog, and it could indicate the guy is potentially dangerous without medication: "Did you know about all the other land in the 19 to 27 latitude that mt great grand father acquired ? Land as far away as Thailand Martinique and Hawaiee (that's why in HF0 one of the detectives was called "Danno" (the Danish Norwegian).. Why did you kill my children ??? Why did you kill my wife ???? What did you do to the daughter of The Sultan of Brunei ??? Why have people blocked my phone calls email and duplicated voices to trick me and others ? Where is the girl who was staying with me one week ago ???????? YOU BASTARDS PLEASE WILL THE SURREY POLICE ARREST THESE PEOPLE FROM NEXT DOOR TO BISHOPSGARTH AND NOW THEY HAVE PROPERTY IN WEYBRIDGE SGH AND KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES" Somebody's going to need to keep an eye on the account, because competence is required. Another excerpt states: "Now I have heard four of five different voices of people claiming to be my girlfriend "DOW /Douen." So I do not believe it is her speaking to me n the phone. Now I suspect these people are trying to cover up the disappearnce of the girl who stayed with me..." The poor guy seems to be suffering from severe delusions. Hopefully the thing about the girl actually disappearing is one of them... Doctalk11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had a hunch this wasn't something new :( Bugs has a good circle of anti-vandal/anti-troll editors here, so I figured this was as good a place as any to mention this. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you think that statement on my user page that "winter temperatures can vary 20 degrees celsius a day" is a load of crap...
Oh that's just because the wind shifted from the north (Yukon) to west north west (Pacific/Alaska Panhandle) causing a break in the trough with a high pressure low in the stratosphere colliding with the jet stream. SlightSmile18:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might be a good uninvolved editor to review if I did the right thing, since you previously admonished me for editing other user's comments, and I see you on the reference desk a lot.
In that particular case, let consensus be your guide. In the ref desks, sensitive items are often replaced by "[redacted]" just to alert the reader that it's been changed. Someone might raise a question about it at the ref desk talk page. It's a case-by-case basis. Generally, I don't mess with others' comments at all, unless they are really gross violations of the rules. I understand your good intentions as regards the "outing" thing, but I also trust admins' judgment in general. And as it turns out, the poor schmo had outed himself. But that's not always the case. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to interrupt the thread now that there was another response, but to answer your question... It definitely might just be easier to delete some of these as borderline BLPs. The Russ Nelson article has a PROD right now, and personally I'm not going to contest it. Steven Walling21:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right about all of this being OR. I added the material back in with a source, but it does seem as if editors have simply picked what they think is a good example of "damnatio memoriae" and added it. I think the entire article should be gutted, but I don't know where to start. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what is going on at this page. There is an editor who unilaterally moves the pages, brazenly requests that his preferred version be protected on RFPP, and posts abrasive comments on the talk page. Yet, the user is not being blocked, not even officially admonished by an uninvolved administrator, and succeeds in having his preferred version protected for a full week. Cs32enTalk to me23:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of weirdness lately. Maybe it's "cabin fever". Thankfully, spring is just around the corner. And I would think consensus on that page wouldn't be difficult to reach quickly. Then if that guy moves it again, I would ask for a block for disruption. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch! I wonder if someone registered as Infrontcomms deleting embarrassing information about Australian seaside resorts might have some tenuous connection with an Australian PR firm called Infront Communications who according to their website at http://www.infrontcommunications.com.au/ have several testimonials from Australian holiday resorts. Surely not... Cheers, TonywaltonTalk01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh! I looked at the wrong diff on ANI - thought you'd reported them but in fact it was User:JNW. Ah well. Thanks anyway - I'm sure you've done something worthy of thanks ☺ above notice of thanks copied to where it belongs TonywaltonTalk01:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
59 stats
Could you add the baseball guide(s) you mention to the citations I listed? The site I listed is technically modern and listing modern seating capacity, so the more data the better. Staxringoldtalkcontribs02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the initials used many times, but the way the phrase was used, it made it sound like an official acronym, which it isn't. Also, it would need some kind of verifiable source, which there doesn't seem to be. Does it appear anywhere other than fan sites? JTRH (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
It appears to be used as an abbreviation on their Twitter site. I just don't think it adds anything to the article to include the "also known as." But I really don't feel strongly about it. JTRH (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bugs, long time no see...
Got a question for ya, how familiar are you with 40s-60s Yankees and Giants? My grandfather gave me some pictures of this era, and I think I picked out Bill Dickey, but the rest are a mystery to me. Was wondering if you could help me if I scanned them? Soxwon (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about that, I've never noticed it myself. I'll look for it. That would make a great little element for the article if we can find a source for it.Shirtwaist (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whatever you do, ignore all those editors like Bugs, Bzuk etc who have consensus on the talk page. Instead, keep reverting them and tell them to go to the talk page where you can continue to ignore them. Toddst1 (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out that there is no way anybody here would hand out Felix' personally identifying information to a mere carrot-nibbling, wascally wabbit like Baseball Bugs, and that rabbits have traditionally found little credence when trying to tip off the CIA about perceived threats to national security. Just in case anybody was in doubt, and to allay Felix' fears. Fut.Perf.☼18:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was about to tell him that he had better be afraid, be very afraid, because I had just notified his own mother, and she was at that very moment headed to his room with a freshly-cut hickory stick, to "explain" a few things. Mercifully, you protected the page first. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Photos
At the moment, I'm at college. The pics are, unfortunately, at home. I will upload them when I head home for Spring Break next weekend. Soxwon (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking action in the FelixHonecker issue - that was more than I was asking and hoping for when I asked you to tone down the drama on his talkpage. I do realize that you didn't mean to make a threat, and that it was also not in fact worded as a threat, but given the issue and the way in which he reacted your statement complicated the picture. It makes me feel a lot better about the issue that we can at least say that our hands are completely clean and that ideas about favoritism towards certain users are completely unfounded. Well done. ·Maunus·ƛ·14:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've recused myself from the matter at (what was essentially) his request. However FWIW, I saw it as reducktape-3O ad absurdtanium; maybe not in the best of taste as it turned out, but *shrugs*. - The BushrangerOne ping only21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that your intervention on this article was ancient, but I thought that you might have a comment on the article's current state. In the UK, our knowledge of Stevens stops around the time of "Don't look, Ethel! But it was too late. She'd already got a free shot. Grandstandin', right there in front of the home team." However, despite the transatlantic cultural differences, the present day article seems a bit more opinionated than "Boogity, Boogity". If you have the time and inclination. I've sent a similar message to Clown Will Eat Me, who was involved around the same time as you. Thanks,
fwiw, being the user felix reported to Interpol, and then set up a right yawp when you, totally joking in any case , etc..- I mean what a hypocrite!. it seemed blindingly obvious they were identical - 'slacktivist' talk identical etc.. why do you say 'what the hell is a rebel flag doing on the Libya page' btw- the east of Libya flies under that flag - do you watch the sodding news , bugs?? Sayerslle (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My thought exactly. Wikipe-tan can't help being cute. She was drawn that way. Consider this, though: What if she were drawn to look like Phyllis Diller? Would she still be the same "person"? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats good to know. I have been thinking about making a major policy proposal at the Baseball wikiproject, and this topic will of course be addressed. I'm waiting for the wikilink discussion to finally end before doing so, because I'm afraid some may just oppose it because they just want to oppose me.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a team's season-by-season link prominently in the infobox would fix the problem. The links could stay as they are, and when the team's page comes up, they could immediately link to the season-by-season. Or at least that's one solution. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the season links in the info box. That may take a bit of coaxing to get done, but I'm sure a compromise could be reached, at least lets hope so. As far as the links within the lists go, User:Isaacl suggested that perhaps a note could be added to the top of lists. I suggested this note: Team names link to the season in which each team played. This was, I thought, a compromise that was reached in order to achieve consensus. Apparently some disagree, and that in turn makes me and deserving a ban for thinking so.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. I thought we were rid of that guy... especially after he leveled a full-blown legal threat against wikimedia. He appears to still be editing on wikimedia. If they're so dumb as to allow him to edit after the shenanigans he's pulled, I guess they deserve him. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a photographer, a graphic designer. He posted his drawings of national coats-of-arms on Commons, and got angry when editors modified them to remove his signature, in accordance with policy, and obviously against his plan to use wikipedia as free advertising. He managed to strong-arm Commons into deleting them on the grounds that the illustrations were copyright violations. Never mind that he himself had created them. Good widdance to bad wubbish. Or so we thought. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geez Bugs, what happened to the good ol days when a person whose name rhymes with Rob Biebman would come around every once in a while to bug you? You seem to have enough socks to fill a caterpillar's sock drawer. Soxwon (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that you recall there being consensus for the hatnote, but I can't find it. I did discover that Tiny Tim (musician) used to be at Tiny Tim prior to August 2006, so a hatnote would have made sense at the time. I also discovered that hatnotes were placed on the articles by a single user in 2008 [19]. I was unable to find any other discussion. But perhaps I'm missing something? Reach Out to the Truth17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was funny, but ultimately not that constructive. He's better off going to a discussion forum to talk about it than here.-5- (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's never said in the film why they named him that, so it wouldn't be appropriate to put that in the article. It may be true in the comics, but it's not necessarily true in the film. However, it's mentioned in other Superman-related articles, so if users want they can see what explanation comic book writers came up with for why he has that as his the name.-5- (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked on Duke53's talk page whether this was about the garment photo dispute. Not really, except to the extent that it's one part of the long pattern of problematic behavior. You can see my statement at the arbitration request, which gives my reasoning. Since you have had a cordial relationship with Duke53 it may be useful to have your perspective in the arbitration if you are willing. alanyst/talk/14:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, then: Your edit [20] was useless and pointless, since it did not help the OP to track down the ebook he wanted. Providing a link to a site where he can buy the hard copy is not a "starting point", it is no help at all. So please refrain from making such posts in the future. --Viennese Waltz15:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Viennese Waltz was kind enough to point out the inadequacy of my response too. Such selfless dedication to correcting our imperfections is worthy of a song (not originally in waltz time). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note at the project page. I would be inclined to follow the same pattern as was done with Sr. and Jr. Griffey. Or, perhaps there's another way; but they should both be handled the same way, I should think. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although he has a son who plays by the same name, he is still universally known as Tony Gwynn and the son is Tony Gwynn jr. Sources tend to confirm this, and he went into the Hall of Fame as Tony Gwynn. As with the comparison to the Ripkins. TG jr. doesn't exactly have the same credentials as CR jr. I would have liked a chance to at least discuss the page move before it was made--Jojhutton (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder about Ripken. It seems that in some cases they're trying to decide who is the "more notable" of the two. Certainly with Gwynn it's Sr. who's more notable. Griffey is a tougher call. Drat those guys for naming their sons after themselves! ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Hi BB. You might have the answer for this, as its an area you seem to have perhaps thought about. If a non-IP editor posts on your talk page, you request repeatedly that she not, and she persists -- how best might one address it? I have a fellow who just posted to my talk page who falls into that category. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Here, as requested, is the diff. He was blocked just two months ago for disruption on my talk page following his hounding me. He protested the block twice, and it was affirmed twice. The first affirming sysop said "It's really not a good idea to fixate on another editor and get into a prolonged conflict with them, which you clearly have done." The final affirming sysop said as to his disruption: "you do not convince me that you won't repeat it".--Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that you are already off to a stellar Sunday. The vandal radar is on and we are off and running. I always take attacks on my user space as evidence that I'm doing a good job. So Good Job.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! One thing the socks, trolls and other vandals may be unaware of, is how many other editors watch this page. That constant surveillance helps keep me out of serious trouble, but it also sends up a flare when the riff-raff gets a little too "defiant". :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn 2011! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to there talk page with a friendly message.
Nice one ;) As for the Japanese question, the word for "fox" is internationally familiar - I don't actually speak the language, I'm afraid. My best friend Google Translate seems to suggest " 野球のバグ " - literally "baseball bug" (romaji: yakyuu no bagu). 狐 FOX02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, this was not an answer, so I removed it. The RD is no place to discuss questions and answers. If you think a question should be removed, then remove it. Same goes for an answer. I considered removing the question, but decided the best way to answer would be deadpan, or just ignore. In any case, commenting in that way on an answer on the RefDesk is disruptive. -- Scray (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree, and you should follow your own advice: you did none of the three (R, B, or I). That's what I was saying above. Please don't express frustration on the RefDesk - take it to Talk. -- Scray (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would do the same again - so you're making incorrect assumptions about me, and missing the point that the problem I'm commenting on here is your edit. RD is not the place to comment on edits - that's what Talk is for. -- Scray (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RD: Oldest historic human
Look Bugs, it's bad enough when you contribute useless jokes or commentary that don't answer the question on the reference desk, but I try to ignore that. But it is completely unacceptable to post blatantly wrong answers about topics, as you did here. I will call you out on this, because you are doing a huge disservice to everyone when you post these types of incorrect answers. I'll repeat my advice in that post: if you do a little bit of research and post an actual reference with your responses, you're much less likely to be wrong. Or, to be more blunt (paraphrasing 87.114.246.141), Don't answer questions you don't know anything about. Buddy431 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Buddy431's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Bugs. I just slipped a small edit into the middle of the Ref Desk Talk page, providing the above link. In the course of events you probably won't notice it, so here is the diff. Cheers. Dolphin(t)22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad you have taken an interest in appropriate conduct on the Reference Desk. Do you have a diff you are complaining about in particular, or was your note on my talk page just helpful advice in general? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, but thanks so much for the tip. Writing a personal note to 8+ editors about their unhelpful Reference Desk postings is much less efficient, and my berating in small text is fine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now that I think about it the word may be "serrating" with an "S"--as in "San Francisco." Worst nightmare? I have yet to wake from it. And opening day only promises continued humbling and thrashing. Lantana11 (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that you had a previous RFA. OMG, They were brutal. I read some of the comments and they weren't all bad, but it sure did look like you got on somebody's bad side. I usually don't take part in those, but I would have supported you in that. Although I too have illusions of grandeur, when it comes to adminship, I shudder when I think of having to go through that entire vetting process. I'm not as outspoken as you are, but I do get my dander up from time to time and am a bit stubborn on certain ideals. Well I hope you don't give up and try again at a later date. Good luck to you.--JOJHutton00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't canvass at all. Maybe I should have. Oh, well, I don't need the aggravation of that job. I only ran because some other users (admins and otherwise) urged me to. But that was 2 springs ago, and some things have changed since then... and not just the various opponents that were later indef'd. But the current count is over 30. If it gets into the 60s, I might try again. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well good luck with that. Most likely you will get a whole new crop of users commenting on any new RFA, but who knows. Being an admin, to me, is more than just being liked. Its about knowing the system and the rules. Knowing what is wiki-right from wiki-wrong. Even current admins get into scrums now and them. There isn't an editor around with as much experience and edits as we have that doesn't get on someone's enemies list every now and then. Trust me, I deal with that all the time.--JOJHutton00:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they never get mad at us, then we must be doing something wrong. :) Nearly everyone in that RFA overlooked the fact that there was one actual good reason to oppose: That I don't know enough technical details and rules and procedures. Nearly all of them were complaining about personalities, and they were wrong. They don't know me very well. But that's show biz. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Had a Point...
"sigh...doesn't ANYBODY want to go to Anaheim, Azusa, and Cucamonga??" Indeed one might, if he or she decided to take a decidedly roundabout trip--a passable itinerary--between Angel Stadium of Anaheim and Dodger Stadium, if you wanted to see the two ball clubs play and if their games were a few hours apart on the same day, say, if one of them were featured on the Sunday night ESPN telecast (I know, that's a lot of ifs). Sure, you'd burn up plenty of time as well as four-buck-a-gallon gasoline doing so, but how better to spend the afternoon? And also--if you did you would have the privilege of passing through the Los Angeles County foothill community of Sierra Madre.
Lantana11 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bert Kaempfert CD cover.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Bert Kaempfert CD cover.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Orphaned non-free image File:Bert Kaempfert CD cover.JPG
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Bert Kaempfert CD cover.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Muhandes (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Sabrebd's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
(talk page stalker) No need to question Baseball Bugs' motivations for commenting, really. He's part of the "checks and balances" of this project, and he is excellent at it, IMHO. Doctalk14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of current article: States he is active supporter of Israel - No source/cite. They are clients.
Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9] if its about the company he works for why on Torossian personal page. What is relevance ? and next sentence also ?? Torossian released a statement that said, "A senior staff member failed to be transparent in dealing with client matters. He has taken full responsibility."[10]
Torossian is active in supporting pro-Israeli causes, especially those associated with the Israeli right wing. Where is the source to say they are anything more than clients. Similarly, states he works closely with John Hagee, and the source is his website. Who knows if he ever met Hagee ? The statement regarding Netanyahu is about peace in 2011, meanwhile the article was 1999, anyone who reads the article will see the statements dont match the article.
Pls review yourself you will see. If there were in fact sockpuppets that doesnt mean BLP issues can be ignored.
--greenbay1313 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Per your request -
Leaving aside the fact that he is noteable for owning a PR agency and named to Ernst & Young noteable list and winning every 40 under 40 award so the article isnt balanced, specific sentences inaccurately referenced:
1 - The reference of pushing Arabs out of Jerusalem is attributed to The Forward and its factually inaccurate and 1 source (which has been changed multiple times by same users). Such a movement in israel does not exist. Accurate version would come below: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. 2 - In the lead it states Torossian is an active supporter of Israel - They are clients where is a source stating he is an active supporter - and similar further into the piece with Christian supporters of Israel. 3 - Torossian work makes him seem as a fringe extremist - In reality he has worked for Foreign Ministry and Tourism Ministry of Israel, current Mayor of Jerusalem and Likud Party http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 has has also represented Israel Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback He has also trained Israeli government officials for media appearances. http://www.prweekus.com/israel-branding-effort-aims-to-humanize-nations-image/article/56167/ greenbay1313 None of those are deemed important enough for the page. But some no name Reform Rabbi criticism is included ? Thats not noteable at all. He works with ruling government folks of course someone may criticize but its surely undue balance. Folks you got upset about sockpuppets that doesnt mean the page can be so off. Thanks so very much for the attention. Appreciate and Thank you.
greenbay1313 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Ravpapa on his own sandbox page changed the reference and also a version today changed it. This remains libelous material regarding Our Jerusalem - Should it not be changed immediately if its a BLP ? Please assist ? greenbay1313 (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you requested spent time researching and all have seen responses to is more of the same biased user Ravpapa. Would you mind reviewing Ronn Torossian and talk changes. Many are simply biased. Thank you. greenbay1313 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, she has said she now accepts the PP was not directed at her. An apology would have been nice but hey - people are people - particularly when they may feel a little foolish. She's not a troublesome editor and it's no business of yours to pursue this matter now it's been dealt with.Fainitesbarleyscribs14:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for an apology, I'm looking for an acknowledgment from her that she understands what happened, as it might help her avoid a similar mistake in the future. As to why it took 2 or 3 hours for an admin to do something about the RFPP, well, that's a common problem. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fainites and Baseball Bugs -- i did apologize, at the ANI discussion here. The text i posted was as follows: "I apologize for any offense caused; my intention was self-expression, not incivility per se." The time stamp of this post was "07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)." Sorry you missed it -- there were lots of words in that thread. Onward and upward with the arts! Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bugs, how goes it buddy? Glad to see you're still around! Yep, soon as I saw the "BLP" I knew the "why" of not using it. I'll bet that was a fun thread to be involved in (why we won't use Plaxico anymore). Take care, and thanks for the update ... I have a bunch of 'em I'll need to be looking through. :) — Ched : ? 09:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not officially, at least. There's a school of thought that they might have thrown the 1918 World Series to the Red Sox, but there was a war on and nobody cared. But whatever happened in 1918, they recovered from it. It took the White Sox several generations to recover from it... if they ever have fully. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, Illinois has had its share of serial killers and corrupt politicians. Read The Devil in the White City for a chilling story of one of the very first American serial killers, in Chicago in 1893. As regards the governors, about half of them during my lifetime have ended up going to the Big House at some point. But, hey, it's only half of them. The other half were never caught pure as the hawk-wind-driven snow. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case you have not seen it, this [21] is colour footage. It's quite short, but the commentary is much more sober. What is the wp policy, if any, for linking to YouTube videos? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this one, the more I think how incredible it is and how it might also provide balance, being from a totally different viewpoint. The commentary strongly suggests that it was also a contemporary British newsreel. I see it's decribed as being "by: motorsportmemorial.org". And that in itself is an incredible website, if you ever get a moment to look at it, and one probably worth a link itself. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should keep your questions in English when using the English Wikipedia. Note that although I understood your questions because I know some Spanish, I answered them in English. HINT! :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a double-standard, i.e. that registered users are held to a higher standard than drive-bys. Some IP's (typically with dynamic addresses) openly acknowledge this as a reason for refusing to register. They use this to their advantage, to take cheap shots with no expectation of any rebuke. One thing I would say, though, is to be careful about the term "vandalism", as that's got a pretty narrow definition. Probably a much better term is "disruption", or of course the handy-dandy "unsourced" and "unencyclopedic". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Bugs! Too many IPs know how to game the system, and that is one reason I've always supported mandatory registration. I've often thought of only doing IP edits myslef, but I'm here to do actual editing in the article, not to game the system to be disruptive. Some IPs claim they don't register because they want IPs to be more resepcted, but in many cases, one gets more respect - or at least good faith - from certain cliques in WP, and they constantly berate the regular users who are harrassed by these system-gamers. It's a sad situation, because these cliques extend less good faith to users with a recorded history who have shown they are good contributors to WP, and for the most part are well behaved. I've seen many good editors leave WP vbecuase of just such situations, and I have quit a few time myself for those very reasons. However, my wiki-addiciton is very strong, so I keep coming back for more abuse! :) - BilCat (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To IP's who claim they stay unregistered because they want to avoid drama or personalities, like one character I ran across recently who generated plenty of drama, I'm tempted to channel Dr. Phil and ask, "So how's that workin' for ya?" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look up some of his sketches sometime. If you take any of it to heart.... It was blatantly obvious dearest Pedro was a fluent and indeed a native speaker of english by his phrasing. If you believe I was stupid enough to actually believe otherwise and had real xenophobic malice in mind ... I've emailed him and sorted it out so moving on...♦ Dr. Blofeld16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have called my well-sourced, edit as messing up[28]. Please do not pass value judgements about other editor's edits. I take editing here seriously and try to be meticulous. If you aren't happy about my edits please exercise your privilege to edit them or comment on them according to Wikipedia policy, please do not pass insulting remarks. Regards.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about your sourcing, I am talking about your lack of attention to detail. Your end result with that one edit was "The Ganges (English pronunciation: /ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez; Sanskrit: गङ्गा Hindi: गंगा Urdu: گنگا Ganga IPA: [ˈɡəŋɡaː] ( listen); Bengali: গঙ্গা Gônga), It flows in the hills and plains ...". If you take away the various notes, it reads "The Ganges, It flows in the hills and plains ..." which definitely qualifies as "messing up." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jayen copy edited Yogesh's punctuational errors, and then added national river..." would have been matter of fact and accurate and would not violate comment guidelines, refer to the edit and not the person. Thanks any ways for the explanation, in context on Fowler's page it looked a lot more harsh than it does now.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example Pfly has added Bhutan and Tibet to the list in Ganga-Meghna-Brahmaputra basin, the citation quoted does not contain these countries, I could say, don't add nonsense, and justify it the way you have, instead I have written on the Ganges talk page is that the said source does not contain the areas that have been added, there is a way communication can be made, yours wasn't polite enough, please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kintetsubuffalo: I wish to bring your attention to Wikipedia:Etiquette, Do not hesitate to let the others know if you are not comfortable with their tone. Also Terms like "racist", "sexist", or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you must criticize, do it politely and constructively. My request complies to the above, your statement on the other hand betrays lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that my blunt style was a little too blunt on this occasion. However, please note that you overlooked the subtlety of what I was trying to tell the user: That you were correct, that it was not you that added the "national river" comment, it was another user... but that the opportunity for him to add it was a consequence of your having deleted the last half of the first sentence, which was previously merely descriptive and was also a complete sentence. It's also not that big a deal. I have "messed up" countless times in editing. Usually I catch it and fix it, sometimes I don't. That's show biz. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would like to point out is that my argument for "Ganges" over "Ganga" has strictly to do with common usage. I have no problem with "Ganga" if it can be demonstrated that it has overtaken and surpassed "Ganges" in common usage. That day is probably coming, but I don't think it's here yet. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found that picture in the Archives of Canada. I pasted all available info at that date in the file description page. I just tried to locate it again today, and I came up with this. As far as identification is concerned, there's nothing more than what I had already copied. Ary29 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user (Hipocrite) has initiated two Wikiquette alerts against me, neither of which has garnered any outside comment against my actions. This same user continues to engage in borderline uncivil insults and attacks which, individually, seem ok, but in the aggregate are uncivil, in my opinion. I believe this user is harassing me in an attempt to get me to make a borderline uncivil remark, at which time he files a wikiquette alert on me. This is done because of ongoing content disputed on the article for Murder of Meredith Kercher. You can see the summary of his more recent complaint and my response here [31] (this response does not include his most recent personal attacks, which are substantially similar to the old ones).
My question is this: do you think his edits would be actionable on AN/I? I know that you respond to the board frequently and that you have been known to have little patience for people complaining about uncivil behaviour which isn't really uncivil (in this case, I would think that either Hipocrite's complaints or my proposed one might qualify). I rarely, if ever, look for admin action against other users because I think most adults should have thick enough skin and enough maturity to deal with these problems. But I truly believe his actions are poisoning an already enflamed board.
Sorry — I hadn't checked the history of that category page. I'll track it down. If I'd had known he/she would be back, I'd have kept careful records! :) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone including me has to AGF now. I've personally had trouble with that too. It seems this user is changing his ways, pending further discussion.Jasper Deng(talk)22:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I, Kaldari, hereby award Baseball Bugs The Barnstar of Diplomacy (believe it or not) for his thoughtful apology to DeadSend4. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wait .. WAIT! ... BUGS? DIPLOMACY? .. oh my how times have changed. On a side note: I just wish this blind squirrel could get a nut. ... wait .. that's prolly a bit TMI huh? :-) — Ched : ? 22:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in case you're wondering who my little people are, I hired the Seven Dwarfs as consultants after they were laid off by Snow White Enterprises LLC, which outsourced the Diamond Mining subdivision to Afghanistan. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, out here in God's Country, we can see Afghanistan's diamond mines – – you betcha! (And all the undocumented immigrant dwarfs exploited by those cynical, unpatriotic, multinational corporations who should instead be hiring unemployed Afghan dwarfs with birth certificates.) Isn't unfettered free-market outsourcing what America's all about? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh .,. ok .,.,., I hadn't read the ANI thread, just caught bits and pieces of it. Guess that's what I get for skimming huh? ... How goes it Bugs? — Ched : ? 22:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wizard of Oz
Thanks for the possible explanations for the inconsistences in the Wizard of Oz. Emerald City does seem like a magical place, so perhaps they do have oil. How would I give source information for a list of inaccuracies? Anyone demanding a source need only compare the film to my list.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're working tirelessly to improve wikipedia for the benefit of the Great Unwashed. Hence my new invention. Along with the "hyphen-dash", the "en-dash" and the "em-dash", we now have the "mad-dash"→ — – — – — – — ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Humility inhibits me from saying too much. :) When I saw you had basically made the same comment,[32] I reverted it and probably caused some excessive edit conflicts. That's show biz. Please note that this is not a new idea. Go to about 4:40 of this video (there may also be like a 15 second ad before the cartoon starts):[33] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I don't have flash-drive-real-player-wmv-video-watching-capability at the moment, but definitely will return to your link if and when and how and why I do have aforesaid capability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll summarize it for you, or you could read the summary from A Pest in the House. A guest at a hotel keeps getting disturbed by Daffy, the bellboy. Every time it happens, the guest punches the hapless desk clerk, Elmer, in the nose, as he had threatened he would. At one point, Elmer answers the phone and the man's fist pops through the receiver and busts Elmer in the nose. This was in 1947 or so. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bugs, I was trying to understand what the WP:Access folks were studying about the colour of WWE templates (not having seen one yet in the McMahons' red-black-white Imperial German/National Socialist/read-all-over colors) when I found this terrific page of templates that can be readiily adapted for something else (for example, for somethingelse): Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Templates. I particularly liked this utility template whose multiple practical purposes are easy to envisage:
The question that led me to root around the fantasy world of pro wrestling interests me less than that terrific "{{fiction}}" template, which might be so well tagged on hundreds of oh-so-deserving places [some of them hiddensecretspecial somethingelse] in Wikipedia's Wide World of Erudition (WWE) . —— Shakescene (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many admins already know this (almost all the RD2 messages are from him. I was thinking about to contact, I do not remember the mail, but it was for emergencies, about death threats and that stuff. But since he is in England and I'm about 7,000 miles away I saw no problem here. Of course I thought on getting him banned, but I don't know if there's already enough evidence to get him banned, even his userpage says that it is "suspected", or in other words, it has not been confirmed by any checkuser that his puppets are his puppets. Tbhotch* ۩۞19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to reply to this comment, since talking on AP's talk page is probably not cool. They are absolutely incompatible Bugs. One is science. The other relies upon the Bronze Age Book of Myths, Fairytales, and Folklore, including some Jewish Zombie King who never existed. They have nothing in common. I always find those who believe in a supernatural being are antithetical to science, because the former defaults to some nonexistent being to fill in any gaps of knowledge, whereas the latter always looks for real answers to any mystery. Since the universe is finite, it is possible for science to answer ALL questions.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hark, thou blasphemous rabbit. Knowest thy not that Christ is thine Lord God and redeemer? Sorry I just couldn't resist a little religious dogma. SlightSmile23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He may well be. My friend certainly thinks so. Oddly enough, I don't recall Jesus ever commenting for or against evolution. Must have slipped His mind. OR, maybe He didn't think it was a big enough deal to bring it up. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find the ancients' beliefs fascinating. Biblical. Norse, Roman, Greek mythology etc. But I hate fanatasism. I've seen people who say stuff like my above stab at humour and are dead serious. Oh well - all types to make a world. SlightSmile23:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, OM's remarks are quite dogmatic too. And fanatical. There's enough of that to go around to all beliefs. - BilCat (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any contradiction at all between evolution and religion in the general sense. Creationism is not only bad (or more strictly, non-) science but strikes me as theologically unsound, which is a more serious matter if you're a believer. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how creationism it's considered "non-science" by the religion of science, but theologically unsound?? (I'm assuming you mean Biblical theology here) Whether God did it through cross-species evolution, or how long it took, is a ovbiously debatable, but "God created the heavens and the Earth" is pretty theologically explicit to me. If Bugs would rather not host any divergence on this point, feel free to post on my talk page, or email me. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not clear to me how YEC or ID is "theologically" unsound, unless your point is that any literal interpretation is itself theologically unsound. I'm also not sure how theistic evolution and Intelligent design are incompatible - ID is really just restated form of theistic evolution, as I understand it. A god powerful enough to create a universe is surely intelligent enough to "design" it, probably more so if he created a "self-designing" universe! - BilCat (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theologically, ID is problematic because it is produces a very limited God, a tinkerer. A powerful deity could either have created a physical world in which evolution would do the job, or he could have chosen to ignore evolution all together and filled the world with crocoducks (though, of course, as Douglas Adams point out with respect to the Babel fish, but showing his hand so blatantly, God undermines his own existence). Guettarda (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of God is very similar to that of Deists such as Thomas Jefferson, a the "clockmaker" concept of God. It's certainly not what a literal reading of the Bible leads to, but that really doesn't exclude the possibilty of such a God if the Bible isn't literally true.
Imagine that! I do, in fact, consider Atheism to be its own kind of religion, as it seems to have certain things in common with religion, including a close-minded attitude about other religions. The bottom line argument of atheists seems to be that religion has no value, and I don't agree with that view. But I am nowhere near being a biblical literalist either. I try to keep an open mind (which is easy, since there ain't much in it to get in the way). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To go back to Orangemike's original statement, "Since the universe is finite" is a very dogmatic statement. As that is totaly unproveable, "it is possible for science to answer ALL questions" is a belief, not a fact. If something is finite, it had to have a beginning, and "where did it come from" is therefore a valid question. One ends up believing that the universe itself is infinite (monism), or an infinite God of some type created it (theism). - BilCat (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've alluded to the religion-like trap that many scientists have fallen into: The notion that they've "got it all figured out". Science is about asking questions, collecting data, hypothesizing, theorizing, and asking more questions. It's a cycle. Once someone (either religionist or atheist) thinks they've got it figured out - they're wrong. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as scientific proof, yes, but simply claiming to know an answer, or claiming to know Who has the answers, doesn't in and of itself make the assertions false. - BilCat (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the opposite would be true as well - if the universe is infinite, then it is possible for science to answer all questions, because an infinite universe would have infinite possibilities. Including the possibility that the universe was finite. :) Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OM's assetion was that he knows for certain the universe is finite,and that is waht I was dealing with. Certainly there could be a finite universe within an infitie one, but again OM excluded that. - BilCat (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're spoiling my word game with facts. No fun. In the real world every answer leads to new questions. Except in quantum physics. There you're left wondering if there's any way to integrate what you just learned into your current concept of reality, you're too busy trying to hold the tattered remnants of your worldview together to ask any follow-up questions. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though we can be fairly certian all of the "final answers"aren't true, that doesn't exclude any of the claimed "final answers" from actually being true and knowable. There is more to "proof" than the scientific method. Truth is truth, and is doesn't become false because someone claims it's not knowable. - BilCat (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way for anyone to know whether a an IP is dynamic or static, or accessible to other people or not. I think WP makes a big mistake in treating IP addresses as if their owned by a single user as far as blanking requests, etc. If someone wants to assert ownership on a talk page, they have the same right as everyone else has to regiter an account. If these chose not to register, that's their choice, but treating any user of an IP address as if it's the same as a registered account is a mistake, in my opinion. If an IP addressed is used to make vandalistic edits, then the IP address should be sanctioned, regardless of who has access to the IP adreess, or claims ownership of it. - BilCat (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if "he" registers a new account, his "brother" would probably crack the password and vandalize under that name too! Uh-huh. :) - BilCat (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never would've guessed, that the Anglo account would've re-started posting on its talkpage, mere minutes after IP 86 was barred from its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Between the protection of the IP talk page and the topic-ban on the named user, that seems to have shut him up pretty much. I don't much care for being labeled an atheist, but that's par for the course with that character. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give him any ideas. Hey, it occurs to me that I'm allowing an admitted atheist and an allegedly "immoral" person post here. I'm a generous sort. :) P.S. I looked all over your old user page, and to my great disappointment I didn't see any evidence of "immoral" stuff. What did I overlook? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the flip side of the Playmate argument, I'm still trying to figure out how Playboy gets to be part of Project Porn. Playboy can be purchased at your local Barnes & Noble. I don't think B&N is in the porn biz. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if that's all you've got, then that's what you settle for. I recall one black comic (possibly Irwin C. Watson, but I'm not sure), who said, "National Geographic was our Playboy." Lenny Bruce, though white, had a similar observation. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Baseball Bugs/Archive012. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities or other degree awarding institutions. If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That must be the staff at MIT. I heard there are over 206,000 IP addresses involved. The master of the plan must be M0ult0n, he's known around here for these kinds of tricks. Hashish Ross (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, this is one of our legion of sockpuppets (if the question itself didn't give it away). I'd remove it, but Bugs can decide whether to keep it around or not :) SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be – or to be indistinguishable from – self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time
Regarding the whole LC kerfuffle at the RD talk page; I have personally found that it is better for my sanity to just let other people be wrong. Take that advice, however you wish, including telling me to stuff it. Just thought I would throw a little peace your way... --Jayron3217:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Fox News is wrong on that. The president in his speech said he ordered the attack today (May 1); I don't think he would have forgotten when he did something. See NYTimes and other sources. — Super-Magician(talk • contribs • count)04:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the bigger not so rhetorical question to ask today is could bin Laden have survived an intense manhunt by US and NATO for almost 10 years without active sheltering by ISI ?? The only thing they did not do is give him a residence inside Pakistan Military Academy with full privileges at the Officers Mess. but a little stroll to the mess every evening probably gave him much needed aerobic exercise since he was planning to live for a long time ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the 64 dollar question - how did they keep this away from wikileaks? Or was all the griping about wikileaks a cover, to make them think they had more of an inside track than they really did? Obama wasn't born yesterday. As regards Osama, I don't like calling him by his given name, as I really don't think of that guy as a pal. Though I like him much better than I did 24 hours ago. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be wary of eating fish for a while, (Does the 'Church of Baseball' require that, Your Eminence?) you may not like what it's been eating ("He's" fishfood not fertilizer!) - 220.101talk\Contribs19:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC) ☠☢☣[reply]
And that's a good point about fish food. I made the fertilizer comment before I knew about the burial at sea. I thought they should dump him in the Gulf of Mexico, to help scare the fish away from the remnants of the oil spill. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at WP:ANI. Message added 04:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I think you would enjoy it. There's several GA templates you can use to make the review easier to write and format, such as {{GAchecklist}}, {{GAList}} or {{GAList2}}. Lots of other helpful templates in their associated category. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for eliminating my that unwanted pest. Would it be possible for you to fix the havoc it caused by reverting its changes as I am prevented from doing so? Chesdovi (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. Just noticed Off2riorob's edits. (Am working on a notebook with slow connection so difficult to check everything) Thanks anyhow. Chesdovi (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seemed unreasonable to allow impersonation and to let the edits stand. Regards to all here - bit late but Happy May day.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel strongly about the presence of constant defacement here, and the possibility that stupid edits go unnoticed for months because administrators don't bother to read pages? What about photos depicting underage punani, uncommon fetishes, and people eating crap (literally) which get spotted at commons every once in a while? Tracy Killer Poodle (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize its pedantic, that's why I was trying to ask for an action that would help curtail the debate and encourage a resolution. Would you mind helping me understand why Wikipedia people sometimes react kind of harsh? I've been a fairly neutral party in the Mex-Am War article, and yet the couple of times I ask for admin support in helping to end the debate in a friendly way, it seems like people are more interesting in being angry or critical of their fellow editors instead of lending a hand. -- Avanu (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about just ignoring it? If someone wants to move it from a hyphen to an n-dash, let them do it. If they want to move it back, let them do it. Why does it matter? Either way, the readers can find it just as easily in the search window. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) In looking at this a week or two ago when the subject last came up, I became aware that the real problem is that the rules are not sufficiently defined. For example, there's usually not much trouble with when to capitalize or not, as that rule is pretty clear. But the hyphens and n-dashes rules are just too vague, too obscure; and that's why there is constant battling over them. If the rules were clear, the amount of debate would be almost zero. In fact, I would say that a significant quantity of the battles at wikipedia are centered on unclear rules and guidelines. That's what needs fixing - not any particular article's hyphens or n-dashes. Fix the rules, and the hyphens and n-dashes will "take care of themselves". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bugs. The info requester and TT may not have been amused, but I found your name suggestions laugh-out-loud funny! Thank you for the stress-relieving laughs and giggles. Kenatipospeak!16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're talking about the OBL thing. I thought you were still yapping about the preposterous idea that scientists knew 500 years ago what the extinction rate was. Well, son, I've read a lot of the OBL coverage, and my comments were based on it.[39] Try reading some of the coverage yourself. You might learn something. Unless you're one of those "deathers" now, who thinks that it's a lie because Obama doesn't want to release gory photos and videos. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I have no idea why this is on your page. I don't have any messages for you, nor do I see any on my Talk page. You might ask Mr. Bitpart why he added this template. This is pure speculation, but maybe he has noticed that you and I have disagreed on occasion, and he wants to stir drama or trouble. I am interested in neither. Best wishes. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here for a talk'page's worth of responses. I'm currently at the doctor's, so I can't spend anytime at ANI today. Anyone here with time to kill? :) - BilCat (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bugs. On the slight chance that you aren't already aware of this book [40] I thought that I would let you know about it. Looks like it is right up your alley - or should I say down your baseline. Love the Important notice message above the editing filed BTW. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is great. Your sense of humor is tip top and I often have to recover from a pulled rib muscle from the laughs that you bring to my day. The recovery time is always worth it!! MarnetteD | Talk16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth all this admin and editor effort trying to trace /block /ban editors who only post minor annoying (to some) questions at the Ref desks? I think not. What i do think is that you and your ilk just enjoy hunting so called trolls even though they do no damage to the encyclopedia proper. You make insignificant edits to the pedia so I conclude you are not a real Wikipedian. Before you level the same accusations at me, you will remember that I am banned, but you could look up my history of contributions if you wanted to. Why dont you find another game off wiki to waste your time?
I have surcived all attacks on me (many of them by Admins) in the past few years: . None could shut me up. Neither will you. Even TWAT features has given up.
I promised trouble if I was banned for the minor offence of arguing with admins. I am keeping my promise. The only way to stop me is to deny my existence totally. But you wont do that bvcause you enjoy this form of blood sport, dont you? Why not go out and shoot a few rabbits insted; endnig with yourself?
THe one and only LC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.224.71 (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much effort. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You need to ask yourself sometime, "Is it worth it all?" Things must be slow there on the Isle of Man. But just keep in mind that there are many of us and only one of you. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, his pselling is worse than mine! "Shhhh, Be vewy quiet - we're hunting twolls." in my best Elmer Fudd voice. :) - BilCat (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He apparently lacks a "preview" button on his screen. Ya know, he keeps talking about how he likes to screw dogs. Being from the Isle of Man, I'm surprised he hasn't talked about screwing his Manx cat. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point: Correcting typos in a rant seems kind of self-defeating. "Let's see, 'go out and shoot a few rabbits insted; endnig with yourself'... Oh, bother... I'm such a silly pudding... I've told him to snuff it and I've made myself look like an ignoranimous in the process. Oh, dear, that won't do at all. I need to stop trying to type while I'm f***ing my livestock." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)LC: you wrote, "The only way to stop me is to deny my existence totally." I deny your existence totally, as per your request. Consider yourself stopped. Just go away. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He can't stop. He's controlled by his anger and bitterness towards those involved in sanctioning him. He couln't stop even if he wanted to. He's sort of like Osama in that aspect, but some brave SEALS have now denied Osama his existenence. Perhaps they can help LC too! ;) - BilCat (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we know about where his hideout is now, and there are, what, three people living on the Isle of Man? (Along with various abused animals, apparently.) Should be a snap to SEAL his fate. >:) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the admin's response to blocking the originating IP, and that it would block 500,000 people from editing. Why not block them, give them LC's address, and let them seal his fate? Problem solved. Seriously, if WP did more liberal range blocking, the ISPs would do what was necessary to take care of the problem users. In most cases, a troll is a troll, and is causing problems elswhere online too. - BilCat (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On IPs, yes, but on otherwise good users who make sternly worded notes on their talk pages, they'll get a more active response. "Bite the oldies" is allowed. - BilCat (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of good experienced users have noticed it too, and are no longer on WP because of it. I've left a few times myself because of "oldie-biting", but my wiki-addiction runs deep!- BilCat (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MP
Thanks for your note about my rvt on the Mary Poppins film article. I take your point. You probably already checked this but the IP that edited the films page other edit today was this one [41] which was not helpful at all. So I reverted the edits to the film because this IP seemed to be on a negative POV jag. I did take one other thing into consideration - the Mary P of the books is a bit more stern than Julie Andrews portrayal in the film but I have my doubts that the IP has ever read Travers works ;-}. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the "they don't make em like that" sentiment. I can still laugh right this moment thinking about the "I Love to Laugh" scene with Ed Wynn. The film impressed me so much as a kid that I can still remember the theater that I saw it in - one of those old style movie palaces [42]. Of course it is long gone now. This is a pretty good website for reminiscing about the theaters that we grew up with. Sadly not all of the links to pics on this page for the Aladdin work but this one [43] still does. As ever thanks for your comments. MarnetteD | Talk16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate the time you took to share your "favorite things" (no wait - that is a different musical featuring Julie Andrews) about MP. One other performance that sticks with me is Hermione Baddeley as one of the maids. Little did I know that I would be seeing her sister Angela a decade later as one of the beloved characters of Upstairs Downstairs. I hope that your upcoming weekend is an enjoyable one. MarnetteD | Talk20:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you did that. DVD's make this kind of viewing a joy. I thought about doing the same thing but I got side tracked when I read that William Campbell had passed away last week. So, as a lifetime SciFi geek, I spent the afternoon watching "The Squire of Gothos" (as much fun as "The Trouble with Tribbles" is this was the performance I enjoyed from the first time I saw it) and "Blood Oath". Of course, I still have the evening in front of me and I can see the MP DVD on the shelf from where I am sitting. I'm getting a catch in my throat thinking about hearing "Feed the Birds" again. Ms Andrews is one of the all time great voices - singing and otherwise. On another note, she was by far the sexiest lady in 10 I can barely even remember that other girls name. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk21:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are so right about John Derek liking a certain body type. I vaguely remember a Playboy article where they had pics of all three woman that illustrated the point :-) MarnetteD | Talk22:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi one more time. I just wanted to drop off a couple observations after viewing the film last night. It was great to see the use of matte paintings to replicate the skyline of London. The artists who created those were quite talented and marvelous. The leaps that CGI has made over the last two decades has consigned that filmmaking technique to the dustbins of history I'm afraid. While I enjoy what CGI can do in giving us alternate worlds I think that mattes were warmer somehow. Probably just me being an old fogey. The other thing was remembering how films were shown back in the 60s and early 70s. I think that MP was at the Aladdin for over a year (I know that I saw it at least twice in that time) and Camelot showed there for almost two full years. I think that young people today would have a hard time understanding that fact. Ah well, enough of this reminiscing and back to normal editing - whatever that is ;) MarnetteD | Talk19:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where my manners went - must be the hard shell one develops in the rough & tumble of editing here. Thanks for inspiring me to slap my DVD into the machine a watch MP last night! One last bit of trivia - Karen Dotrice did not make acting her career the way her parents did but she did appear in a few episodes of the last season of Upstairs Downstairs so she got to act opposite both Baddeley sisters in her time. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk22:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a Brit TV and film geek almost as long as I have been a SciFi one. The King's Speech is wonderful. The storytelling beats of 1) King with a debilitating problem 2) Complete outsider arrives to cure him 3) Outsider is resented by insiders 4) Through many struggles they get to a place where the King can function - reminded me of The Madness of King George so it was fun when George III got a mention towards the end of the film. I wonder if Helena Bonham-Carter and Tim Burton ever wake up to find that their unkempt hair as grown together into a giant knot that they can't untangle :-D MarnetteD | Talk00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work tracking down Imslimshady's sockpuppets and keeping an eye on them even after their blocks expired. Keep up the great work! Best, Mifter (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have put it past the microbes to have survived on the moon. I think they've found bacterial spores in Antarctica, which is certainly not an ideal climate. Regarding a possible Apollo moon hoax, I'm fairly well convinced that Australia is a hoax. I've never seen it except on maps, and the people allegedly from there sound suspiciously British. I suspect the so-called "Australia" is just the Isle of Man and some CGI effects. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to quote the "Blonde/which is further away - the moon or Florida?" joke. Well .. I can't see Florida from here! — Ched : ? 16:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lmao .. I can see I'm gonna need to spend more time with my grandkids. I just didn't remember that one. Oh well, they say the memory is the first to go, although my knees might tend to disagree. — Ched : ? 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to monitor the Vernors article more as someone is deleting factual info which I had to reinforce with additional citations regarding the former Vernor's shop in Flint MI which is now a Halo Burger restaurant. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your "my preferences" tab, you can create a customized signature. Scroll down to the "Signature" section. Check the box for "Treat the above as wiki markup". Then put whatever coding into the "Signature" box... being sure to abide by the coding rules, which are alluded to in WP:USER and are explained in detail in Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. To see the coding I use for it (which is quite simple compared to some of the signatures used by wikipedia editors) just do an "edit" in this section and take a look at the syntax that shows up for my signature. That approach will work for anyone's signature. The four tildes are replaced by the custom signature. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'll have to think of what to do with my sig. Any ideas of a photo/drawing/logo that combines a moon that is barking or has a barking dog? BarkingMoon (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep .. what Bugs said. It's a strain on server resources to have to go grab and display a graphic file for each and every sig./view that it called. Whereas the "format" of text in a signature is an on the spot type of thing. Not quite as "technical" as some of our devs might put it, but I think it's close to what happens. — Ched : ? 16:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that if one user did it, it wouldn't be much of a deal - but if everyone did it, it would be. So it's not allowed. There's also an upper bound on the number of characters allowed in the signature string. I forget just what. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on Commons is freely licensed. I think you could make the overlay, upload it, and call it your own work, as long as you clearly indicate its sources. I recommend you talk to someone more expert in licensing than I am. I expect Ched would know someone. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've uploaded them at Commons and put them on my user page. Ideas for user page layout welcome and info I put on them at Commons are welcome. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He appears long gone and has a clean block record, though ticked some off in some areas. Suffice it to say that he left and is not coming back. - Peripitus(Talk)11:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my observation, this was NOT handled the standard way, and it leaves the impression that someone is trying to hide something. Jimbo said something about google indexing. Supposedly, user talk pages are not indexed. So it looks as if there's something mysterious going on. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball bugs, why are you flogging this dead horse. I can see the FDT block log though there is no rename log entry. Consider my above comment amended to clean block record for the past 18+ months. Something going on ? That reminds me of a T-Shirt design I saw on a website once "I watched FOX and all I got was this conspiracy theory". Peripitus(Talk)11:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that your curiosity will remain unsatisfied and protectiveness of the integrity of Wikipedia unrewarded through this conversation. I have no more information nor the desire to acquire it. Perhaps you will receive satisfaction via arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, or perhaps not. I cannot tell - Peripitus(Talk)12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events at Yankee Stadium (1923) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta feeling
This. Especially since Sean Holtz is the founder of Baseball Almanac online. If it's who I think, then it's been quite a while, hasn't it? :) --Ebyabe (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime you pick up a Cubs reject, you know it's trouble. I liked the quote about "not part of the future and not part of the present." It's obvious the guy's either bipolar or doing a good imitation of it, and it's a shame MLB doesn't seem to be able to do anything about that kind of thing. (I would say the king of bipolarity was Billy Martin.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that learnèd judge and commissioner capable of improvement? I've heard it said that while the man may be incorruptible, he's also incorrigible. But the thought you give to improving him is noble nonetheless and fully worthy of a true Friend of Labor. (When the mountain labored, however, ...) —— Shakescene (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The biography was fairly sympathetic. I'm trying to get hold of the earlier bio of him, from the fifties, and there is ample online news coverage. However, Bugs for sure has a bigger baseball library than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you have would be very welcome. Also eyes on the article once I get up to baseball, for comments would be very welcome (I am presently only up to 1894).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to get my drinks caught in the rain, so I order them dry. I am definitely into health foods: I can look at them all day. My half a brain accounts for my wit, or at least half-wit. But "I have survived to m-middle age with half my wits, while thousands have died with all of their wits intact." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell can you go ninety-three years without facing the same team? There are only thirty teams in the league. HalfShadow18:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your help if it was genuine. But you alone cannot get me unbanned. It will take a sea change in attitude about edits on the RDs.I dont think its there yet. Edits on the Rds dont make a blind bit of difference to the pedia. The Rds are largely just a waste of time: a troll playgound/troll hunting ground. Im sure you realise that. Good game though!! 8:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.194.254 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...a sea change in attitude..." is an understatement. I've seen bans get overturned quickly if there was energy for it. Evidently, the pros and the cons would rather just keep having a debate every time someone deletes something, or tries to. The Ref Desk started as an offshoot of the Help Desk, when editors started asking about things that were just general knowledge questions, not just about wikipedia itself. So at least the theory was good. What I've seen over the last couple of years is that the Ref Desk Clique can never come to consensus on anything; or if they do, it lasts for maybe 5 minutes. And they seem to be always looking for someone to yell at about somthing. So I've had quite enough of that game now, and I'll just try to stick to answering questions as best I can. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that atheist groups are not hate groups. The typical member seems to have been a child of the choir director at a protestant church, which means that the end of religion may be the end of organized atheism!
However, you would agree that totalitarian movements espousing atheism, especially communism, have been involved in hate crimes against religions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you make me think. Yes, I agree with George Orwell in his appraisal of "organized religion" (to avoid naming names), particularly in the Spanish Civil War, where the apparently admirable Spanish anarchists were crushed between the reds & whites/browns, who had much more training on murderous power-politics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a lot about the Spanish Civil War beyond the fact that Franco took over and became a buddy, of sorts, with Hitler and Mussolini. I also recall Tom Lehrer's 1965 song, "The Folk Song Army", which contained the lines, "Remember the war against Franco / The one where each of us belongs / Though he may have won all the battles / We had all the good songs!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whitman article
I was in the process of backing up a new source when you reverted. Please allow me to finish, then revert if it is not appropriate, it deals with the actions of Whitman, so it is not just internal problems without a cause. Thank you! 71.85.120.252 (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reverts are a product of another editor, reverting over specifics in the article, never discussed them, and reverted. You yourself reverted the article while I was changing the source and context to meet the other parties requests. That should qualify under the exceptions rule. Look at the history, there is a no warring going on on my part. Just trying to do what was requested to get the article section right. Snitch if you want. I think the history will bear me out, Bugsy. 71.85.120.252 (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey "Bugsy", that's a real nice letter you just got, you snitch. Let me know if you find the "exceptions rule"; I think we can all use one. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And really, if someone's been edit warring for so long over that, you'd think they'd get their mechanicals, their little commas and apostrophes, in order. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. Last time I had something similar I was told to post not on ANI, but on AN. Good luck with it, I'm done for now. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am again seriously considering retiring from Wikipedia (probably at the end of June). I am getting tired of the daily grind. I have had some sessions with my priest and my family regarding this issue. This will probably be bad news from most of you/ User:Baseball Bugs (2011)15:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Range Block
Buggs, See if you can talk some sense into Cirt. He needs to reconsider the range block, and free up the original IP. As we know, there is really only one vandal, but there are so many IP addresses. Ive got to get for awhile, so hold down the fort until I can get back. 98.214.160.215 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Range Block
Buggs, See if you can talk some sense into Cirt. He needs to reconsider the range block, and free up the original IP. As we know, there is really only one vandal, but there are so many IP addresses. Ive got to get for awhile, so hold down the fort until I can get back. 98.214.160.215 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Free the IP
Buggs, See if you can talk some sense into Cirt. He needs to reconsider the range block, and free up the original IP. As we know, there is really only one vandal, but there are so many IP addresses. Ive got to get for awhile, so hold down the fort until I can get back. 98.214.160.215 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... was this a political crack? .. LMAO. Have a great holiday weekend Bugs ... Lot's of auto racing this weekend, know I'm gonna love it. :) — Ched : ? 20:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will be going on Tuesday for my Landis research. I've been avoiding working on his commish career until I get there. Only the third time I've been, and the first time to the library.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I only have eight hours for work there, I doubt if I will bother to tour the Hall again. If I had to I could return next week (they are having a conference on Baseball and Popular Culture Wed Thurs Fri of this week and the library is closed). But I think that the more info I can get on Landis (who I am coming to like, somewhat to my surprise) and the Black Sox, black ballplayers, images, the better off the article will be when I get it done. Incidentally, I would really appreciate it if, once it is done, you and any other baseball mavens would look it over before it heads towards FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You bet. I don't know a lot about Landis, but it seems like baseball needed him (and Babe Ruth, with whom he sometimes clashed) in order to overcome the problem of gambling amd dishonest play - which was by no means limited to the 1919 Series. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I agree. Landis was necessary or baseball would no longer have been trusted. He had a reputation for honesty. It wasn't just the Black Sox either, there were other incidents, but by 1924, such things were almost unheard of. Players wouldn't even joke about gambling for fear of a talk with Landis. I am hoping to find a bulletproof image of Landis and Ruth from 1920 to 1922, that I can prove are PD. I got Speaker with Landis, and I even got Cobb (not yet uploaded), but Ruth would be the best. I found an online image that is clearly from context from a 1922 newspaper, but it doesn't say which one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judge Landis had a career (and thus the needed public reputation) long before he got involved in baseball, so any FAC or GAC would have to include (from a NPOV of course) his trust-busting campaigns and his severe rulings against labor unions and labor leaders (he tended to think of unions as another kind of evil trust). But I'm sure the biography you're reading gives that side full treatment. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, certainly! If you read the article now, you will see I am up to the Berger trial. I am holding off on the baseball side until I go to Cooperstown.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've written on the Berger case now in the article, you might want to take a look at it. I'm trying not to spend too much time on any one legal issue because, well, I fear this is going to be a long article. Let me know what you think, if you want.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat disappointed in the library. They had a thick folder of press clippings and other stuff, much of which I copied, and a few folders of random photographs. I found two provably in the public domain (a portrait and a shot with Ruth and Meusel), which will be coming to me on CD ROM and both of which I could have managed without as there are similar shots out there I could have used (call it a contribution to the Hall of Fame). Since I had time on my hands, I asked for folders on a couple of other baseball people, which I copied fairly wholesale. I explained the purpose of my visit to other researchers (there is an annual symposium there starting today) and found Landis highly unpopular (one guy quoted from the movie Eight Men Out that Landis led the judicial league in reversals on appeal). Oh well. Still, have moved ahead through the Black Sox scandal, which I think I have treated nicely NPOV, and should wrap up the rest of the article within a week and get it to Peer Review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I expected better of the library, though never having used it, that was an assumption based on nothing. Landis may have been necessary, but that doesn't mean he got everything right. One positive note: If he was such a lousy judge, maybe it's a good thing that baseball took him away from that job! I find that there are revisionists (as in "Field of Dreams") who want to paint Joe Jackson as some kind of innocent angel. I don't buy it. Nor that the Black Sox scandal just came from out of the clear blue sky. Baseball had been leading up to that event, which was merely the worst case, not the only case. Also, there's a tendency to scapegoat Landis for continuing the color line. In reality, I think he was a product of his times and also had to kiss up to the owners. It took a man of great vision and courage (Rickey) to break the color line, which was never a codified rule, just an unwritten "policy". Maybe it was easier once Landis was dead, but we'll never know. There was a book written by Taylor Spink many years ago, called "Judge Landis and 25 Years of Baseball", i.e. a career summary as Commissioner. I don't have it, and it's long out of print, I'm sure... and it's probably a glowing biography, but it might be interesting if you can find it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I own it. It is one of the two extant bios of Landis, who in my opinion is distinctly understudied. I agree with you on the Black Sox scandal; it is commonplace to dump on Charles Comiskey for being a skinflint, but it could have been any team with malcontents; the New York Giants had more players banned in Landis's early years (in several separate incidents!) than any team except the Sox. As for the color ban, yes, I am finding several sources saying Landis was a racist with absolutely no supporting evidence. He could not make owners sign ballplayers, and no black player was ever on the ineligible list in his lifetime. He was not actually fully a dictator, he could not dictate the rules of the game, for example, outside the context of the World Series and All Star Game. There's an unfortunate quotation from Happy Chandler I'll have to use, but Landis's main objection to the Negro leagues seemed to be that they could be more popular than MLB, especially in mixed games, and he did not want such games outdrawing the regular games. All this will be dealt with as I continue to churn the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An area that needs much more exploration is the color line. There's a tendency to demonize Cap Anson and Judge Landis for creating it and perpetuating it, respectively. There's no question Anson was a virulent racist. I'm much less certain about Landis that way. And even though Anson was one of the game's biggest stars, he couldn't draw a color line unless a lot of folks agreed with it. Meanwhile, Landis needed to keep his job, and while he had plenty of control over the white major and minor leagues, he had none over the Negro Leagues, and he might have had legitimate business reasons to be concerned about them. He was also somewhat flexible. There's an interesting story in one of the Babe Ruth books, maybe the one by Montville. Ruth was suspended for defying a rule against barnstorming by World Series winners. The rule was well-intentioned: It was to prevent the winners from "re-staging" the Series. Ruth complained that the rule was unfair and obsolete. Landis responded that a rule was a rule and that he had to enforce it. However, he also agreed that the rule was no longer needed, and he later rescinded it. As much of a visionary as Rickey was, John McGraw was equally so, as he tried to find ways to bring in black players, decades before Rickey, but he was stymied in that effort. McGraw, unfortunately, is also tainted by the gambling scandals. Not that he's accused of throwing any games, but that his clubhouse had a dangerously casual attitude on the matter. It's important to realize that many ball clubs in those days were family-owned businesses. Oftentimes, it's all they had, so they had to keep costs under control. This was notably true of occasionally successful teams such as the White Sox, the Tigers and the A's. The Yankees, in contrast, were owned by corporate guys who ran the team like a hobby, giving them a distinct monetary advantage and plenty of championships. I don't buy the "look what Commie made us do" argument about the Black Sox. They chose to throw the games. No one made them do it. In trying to "punish" Comiskey, they actually succeeded... but at a terrible price to themselves also. Gambling was rampant and was somehow accepted by the public... until 1919, and Landis came along and brought the hammer down. There were questions raised about the Series of 1918, 1917 and 1914, at the very least. 1919 was just the worst of it. The prosperity of the 1920s, and more money for the players, might have "saved" the game as much as Landis did. But MLB needed a Vernon Wormer type, to put his foot down. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that you are right and the article is saying as such (I am working on the barnstorming incident now). The rule wasn't actually rescinded, it was modified in 1922 to give the Commissioner a little bit of discretion to allow short barnstorming tours, and I have a clipping from 1936 in which Landis warns both WS teams about it. With TV and radio coming in, barnstorming faded away after that. There is a tendency, as I am sure you know, for there to be in baseball history books simple answers and things ignored. 1914 was too much a feel-good story to ever be seriously questioned, but Connie Mack didn't break up the A's just because of their salaries. I suspect the color line is going to be the most difficult and questioned part of the article, and frankly Landis's actual words danced around the matter and he never really came to grips with it. Maybe it took a younger man to deal with it. In my view, breaking the color line was the only redeeming virtue to Chandler's commissionership, who took a job that had been quickly stripped after Landis's death, did not have the will to go head to head with the owners, and got canned anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Landis is now done, and the peer review is now open here. With an eye to the length of the article, I omitted a few things like the accusations against Ty Cobb, but I'll put them in if people insist. The article is over 80K and I know articles tend to grow in the review process. Still, I think it is a lot better than what used to be there and will in due course make a fine FA. Let me know what you think at the peer review. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as my current nomination, Mercury dime clears FAC, I'm planning on nominating Landis. It strikes me that Landis transformed the very word "commissioner" from one of several, like a committeeman (Teddy Roosevelt was famously New York Police Commissioner. He was one of four.) to the head honcho, the big cheese.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
BB, I'm facing that same G.D. f***ing sockpuppeter again. This time he's gone to random IPs; many of them (true to form) are Sprint IPs from the Baltimore/northern Virginia areas. Honestly, I think at some point in the past (perhaps in another life), I pissed in his cheerios or something. I'm not spending 1-2 hours to submit an SPI report that some checkuser will get around to in 3-5 weeks...of course the damage is done (like previous Adminship requests). I've decided to be bold and simply taken to deleting all such comments, but I'm getting pushback from some users who want me to go through a virtual jungle gym of hoops. It fits the usual pattern (give me an e-mail address and I'll send it to ya), but suffice to say, it's getting pretty ridiculous.
Thanks Bugs. I know that I got the wrong end of the stick. The more I went back over my memories of seeing him live the worse things got. Trout for dinner tonight I fear. Seeing him live is a treasured memory. On an unrelated item I have been wanting to ask you about the term "walk off". I grew up watching baseball avidly. I don't remember hearing this term in those days. The late 80's and 90's saw me drift away from dedicated viewing (I know another trout) but it wasn't until the last decade or so that I have heard the term used on a regular (almost too much so) basis. I am just wondering if you remember approximately when you started to hear the term used. One other baseball memory that springs to mind while I type this - do you think anyone under thirty has ever heard a recreated game? I'll never forget when, at about the age of 9 or 10, I heard the score given for a Denver Bears game and I said - but they haven't played yet. Then when I listened to the game that night and the final was the same score as given earlier I knew something must be up. Most might not consider it this but I think that those broadcasters who could sit in a radio studio and create the atmosphere of a live game were artists in their own right. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Purely out of interest...
Who is your most-trusted admin that told you people waste too much arguing about the names of things? As a side note, I would agree with you that arguing about titles can be a massive waste of time (eg the whole dash/hyphen controversy), but the point of my comment at the talk page was that if people are passionate enough about the issue to take the time to write a support/oppose rationale, then they are unlikely to react well if someone comes along telling them that they're wasting their time. I've found that in similar situations, it is best just not to comment at all (which is why I, in turn, regret telling you that your comments were counter-productive; perhaps they were, but mine was equally so). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. Agree that it would be great if you could find a way to make those sorts of comments more persuasive to those passionate about the issue, but I'm afraid diplomacy and eloquent wording are hardly my strong suits either so I don't know how you would go about it. Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, the logo is fine, but I suppose it depends on what you want to use it for. Even Seinfeld's Soup Nazi wouldn't have been funny if he had been wearing a swastika.
That being said, it can be used for, say, a symbol portraying one's support for tolerance, with the motto of "I hate hate." But for anything else, it seems NG. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)20:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ever hear tell of Walther Darré? That's the theme of a biography of him that I glanced at in a bookstore (not RS). There are also the anti-immigration activists who tried to take over the Sierra Club on the thesis that excessive immigration would overpopulate the U.S. and overpopulation would ruin America's environment. (Of course, the fact that almost all Nazis are nativists doesn't mean that most nativists are Nazis. Otherwise Hitler's vegetarianism would make PETA into a neo-fascist front.) Oh, yes, I of little faith didn't think to wikilink the LNSGP, but as you see above Wikipedia has an article on everything. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you were totally sincere in attempting to get my ban lifted. Not that you had much chance anyway.
You still dont get it do you Bugs? It should be quite obvious to you and others thatI am demonstrating that it has always been, and still is, possible to get around any censorship by RD editors who think it is their prerogative and duty to erase any post which offends thier (typically American) prudish out look. The English wikipedia is not owned by Americans. There is a large number of other (far less prudish) people around the world who view and edit the English WP>. My actions do not harm the Encylopedia and in fact I have made thousands of constructive edits to it in the past.
What gets up my nose is that some people on the desks have a 'I am much holier than you' attitude as to what is, and what is not, acceptable there.
I have said this many times before, and I will say it again: The way to reduce the number of non serious (trolling?) questions is to answer them in a flat non controversial way or to ignore them completely. Of course, some people (yourself included) just cannot resist the thrill of troll hunting. So be it. I am the Troll, try to catch me. You never will stop me permanently. Lc 8-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.231.16 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Today on the ref desk, I was made a target of exactly the same "I'm way much better than you are" attitude that you're describing, on the mundane topic of the US 1-cent piece of all things. As for stopping you, your information is out of date. I had thought or hoped that you might sincerely want to get unbanned, but you didn't. So be it. If somebody else wants to fight for or against you, that's up to them. I'm on the bench. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To really confuse people, you could add their attitude towards the EU, which could be seen either from the inside (free trade, except food) or the outside (uniform high tariff). And that's an issue that cuts across U.S. politics, with the formerly Jeffersonian tariff-for-revenue-only Democrats switching positions with the formerly Hamiltonian high-protective-tariff Whigs/Republicans, but only in part, since there are Free-Trade pro-NAFTA pro-WTO Democrats and isolationiast, protectionist Republicans.
I have to say that the UKIP's opposition to foreign takeover of companies is less to do with the liberal concern of globalisation than that of conservative xenophobia - they have no qualms regarding Brit companies being in control of foreign based industry. Even animal rights is more to do with opposition to halal and kosher methods of meat production as examples of "non British" culture than concern over animal welfare. But, hey, don't mind me, I'm just a Brit who has to put up with these idiots and their "Empire-ical" nonsense... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It has always puzzled me why, when the UK abandoned Imperial measurements and moved to metric instead, the USA was so keen to stick with Imperial measurements... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have an interesting system - which is neither English ("Imperial") nor just American - since we were the very first country outside of France to adopt the metric system. BTW, the British "pub pint" is 18.75 ounces for some strange reason. Collect (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that link shows how far an Imperial pint is from a pound. I think you want this one: United States customary units#Fluid volume [1 US pint = 16.65 US oz]; 473 mL ring any bells, or only the 453 you see on cans and milk bottles? {American wine & soda's now sold in liters; but packaged beer and malt ale so hates being called "pint-sized" that it boasts of "half-quarts". —— Shakescene (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse fluid ounces, which are units of volume, with ounces, which are units of mass. Whoever dreamt up that confusing terminology needs their head read. It'd be like having a unit of time called a "chronic mile". But I guess it's in the same category as a light year, which is a unit of distance, not of time. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]12:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that policies such as "Lowering of taxes", "Shrinking of government", "Skepticism of global warming" constitute right-wing views? This is confusing me as to what right-wing means, so explain in simpe English please Pass a Methodtalk13:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In America, "right-wing" equates to "conservative" and by implication to "Republican Party". Those 3 items are on the conservative aka Republican list, whereas opposition to tax cuts, support of expansion of government, and support of global warming theories would fall into the "left-wing" / "liberal" / "Democratic Party" camp. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that "right" and "left" have no specific meaning covering all nations at all. And, in many cases, the lines shift over time - making the use entirely that of Humpty Dumpty - it means whatever HD wishes it to mean. Collect (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect Well, if that's the case then political commentators shouldn't use terms such as "left" and "right" so much then right? In almost every political talk show they seem to use these terms like its a choir. Pass a Methodtalk15:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Within the US, anyway, it's perfectly clear to me. There's what I call a laundry list of issues. You can place the faithful left and right wingers on the appropriate sides of each item on that list. John McCain, though a conservative to most eyes, didn't quite adhere to that list fully, so he was scorned by quite a few Republicans. Palin, on the other hand, probably lines up perfectly with every item on the list. Obama and Biden both were regarded as pretty well lining up on the other side of that list. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Research vs incorrect info example
Thank you for the response to my query on the NOR talk page. Could you by any chance take a look at this and let me know your opinion? It's the example I was referring to in my OP. I can only assume no-one's thought to question something as basic as her name, which is why there's nothing online I can specifically cite. All I can offer are the relevent genealogical records. -- Analog Kid (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the stills from Prelinger Archive videos? They were explicitly put into the public domain. Delaywaves (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Or if you mean that they're just not very good/useful, that's another story. Delaywaves (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...some of them are definitely blurry when viewed full size, but I think they look fine on the articles they're used in. Were you referring to the Shibe Park one? Because that's probably the blurriest, but again, I think it looks fine in the article. Delaywaves (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you letting me know nicely, but would you mind letting me know exactly which ones are so bad? (Or is it just in general?) Not trying to challenge you or anything, just curious. Delaywaves (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, I haven't been in any sort of conflict so far during my short time on Wikipedia, so I'll hope for the best. And thanks for the LoC compliment, they have some great stuff there. You've uploaded some pretty great old ballpark photos that I've noticed as well, and those are from books, which I am too lazy to forage through. Maybe someday... Delaywaves (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here ya go snitch - http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman - try getting this contributor banned on Citizendium, which actually qualifies their contributors and has a much better reputation than Wikedpedia! Contributors like you who are snitches and cry babies belong on this time wasting WP thing and keeps you from molesting children, that is a good thing, if it is true!!! See 'ya Snitch Flea. 64.134.157.34 (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bugs, your comment in regard to me at ANI is greatly appreciated. No one gets it right all the time but we try, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right buggy, I purposely made my last contact gibberish. Like you, I didn't refresh my memory, and realized after posting, and verifying your past content, that you use yiddish. So fly a kike, you moron!!! Also, that humor of your's at the bottom of your page - characterizing yourself as genius to the fourth power, is haha funny. Again, if you are such a genius, try editing or writing for Citizendium - you'll never make, unless they need an expert on stirring up trouble, and putting their two cents of know nothing opinions in where they are not wanted! Run along to your AN/I's now and see who else you can impress with your stupidity. 64.134.6.107 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't people take offense to your using a negative historical person as an assistant? You should be ashamed of yourself! Of course, Hitler was more intelligent than you - say....to the 8th power. He was also self directed and didn't snitch on his fellow comrades, but then, Hitler had worthy causes. Right...buggy! 64.134.148.53 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least no even slightly civilized human being will have a problem knowing who the good guys are. Unfortunately, the good guys aren't playing the game very well.
My Red Sox are in interleague play too, but unfortunately drew more competent opponents. Fenway will be hosting the ghost of Warren Spahn. PhGustaf (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cubs series could be like 1932 and 1938 all over again. :( In 2003, the Cubs could have beaten the Yankees, if they had got past the Marlins. However, if the Red Sox had been able to hold off the Yankees, it could have been 1918 all over again. The Cubs have their own "curse of the Bambino", it seems. :( ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the Cubs surprised everybody and won today. Hope they keep it up.
It would have been nice if they had done a "sweep", but it looks like they didn't. But the guy will give himself away soon enough if he comes back... which I expect he will, or at least will try, as an IP. But with that range block, we'll see. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you've always been much better at the SPI stuff than me .. so I normally just follow your lead on that. :) — Ched : ? 19:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of that user a number of times, but I'm not really familiar with the case. But if a supposed newbie is acquainted with a banned user's history, then they bear watching to see if they edit in the same areas and style. Then they'll soon be a dead duck. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, despite Bambifan's reputation, its not one of the many socks I have dealt with personally, so I'm not sure that I am familiar enough with the case to sniff it out specifically. It does NOT look like this is Kungfu2187 first account ever (obviously), so it is certainly somebody. If you want to find an admin who is familiar with the case, try picking some names of admins out of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambifan101/Archive (if its size doesn't crash your browser!). --Jayron3221:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MEant for dave1185
for the 600th time my cousn used my computer and started to vandalize wikipedia!!! shes gone now but can you please stop saying im creating sockpuppets? theyre alternative accounts bcause my other accounts keep getting blocked. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lg221 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the record (documented) is Scibaby, with over 900 documented socks. However, that is not counting those sockmasters whom we don't bother documenting for one reason or another; I'm sure we have a couple who are in the 1000s. –MuZemike17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's something to be said for pitchers shoving the ball rather than hurling it. Neikro and now Wake were certainly never the best pitchers in the game, but they didn't wreck their arms early either (see Koufax) and kept pitching decently till after some of their teammates were born. Wake had a splendid outing today, and is clearly earning his modest, by today's standards, $4 million.
I went to the same high school as did Wilbur Wood, a couple years after he. Never did meet him; my closest brushes with famous people are still Barry Goldwater and Marvin Minsky. PhGustaf (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wilbur Wood! Or old 20-20, as we used to call him. Goldwater and Minksy. Not too shabby. I met presidential candidate John Anderson once. He did about as well in the race as Goldwater did. :( Any brush with greatness is good. Or almost any. I know someone who was vaguely acquainted with a guy who turned out to be a murderer. That kind of brush you could do without. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parrots
I don't know if you saw the response to your post, but it shows that my concerns were well placed. Please stay away from blocked and banned users' talk pages in the future. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions to ANI
Could you please stop being so confrontational when participating in the NFCC discussion at ANI? It is unhelpful, and a softer approach can get your point across as effectively. Thank you. AGK [•] 10:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could be worth a DYK if your sourcing is solid. (I've never seen the movie.) Blanc worked for Hanna-Barbera after Warner pretty much stopped producing cartoons. He also continued to work with Jack Benny on TV, as he had on radio. You're right, irony is typically lost on the take-everything-literally generation. I weep for our youth. But I don't deeply sympathize. I am not the walrus. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) There is one other Hanna-Barbera connection in Breakfast...Alan Reed has a small role. First time I saw the film I was amazed to hear Fred Flintstone's voice coming out of someone else's mouth. When I saw it a second time I was struck by the fact the Reed was a large man and did bear a slight resemblance to Fred. I mention this as the Fred/Barney connection might be a better DYK hook than the Huckleberry one. The lyrics for "MR" were written by Johnny Mercer and, with him being from the south, he was possibly (from what I can find) referring to Huck Finn - as in Tom Sawyer and Huck's friendship rather than the HB character. Hope this is of some help and interest. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did Wikipedia become not about informing readers of a subject, but instead a playground where self-proclaimed "experts" attempt to force others to their own will (no matter how ill-informed it might be at times)? What happened to the Wikipedia where people worked together to create and improve instead of trying to destroy each others' work?
In many respects, it seems like Wikipedia is fast becoming a replacement for the now defunct Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the (temporary) shutdown of the PlayStation Network certainly didn't help matters either. It also doesn't seem to matter how many sockpuppets I uncover because 10 more activate from dormant accounts to take their place (and many more are apparently still active in the current AfD battle of fiction topics). Hijacking and theft of dormant non-admin accounts? That never happens...
It seems like the only way to dissuade people from treating Wikipedia as a game of "lulz" will be to somehow make all of these processes less rewarding and therefore no longer any "fun" to game. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something has gone terribly wrong. They started with a particular premise, that made sense at the time ("any moron can edit"), and now that the site has such high visibility (and vulnerability), they won't change anything fundamental. They're caught in a snare of their own making. I sometimes wonder why I stick with it. But there are occasional good collaborations that result in better information for the public, and that's a good feeling amidst the annoyances. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noel F. Parrish — Ched : ? 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC) And along with some copyright/plag. problems, there probably needs to be some stuff culled out as belonging in one of the Tuskegee articles. But I suspect some of that will happen once it hits the FP for DYK. — Ched : ? 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, everybody knows that the proper tool for dealing with wascawwy wabbits is not a talk page but a highly stylized blunderbuss. PhGustaf (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org, or perhaps not. I cannot tell - Peripitus (Talk) 12:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me... I heard the French are fond of eating ducks, how about you? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](http://harfobama.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/front010811.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/01/Bill-gates-mugshot.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qftkOHnCP-Y/R5O6huXjJPI/AAAAAAAAAnQ/RatB66qPX2M/s1600-h/clubharem.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](http://www.scuffletown.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/weasel.gif){kind=link}
![[53]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File_talk:Powerpole.JPG){kind=link}
![[54]](http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Tothwolf#File:Powerpole.JPG){kind=link}