Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:06, 25 July 2006

Archives
2004 2005 Jan 2006 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006

Re: Brewers-Cubs series

Thanks for moving my info up the page. It seems obvious(!) that the W-L totals be posted for any series. If you really do need a citation it can be easily gotten from baseball-reference.com, in the head-to-head section. Admittedly, my inclusion of this statistic could be considered non-NPOV; I love dispelling the (generally percieved) myth among baseball cognoscenti that the Cubs are somehow "better" than the Brewers. One game? Oops! Not any longer.

A Misplaced Pages tyro, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason S. Klepp (talk • contribs)

Hi. If a citation for this claim can be easily found, then please find it and include it in the article. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont Edit My Sites.

Dont edit my sites, the information you removed was necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jruus24 (talk • contribs)

Regarding this content at Barry Luokkala, it is mostly nonsense and non-encyclopedic. Please refer to WP:BIO for guidelines on articles about people. Finally, please refrain from adding obscenities to my talk page. Please be civil. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:editing

Calling my edits vandalism is libelous. Do not call anyone's edits vandalism again.See:Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes& --Chuck Marean 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Chuck. Please read the vandalism guidelines: an example of vandalism in the context of editing Misplaced Pages articles is "Removing all or significant parts of articles". That is what Omniplex saw when you made these edits: and . He then left standard warning messages on your talk page. This is standard practice.

Your reaction was to paste the same warning messages on Omniplex's talk page, which was an act of vandalism by you since it was "improper use of dispute tags" disruptive, and (IMO) made in bad faith. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I haven't seen you is quite some time. Congratulations on becoming a sysop, sorry I didn't get to support you. I hope to be one someday, but right now I have just 300 edits. I do have time on my side, so once I reach 1500-2000 edits, I'll shoot for a nom myself. P.S. How's Don? :) Mostly Rainy 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you live in Brooklyn perhaps we can arrange to meet. -- Mostly Rainy 10:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Chuck Marean

I think that it may be up to another administrator to take action, such as a block. I have been loathe to bring further attention to this matter, as long as the actions that he takes affects only his own talk page. However, given his history, I don't think that it will be very long before he makes poor edits to another template, and I would rather that there was an easily-accessed warning history so that another administrator can take action. I think that you have been extremely patient with him (much more so than was possibly necessary, but understandable, given that we know we are ostensibly dealing with an adult), but this may not be an instance where you can make the call for a block. An independant decisionmaker may be needed.

Apropos of nothing, Go Irish. I'm Class of '94, Carroll Hall. --Avogadro 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to take direct action myself since I'm too involved, but looks like he was just blocked.

I'm also '94 - Fisher Hall! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take these questions to Checkuser, WP:RFCU. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for having failed to reply sooner to your message apropos of Chuck; of course, I'm not certain that I ought to correspond with you, inasmuch as I'm a Fighting Irish hater (although I'm rather keen on Charlie Weis and Brady Quinn). In any event, if Chuck doesn't change his ways, he's going to be indefinitely blocked in view of the development of a community consensus that his participation is categorically disruptive. He has made a few quality mainspace edits, but their propitious qualities have certain paled in comparison to the deleterious consequences of many mainspace and project space edits. If he wants to use text from Misplaced Pages to practice typing, no one would object; similarly, no one would object were he to seek to improve some of the help pages designed for newbies, in order that they should be clearer. I can't say that any of his project space edits have been helpful, though, and the problem is exacerbated not only, as you observe, by his unwillingness to discuss civilly the relevant issues but also his habit of leaving confounding messages and edit summaries, from which one can generally ascertain absolutely nothing. I think it's clear that he misunderstands the project, and that's unfortunate because I think if he confined himself to mainspace he might well add to the project. As it is, though, the net effect of his editing is surely disruptive. I know that others are disinclined to block users who edit in good faith and with encyclopedic purpose—even where they ignore all cordial entreaties from other users, but I think such disinclination to be wrong-headed. If we had, for example, a user who couldn't communicate in English and repeatedly edited articles with the intention of improving the encyclopedia but with the effect of muddling text (and then refused any efforts to improve collaboration), we would be right to block the user (just as Misplaced Pages is not therapy, neither is it a site at which users should learn English/how to type/how properly to use the Internet where such learning affects the encyclopedia negatively). In sum, I'm not certain that there's anything more to be done with Chuck, and I think that he, rather regrettably, is digging his own grave. Joe 19:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. (Go Irish!). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit too anal

these may be 'commercial' sites, but so are most authorized CA Govt. sites in that they offer trinkets etc.

these sites listed show history and proprietary pictures, they own, that a researcher would find very useful.

these are External links that serve a true purpose. You obviously haven't taken the time to visit them.

Two of those sits belong to family members who own Historic, registered, California sites!!!

the history they offer Such as the swiss hotel and Vella Cheese are CA history sites.

if wikipedia is to have some worth beyond personal tunnel vission, then it must rely on persons to contribute and link the many sites.

to just blindly discharge such it making some of us not interested and not feel the info. offered is of value for research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Granucci (talk • contribs)

Care to remind me what you're referring to? If I've removed external links that I thought we commercial, chances are I thought their placement violated WP:EL. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think you're talking about this edit to Sonoma, California: . These links were to commercial websites. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

University Wisconsin-Milwaukee

The list you refer to is a "member institution list", as it states at the top of the page. All NCAA Division I school's full name's are there, including the University of North Carolina, Charlotte and University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. If you don't like the fact that many school's such as Charlotte, Chattanooga and Milwaukee choose to use a shorter name for their NCAA TEAMS (not institutions), I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty commonly accepted by everyone else that some university's with longer names (Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Texas Tech, and particularly state U's like Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arkansas, Colorado, etc.) do this. Milwaukee has simply decided to do the same.

And I don't see how it's less informative. It's considered common knowledge what state a city the size of Milwaukee is in. Do you think that university's that use similar abbreviations such as UNC Charlotte (a smaller city than Milwaukee), or even an accepted abbreviation such as UAB, are also "less informative" than their full institution's name? CollegeSportsGuy 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that you're making statements like "Milwaukee has simply decided to do the same" and I haven't seen any evidence that they actually did make some kind of official decisions to change how they are referred to. And since many of the articles you have changed have nothing to do with NCAA atheletics, it seems odd to suddenly change "...received a degree from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee" to "...from UW-Milwaukee" since it is most likely that the degree itself states the former. If you want to change it for articles referring to sports events, that might make sense. Otherwise it seems in appropriate. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You say you "haven't seen any evidence that they actually did make some kind of official decisions to change how they are referred to". Did you do any sort of looking at all? They refer to themselves singularly as Milwaukee all over their official university athletics site. I can easily provide a cite from the Milwaukee's athletics site if you wish, one that is an official press release which also states the unnacceptable names and abbreviations for UWM (which includes "Wisconsin-Milwaukee").

I'm wondering... since this is an encyclopedia and therefore continuity is of utmost importance, if these updates are unnacceptable to you, do you intend to revise all references of institutions by their choosen brand TEAM names in Misplaced Pages articles? Such as (in order of most recently changed) UT-Chattanooga's change to simply Chattanooga, UNC Charlotte's Charlotte, University of Alabama at Birmingham's UAB? I'm curious as to why you have a problem with just this one university. (I also see you live in outstate Wisconsin)

As far as degrees go, UCLA's degree's don't say UCLA, but article's about schools that have long, often confusing or clumsy names ALWAYS refer to the INSTITUTION'S preferred abbreviation, which is in this case UW-Milwaukee. That can also be found on their official athletics site AND university site. CollegeSportsGuy 13:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am most concerned that you seem to be automatically making this change in any article with any reference to UWM. See and . Your argument seems mostly based on their athletic web site and how they're referenced in NCAA tournaments, etc. But many of these articles have nothing to do with athletics, and it isn't obvious at all what "UW" refers to. The burden is on you to support making such a change, since I see no harm whatsoever in the current version of most of these articles to spell out the official name of the university. In short, why make the change at all? (We're not worried about # of characters here) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Inky Dreadfuls Article Page

Someone at Metafilter made it last night based on my User Page as you pointed out -- can I delete this article or should I just let it get deleted in due time?--Inky Dreadfuls 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Inky Dreadfuls. You cannot delete the article, only admins can. It is currently listed as a proposed deletion, which means it will be deleted in 5 days if no one objects. If you wanted to, you could try to convince the creator, User:Dtcdthingy to put it up for speedy deletion him/herself, using the Template:Db-author template. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brewers/National League

I noticed you removed my edits if you feel it is unsource you can use the {citation needed}. I admit my addition comes accross as a bit editoralize however the section painted a very pro Selig arguement My addition about the Dbacks and Rays could have put in one league or a NL team could have been moved to the AL were just as possible as moving an AL team to the National League regardes Smith03 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding , you should avoid weasel words like "Others believe" or "Some believe." This is an encyclopedia, and we need to cite reliable sources rather than just opinions, no matter how valid they appear. I'll look at the section again and see if any NPOV needs to be cleaned out. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

When I first read the article I saw this "Many felt Milwaukee was the most logical choice to switch, as the city formerly was home to the National League Braves "

So my addition was the counter point to this, So my weasel words counter anothers weasel words "Many". regards Smith03 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The earlier use of "Many" should be interrogated as well. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone not from Milwaukee ( and again anything like this would have to be sourced) but does not it seem odd that the team that got moved was the team owned by the commissoner of baseball. The commissioner who was an old MilwBraves fan and minority owner who wanted a NL team in 1969 but had to settle for AL team moving in 1970. That should at least be pointed out Smith03 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not the forum to point out random oddities and coincidences. Find a reliable source that discusses this (surely it can be found in press surrounding this event), and then include it in the article. -MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"encyclopedia is not the forum to point out random oddities and coincidences. " Then you have a lot of work a head of you with wikipedia. It is reasonable to point out that in this situtation that other choices besided moving an AL team was available to MLB it is also reasonable to point out the commission owned said team Smith03 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then phrase it in a way that makes a statement of encyclopedic fact, not weasily opinion & innuendo. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your user name

I noticed you changed your user name to reflect your real name, I think that was a good move. MTZ 206 is more like a license plate names, now I can call you Michael. :) Mostly Rainy 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. :) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Evan Foley

All right, I'll watch that next time. Thanks. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words

also on the conversation on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ste4k#Headings

also the listing of the name of the book at the International Standard book number database: http://isbndb.com/d/book/social_justice_in_the_liberal_state.html and notice the capitalization.

Thanks Ste4k 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but books are an exemption to that standard naming convention. See Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I did it on purpose the other way because of the earlier comment on my talk page. Ste4k 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Its an easy fix. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

soft blocking

Hi again. I have a favour to ask of you. As a result of Tim Starling's recent work on MediaWiki Bug 550, it's now possible to soft block IP addresses.

Please could you look at the block log for eduproxy.bgfl.org, the proxy I edit through at work? It's currently on a six month block. The history shows that whenever it's not blocked it's the source of quite a lot of vandalism, so my suggestion is to put a permanent block on editing for non-logged in users for that address. I don't think it would be a good idea to block account creation, though. I think the same applies to upstream.bgfl.org. Thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not recalling the first time we interacted. Regarding this soft block request, I'd suggest you make the request at WP:AN. I'm not yet fully converse with the blocking policies and procedures (still reading and watching), and I'm worried that I might not correctly perform the action you're suggesting. Perhaps a more experienced admin can take care of this. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We first interacted when I nominated you for admin :) Fair comment about the soft block, though - no-one's got much experience on it, it was only put in a week ago. I'll ask at the noticeboard. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez, sorry. Too much going through my head lately... --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My Link

Why is my link keep being removed? www.dollhousecollectables.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.171.28 (talk • contribs)

Please review Misplaced Pages:External links#Links normally to be avoided, especially item 4. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

please see

please see: Talk:Sculpture_of_Ancient_Greece#Redirect_to_Greek_Statue. Thanks. Ste4k 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Loyalty program cashback

I'm going to go through the articles and see if there's anything worth merging into the other. This thing looks mainly like a magnet for linkspam. I think a merge (with no links) and redirect is definitely the way to go. Fan-1967 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to delete all the external link spam, then realized the article itself was redundant, and likely created solely for the links. Thanks for checking it out. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Marean

Thanks for the heads-up about Chuck. Much appreciated. Gwernol 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting my user page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page. Greatly appreciated, Gwernol 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anders

Just so you know, I've blocked him indefinitely. DS 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it escalated in a hurry. Figured I shouldn't block him myself. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Drift (band)

I must have been checking it out when King of Hearts deleted it and then deleted it after him without seeing that it had been changed. It's gone and protected again. Thanks for seeing it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Just wondering if there was some other history or discussion I couldn't find. Happy editing! -MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice

I am sorry i was adding links. I will add contents here after. I am new to this site and was adding links. I hope i am doing the right thing by replying here. My sincere apologies and thanks for your message.

Best regards Rajeev from design2host.net (No thats not a link :) ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.88.149.53 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, feel free to use talk pages to communicate with users. Articles also have their own talk page (accessible by clicking on the "discussion" tab on the top of the screen) to discuss article-related issues. If you plan on being a contributor, please also consider creating an account. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read this.

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k#Proposed_Remedy

I'll take your suggestion and leave for two days. This made me very sad. Ste4k 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"User contributions"

Using the + icon for the first time. Thank you so much!

I checked on the ""User contributions" on the left side of every user page..." and do not see it. Is this just for Administrators?--Who123 20:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)