Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:14, 26 February 2010

September 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Brookhaven College: You may already know about them, but you might find Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Tiptoety 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is Carmen Chu's website. Clarifying some spam.

The website you recently reverted was really her personal website, not spam. I'll prove it. So, he was trying to help. I'm not on anyone's side, but I'm also against vandalism. So, I clicked the link, and turns out, it was Carmen Chu's personal webpage! Check it out! I'm not lying! -Goodshoped35110s_Contribs 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Pearson

Hi there. I've found some evidence of notability for Ron Pearson. It originally made realistic claims of notability, so it did not qualify for {{a7}}. Further research confirmed the article's claims, so if you still want to challenge it, I suggest WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual BTNH

Not sure if you're an admin, but the above 'subject' has been deleted and salted before. He's just sockpuppeted an account and renamed his Spiritual Bone article to avoid the 'salt.' Fabrictramp handled it before (as per my talk page). Let me know if you need more info on this hoax. τßōиЄ2001 22:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over deletion request for Recyclebank page

Just wanted to see if you could give me some guidance as to what I can do to the Recyclebank article I created so that it is not deleted for blatant advertising. That certainly was not my intention but I think that a company like this should be represented. I included all the major reliable references for this company such as the New York Times, Ceres, Boston Globe and Columbia University. Please advise. thanks. ~m (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it's blatant advertising any more. You took out the bits I was responding to. I'm not supposed to take off the tag myself, though. An admin will likely do it soon. Given the talk, it's not going to get deleted PhGustaf (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dylan Thomas

In view of your edit you may wish to comment at Talk:Dylan Thomas#Welsh. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

Usenet is not a reliable source. At any rate, you didn't even provide a usenet source. Please see WP:BLP. Frank is still alive, and any unsourced information on him must be removed. Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I don't believe you. It's that you must have a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Black Day

I have posted my reasoning for not speedy deleting their page on the talk page.--Crazy4metallica (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I wouldn't have flagged it if you hadn't deleted the "unreferenced" box. You're going to need references. PhGustaf (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to get references and then the speedy deletion came up to quick on me--Crazy4metallica (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the references add now. --Crazy4metallica (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember that I don't decide what happens here -- some admin will look at the flag and decide what to do. But you need better references, at least a newspaper review, something to indicate that the group is notable. Lots of people have put out CDs. Check out WP:MUSIC. Good luck. PhGustaf (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lowbah

I have never heard of "lowbah" or "CHORSEL", and I find it extremely unlikely any poker game involves a "scramble to find the jokers." Please provide some credible sources. --Andrews Palop (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Lowbah" is admittedly slang: It's A-5 low 5-card draw with the sevens rule and a Joker in the deck. The more proper term is "lowball". And, since most poker games these days don't use Jokers, it's usually a hassle to dig them out, and they're often conspicuously unworn. I'm not about to make a big deal out of this, however. PhGustaf (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Remarkably I did actually work out that "Lowbah" was slang for lowball, which I know to be 5-card draw where the lowest hand wins. However, not only does slang not belong in an encyclopedia entry, describing it as a "scramble to find the jokers" was ambiguous and I have never heard of a HORSE variant which includes a draw game. I could, of course, be very mistaken, and if this is the case, my apologies, but I still believe your additions to the HORSE article should be rewritten. --Andrews Palop (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, it would appear that CHORSEL is a real game. My apologies for my error. If you wish I will rewrite your edits for you so that they are suitable for an encyclopedia entry. --Andrews Palop (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, and thanks. This is the sort of interchange that helps Misplaced Pages work. PhGustaf (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Electro Homeopathy

I've done some work on this page with is currently an AfD. Nonsense though the science behind the topic almost certainly is, it does have some interesting history and might be saveable. Have a look at the rewrked page and see if you think there's the basis for an article there. thanks Brammarb (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Berg obama

Thanks. Just bored, and i figure if it doesn't get deleted, or until it does, it should be as appropriate and good as possible. Go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Cubs vs. Red Sox

Maybe they'll have a centennial rematch in 2018. I thought for sure it was going to happen in 2003, but fate intervened. Obviously I had to root against the Yankees in the Series, despite what the Marlins did to my Cubs, so my most positive memory of that Series is the extraordinary performance by Josh Beckett, pitching a complete game shutout to clinch it in Game 6 and, unknowingly, close the book on The Stadium's World Series history. The Yankees' collective deer-in-the-headlights look, as Beckett mowed them down inning after inning, was priceless. Just a prelude to 2004, though. To this day, I still can't believe, and have to go back to the DVD to be sure of it, that the Red Sox came back from 3 games to none in the ALCS. Baseball Bugs 11:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Up until September I thought this year might be the year. Both our teams let us down. Pox on Manny. PhGustaf (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of folks thought the Cubs were the team of destiny this year, or possibly the Rays. Who'd have thought it would be the Phillies? I wonder, though, how long before Manny's act wears thin in L.A.? Baseball Bugs 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama profession

Please discuss this on the article talk page rather than reverting it again: this has been hashed out before, and my revert and Tarc's subsequent revert were in keeping with consensus. Thanks Tvoz/talk 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh - didn't see you were already discussing this with Tarc - and on the article talk. (Agree for sure that it's not a big deal.) Tvoz/talk 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Brought it up on the talk page, too. Mea culpa is this is old news, and I'm not going to hold my breath and turn blue about it in any case. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama ucc

He has renounced his membership of Trinity, without transfer to another UCC church. I'm not sure if you understand how this works. Renoucing membership is not the same as ceasing to attend. It is a repudiation and a separation. You need a 3rd party source that says he is UYCC since that repudiation.Die4Dixie (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, you need to show that he's renounced the denomination as well as the congregation. "Membership" could get dicey; last time I checked, UCC didn't issue photo IDs. PhGustaf (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You must show a source that he continued to be UCC without a church and that he is still in communion with the UCC.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I also see where you said I had an agenda in your edit summary. Please comment on edits and not editors or I will have you up on ANI quicker than you can say shit. Call this a non template warning, level 1Die4Dixie (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You are putting your personal spin on what constitutes membership in a denomination. That's original research, and it will not do. You have also stated he has "renounced" his membership, without offering any citation for that alleged fact. Baseball Bugs 22:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanna see that ANI report. Dealing with D4D would be like dealing with Ernie Lombardi as a pinch runner. PhGustaf (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Careful, he's got a gun in back o' that pick-em-up. Baseball Bugs 23:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken my concerns about Die4's behavior to the WP:ANI page. Baseball Bugs 23:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixing vandalism

This editor User:DegenFarang has stated he's deleting certain links over his problem with wanting to post links to his site. 2005 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He also moved David Williams (card player), which I moved back. It's all pretty weird. 2005 (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up on the proper talk pages, and file through the proper channels if you really think vandalism is involved. The way you're handling it now seems heavy-handed to me, and I disagree with your deletion of criticism from your talk page. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate your many contributions to the poker articles. PhGustaf (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply reverting dozens of changes he made, after he threatened to do so on my talk page simply because I upgraded the reference on an article from one to his site to a more official one. There is nothing heavy handed out about that. I could have just reverted them without comment, but that would not have given the correct picture. 2005 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you and he should take a deep breath and talk it out between yourselves. I've looked at his contribs; he's mostly removing references to poker-babes, which is a pretty dicey reference, though I myself wouldn't charge around removing the references wholesale. If you get a talk going that doesn't include "spam" or "vandal" you might get somewhere; edit warring and snarky edit summaries won't. PhGustaf (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to explain things on his talk page: User_talk:DegenFarang. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you beat me to it, even to the "deep breath" line. Let's hope for peace in Dodge City. PhGustaf (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Black president

I have rewritten this article and fully cited it. I hope you can read over it and share your thoughts. • Freechild'sup? 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama

Read the cite. It says he resigned from the denomination.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) "The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church." From the cited material. read the cite please.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like an unwarranted conclusion on t he part of the reporter. Talk page, please. PhGustaf (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See you there. Sounds like your OR vs. a reliable 3rd party source.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama Inaurguration address mistake

There is no such policy that forbids this information. That is the article that it belongs in. As a historian, I am appalled by the president's apparant lack of knowledge on U.S. History. I have no idea why. Perhaps it comes from his many years going to school abroad, but he has a serious lapse in that department. There is no other article or section to place this information. It is best suited there. Regardless of party or support, the sentence was cited properly and has been placed in its proper section. Any removal means that those removing it are not interested in improving wikipedia, but are only here to protect Obama's image. It is not a biography, so WP:BLP does not apply. It is only one sentence, so WP:Weight does not apply.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's one quite long sentence about an entirely trivial matter. It probably doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia at all. Please mind article probation, and let's see what others have to say on the talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought you should know

Titles of Nobility Amendment

It's not a part of the Constitution. -- Fifty7 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. Thanks much for the correction and the interesting history. PhGustaf (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

As the user didn't see fit to inform you, you have been mentioned at ANI. Grsz 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the complaint, but for some reason I don't feel terrified. PhGustaf (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not actual definition to "Majority"

If one hundred people vote that one plus one equals three and one person votes that one plus one equals two what should happen? Are accuracy and description accuracy important to you PhGustaf? Do you agree that it might be ironic if there is a Wikipediaish conspiracy that attemps to surround and or beset the conspiracy theory article with subtle sabotage? The sublte yet obvious ilhint with the phrase cabal seems to be attempting to blame all middle eastern people for conspiracies, are you, perhaps unwittingly, guilty of that PhGustaf? 208.59.112.152 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama

Please consider discussing on the talk page assuming you stand by it. I think the consensus (if you can call it that - the discussion is not very orderly) is to simplify the description of Obama's teaching, and leave the discussion of terminology to the footnote. If it's important for the record to clarify that "professor" is a legitimate description, that can certainly be in the footnote. It's very close to one of the proposals that I advanced and Hoary seemed to approve on the talk page at 08:10, 5 May 2009. I don't think we're going to get a clear consensus until the discussion becomes more orderly. Maybe that means we close the discussion as no consensus, which I'm fine with. One way or another it looks like we may be headed for a car wreck on the talk page unless certain people can tone things down by a few notches.... well, as long as we do it with a smile, that's 90% of the battle, right? Cheerio, Wikidemon (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be there. It was my notion that the discussion was leaning towards "professor" in the text, leaving the more formal title in the footnote. Leaving the page as it is is fine with me. (And, I'm smiling. I don't think you've seen me get hostile often.) PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Three Banks Fail on a single weekend; 40 Closures So Far This Year

I was being droll. However, my indulgence was not irresponsible; it amply points out why this is far from an exceptional situation, how it is (not) handled in that most exceptional situation, and why it won't be added to the article. Without this background, it's quite possible some well-meaning and responsible editor like Wikidemon (not to mention some malicious and irresponsible editor) might think it reasonable to seek to find a way to add bank failure information to the article, or to be alarmed by the statistic, or to be convinced that our lack of action on the issue is an example of editors with their heads in the sand, seeking to whitewash negative information, as is so often accused. Indeed, the talk page isn't a forum, but as it stands now it's basically Grundle's blog, a compendium of alarmist, newsy, anti-Obama screes with multiple links to editorials and partisan sources. Editors with a certain perspective feel these issues are never adequately responded to, and so the issues come back again and again, sometimes even before the previous attempt has been archived.

It's ignorance that causes it, and responding with factual refutation—while I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears for some—is what is called for. You teach a lot more flies with facts than you do with honey. But that doesn't mean we have to have bilious tastes in our mouths or acidic tongues while we're dispensing those facts. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate its reader. But without some historical perspective, the articles would be like the talk pages, with every news item that someone can sneak in, or fool, or scare, or wear us down into adding. (Like Grundle did with the Indiana Pensioners vs. Chrysler bit.) If that means we need to do some educating of the editors on this talk page first, within reason, then so be it. Abrazame (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've deleted my contribution to Poker Flops and called it spam

Hi PhGustaf, I think you were too quick to delete my contribution with what seems like hardly any consideration. The article is about poker flops, I found the article to be very basic. I added useful information to the article about poker flops from a professional poker player's perspective, which helps people learn about the deeper levels of the game, and provided a link to the only site I've seen which has an analysis of every one of the 22,100 possible poker flops at up to 10 levels of opponent hand ranges each, which is notable! How is this spam? Misplaced Pages is supposed to be welcoming of public submissions, and promote increased knowledge. I can understand if you think my writing style needs work, I am not experienced in writing wikipedia articles, but spam? I put considerable effort into writing it so that it was clear, understandable, concise but gave the reader a bit more insight into poker flops, and some conceptual starting points which they could use to further their knowledge of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillimon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the writing was fine. My main problem with your contribution was that it seemed aimed at promoting a particular site offering flop-analysis software. I could be mistaken about this. Please bring the matter up on the article's talk page; there are plenty of watchers there who will help resolve this. I remove lots of stuff from poker pages and may have pulled the trigger too soon here. Cheers.

PhGustaf (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Okay thanks, I'll check out the article talk page. Perpaps I gave too much detail about the analysis available there, but since its relevant to poker flops I personally think its informative, though maybe too deep for newbies and the scope of the article. I don't think there are any other sites on the internet that analyze every possible poker flop. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillimon (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I started a thread on the talk page, and we should have a few other opinions in a day or two. Your attitude is appreciated. PhGustaf (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't resort to edit warring

Don't bait editors into continuing edit wars. It is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Please discuss the change before resorting to reverts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of what's going on. Particularly in an article on probation, it's up to the includer to justify new material. I just reset to zero. And I am not "baiting". PhGustaf (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The information was justified on the talk page when you reverted. Please read Abecedarian's post. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The post in the thread precipitated by the reversion? PhGustaf (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The post by Ferrylodge was made at 23:56, you reverted at 0:05. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. You said "Abecedarian". I spent a few minutes checking what I was reverting. I would probably have still reverted even after reading Fl's comment. PhGustaf (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

BO

Could you take a look at my this comment ? I am afraid it might have been lost in all the traffic and I would like to hear your views. You can post a reply on the article talk page itself. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Done; I agree. I was going to reply sooner, but dinner happened. If Boone is the only one, no mention as it's too trivial. PhGustaf (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi PhGustaf. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Misplaced Pages. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent reversion of one of my edits

In this edit, you reverted a bit of cite-supported information which I had added to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, saying: "rv good faith addition, material already included below". My addition of the information was based on considerations of article style similar to guidance which is available in the English Misplaced Pages style guideline "Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles", particularly the "Information style and tone section of that guideline. That section discusses what it describes as "Two styles, closely related", which it says tend to be used for Misplaced Pages articles: News style and Summary style.

Regarding news style the guideline says, "The main feature of news style is a placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances."

Regarding summary style the guideline says, "The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Misplaced Pages can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail to which they are exposed. Using progressively longer and longer summaries avoids overwhelming the reader with too much text at once." The idea being to enable a reader to get an overview by reading only the "==" level topical sections, and progressively greater detail on subtopics of interest by reading "===", "====", etc. level sections of those subtopics.

Regardless of which style the article uses, it makes sense to set the stage before introducing detailed information. I feel that the stage-setting information which I introduced and which you reverted was entirely appropriate at the level where I introduced it.

Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your addition was well written and well supported. I removed it because it was duplicated a few paragraphs below, in a sequence where one person said, "it wouldn't matter if he were born on Mars", and another said, "oh, yes it would, she was only 18".

I disagree that it belongs at the top of the section, though. It's a detail: it would be important only if Obama were born outside the country, which we know to not be the case.

If you're uncomfortable with this, we should use the talk page to get extra opinions. I don't mind being shown if I'm wrong. Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I don't think any stage-setting is necessary there. PhGustaf (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still believe that information about why Obama's place of birth is important should be introduced prior to all the falderal about the COLB being posted, etc., but I'm not going to argue about it. Subject article is a mess in any case.

In reference to the Correction About Natural-Born Citizen Law item cited in support of what you characterize as an "oh, yes it would, ..." remark, I see that remark goes on to say, " Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, doubly covering Obama. Any legal challenge would have to argue that Congress can't make someone retroactively a citizen at birth, and prove .", regarding which might the writer (Volokh, I think) might be interested in seeing this recent case and other similar cases. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll read up in the morning, and think about the organizayion. Thanks, PhGustaf (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This case might be closer to what Obama's situation would be if his claim of having been born inside of US jurisdiction is called into question and he is unable to substantiate that claim. It was decided in March of 2009 under the 1952 INA on the basis that the applicant had failed to meet his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his mother had 5 years of physical presence in the United States after her 14th birthday. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Don't canvass. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

PhGustaf (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asking a question to an administrator. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

Thanks for the tipoff. I was unaware of that page, and in an obvious moment of forgetfulness, CoM had failed to tell us about it. Shazam! Baseball Bugs carrots 05:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that you had heard of if, but made it known you weren't interested. Your name is mentioned, way up top in the official stuff. Glad you put in your piece, and you inspired me to add a line or two. PhGustaf (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If I actually was notified, I don't recall it. I could be wrong, though. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a good memory, it's just short. Sceptre informed me last week, and you and I even had some discussion about why I didn't want any more to do with it. I then erased it from my memory, though thankfully not from my talk page. However, if not for CoM's backstabbing, I still likely would have stayed away from that page. So once again, CoM throws down the gauntlet. Great. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I had forgotten about that too. That's the one where the guy who was playing WP:IDHT about Obama and his teleprompter came by and accused me of canvassing. He got bored and went away, and last time I looked he was doing the same thing about waterboarding not being torture. PhGustaf (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've said all I can think of to say on that page now, but of course it's on my watch list now, like I needed another contentious page to watch. The one thing I learned from defending pages like Palin and Obama is that it's hopeless - constant battles over minutia like teleprompters. I can't even imagine what it's like on Arab-Israeli pages, or Creationism-Evolution. Sometimes I think of wikipedia as simply a huge social experiment Mr. Wales is conducting, and he must certainly have some interesting data by now. Baseball Bugs carrots 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of spiraling, check this out, where he refers to "many (most?)" wikipedians as "psycopathic" Maybe he should reiterate that on his request for lowering the topic ban. Might help, eh? Baseball Bugs carrots 06:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pits

CoM's real complaint is that he's topic-banned and doesn't get to join in the fun. Baseball Bugs carrots 22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And will get topic-banned again in a New York second unless he changes his ways before the ban expires. Till then, it's just another train wreck. PhGustaf (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny stuff. Alfred Hitchcock once said the reason we like to wartch horror movies and disaster movies and such, is that we're just so glad it's them and not us. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think I should have signed up for that no-drama-thon, given that I'm doing a better job of honoring it silently than certain ones (or one, anyway) who actually signed up for it. For example, I've almost totally stayed away from editing on ANI, yet there Mr. No Drama is, defending the perpetually difficult user Badgagnani or whatever it is. When threatened with a block, Badgagnani complains that it sounds like a threat. Nothing gets past that boy. I was tempted to add something about "that's not a threat, it's a promise" (speaking of badgags) but I'm trying to avoid official drama. 0:) Baseball Bugs carrots 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has to fight bias and censorship and POV-pushers. PhGustaf (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of indefs who made that their mission here. Baseball Bugs carrots 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps his goal is to be as annoying as possible in front of as many admins as possible, so that next time he comes up on ArbCom or AN/I they'll all feel noble enough to recuse themselves. PhGustaf (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On that general topic, here's another user, who's on a 2-week block and is wondering about the idea of a "countdown clock". Interesting idea, although if he's watching the clock for the next 10 days it's liable to go slowly. But I expect something like that could be programmed. But what about an indef-block? I'm thinking a visual, of a calendar with the 12th of the month circled, for the month called "Never". Baseball Bugs carrots 03:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah. Tantalize them. The last day of the month is circled, but on the day before the calendar rolls over to the next one. PhGustaf (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Online_Poker well-wikified spam

You should have a look at link #21 (tightpoker.com) it IS spam also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.216.32 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

no problem. sorry for not listening.

Speaking of Train Wrecks

As you've had positive interaction with Grundle2600 (talk), perhaps you can help get his return to editing of banned topics back on track. Unfortunately, he seems off to a bad start. I left him a note on his talk page, and a couple on an article's talk page he's editing, trying to nudge him in the right direction. Others have also made note of some deficiencies on the same article's talk page. Thanks (I want to help), --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I left some avuncular but stern advice on his talk page. Feel free to add comments. I frankly don't have high hopes. Grundle seems like a nice guy, but his doe-eyed naïf persona is wearing thin. PhGustaf (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a topic ban myself. I'm forbidden to write about any subject where cuneiform is involved. They claim I babble-on. →Baseball Bugs carrots 02:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Milton Bradley, Dave Kingman, etc.

"7 down, 23 to go." Good one. He's making things tough for himself, though. With all those caps he's worn, how will he narrow it down to one, for his Hall of Fame plaque? →Baseball Bugs carrots 01:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He'll wait till Dave Kingman get in, and follow Kingman's example. PhGustaf (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Kingman played for 4 different teams in one season. Bradley is downright stable by comparison to "Dave Ding-Dong", as Mike Royko called him. (Hard telling what Royko would have to say about Bradley, though.) →Baseball Bugs carrots 02:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who has the HoF record for number of teams. Rabbit Maranville has five, which is a lot. (Of course, he's the sort of HOFer who makes statheads grumble.)

Mike Royko was one of my favorite Chicagoans, ahead of Marlin Perkins but behind Studs Terkel. 03:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Maranville is from the day when it was a hall of fame rather than a hall of stats. But while I'm sure he was a good player, he's more of a Chick Hafey than a Babe Ruth. In case you couldn't guess, Chick Hafey to my mind is like the quintessential "how did he get in here?" kind of player. He has less business being in the Hall than Morgan Bulkeley does, and that's saying something. →Baseball Bugs carrots 03:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to measure Hall of Famers by the number of teams they were on. The incredible Cy Young was on 5 different clubs no less, although I would say he was only dominant on a couple of them - Cleveland NL in the 1890s and Boston AL in the 1900s. I would put an asterisk next to his two years in St. Louis NL, where he was sent from Cleveland as part of the rape of that ballclub by the Robison brothers (who owned both teams), and skedaddled for the AL as soon as they turned major. And he hung on for a couple of years at the end, with Cleveland and Boston NL. But that's an interesting question - most different clubs for a Hall of Famer. You almost have to narrow it to roughly 1900-1975, because before then a lot of teams came and went, and after then free agency put an end to team loyalty, and one might expect Hall of Fame caliber players to be on a number of different teams. Reggie Jackson, for example, was on 5 clubs. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Skimming through the list a little bit, Roger Bresnahan played with 5 different clubs. Rogers Hornsby also had 5. He might have had fewer had he not been such a prickly character (not as bad as Cobb, but definitely within sight of his neighborhood). Dan Brouthers played with a whopping 10 teams, but most of that was 19th century. Satchel Paige played for like 17 teams, but most of them were Negro League clubs which tended to come and go. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have thought harder before I asked. You'd be right to leave the 19th century and the Negro leagues out of any such count. (Maranville had a year in the minors in the middle of his career. Not sure how to count that, or possibly the Federal League.)

I was thinking of beloved loyal Red Sox like Teddy and Yaz and now Rice as typical HOFers, but sheesh, Pedro has five teams already and a few years to play. Bet he gets a Sox hat, though. PhGustaf (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as interesting would be the number of players who spent their entire careers with one club, neither getting traded nor going free agent. Stan Musial and Cal Ripken, respectively, come to mind immediately. I'd give an asterisk to the Flying Dutchman, as Wagner went from Louisville to Pittsburgh simply on account of the owner merging the teams. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to earthbound players, Bob Miller played with 10 different clubs, which is twice as many as Bob "Suitcase" Seeds had. Bobby Bonds played for 8 teams, and had that fact immortalized in Terry Cashman's song, "Talkin' Baseball (Willie, Mickey and the Duke)" when he said, "Now it's the 80s, and Brett is the greatest, and Bobby Bonds can play for everyone." And back to Dave Ding-Dong, he played for 7 clubs, typically for only 2-3 years at a time, as he tended to wear out his welcome quickly. It was 1977 that he played for the Mets, Padres, Angels, and Yankees. I don't know if 4 clubs in one year is a record, but it's got to be close. He was traded by the Mets at the June 15th deadline. I think it was Mets catcher John Stearns who described Kingman as having "the personality of a tree stump." He was only on the Angels roster for 9 days. He went to the Yanks but did not play in the post-season. I'm a sucker for sluggers, and I watched Kingman with some interest when he was on the Cubs, and especially the 1979 season where he showed some discipline at the plate for probably the only time in his career and hit some seriously long home runs. He was probably the most one-dimensional player I've ever seen, though. He couldn't field his way out of a paper bag. But when you can hit the ball 500 feet, clubs will be forgiving... for awhile. He was like the opposite of Dal Maxvill, the outstanding Cardinals shortstop who couldn't hit much better than Casey Wise. If you could clone a ballplayer with Maxvill's fielding skill and Kingman's hitting skill, you'd have... well, you'd have Willie Mays. But being only half Willie Mays, one way or the other, seldom gets you into the Hall. →Baseball Bugs carrots 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's good that the subject of Kong Kingman came up, as I went to his article and discovered a number of factual errors. I think it's factually in pretty good shape now. Kingman was apparently not much of a teammate, but he was certainly an entertaining character from the fan standpoint, and one of those guys you make sure to watch when he comes to bat, since you never know when he might hit a 500-footer. →Baseball Bugs carrots 06:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I'm not so sure about him being half of Willie Mays, though — Mays made a lot fewer outs. I'm thinking 1982 here, the year he led the NL with 37 HR but batted .204 and fielded like a statue of Dick Stuart. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would have loved the irony of that average creeping down to .199 PhGustaf (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I was being a little generous. In terms of batting average, Kingman was in Maxvill's neighborhood, not Mays'. But Kingman was certainly more of an impact batter overall than Maxvill was. Truth to tell, Bob Gibson was more of an impact batter on that Cardinals club than Maxvill was. Comparing anyone to Mays gets chancy. I heard Mike Lupica recently call Mays the greatest player ever. I still defer to Ruth, for reasons that go beyond the field. But Mays was the ultimate every-tool player: Great defense, power, average, speed, you name it. He never pitched, as far as I know. But he probably could have. Certainly the greatest all-around player in my lifetime. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And, yes, Kingman could safely be described as a butcher defensively. I have this vague recollection of watching a Cardinals-Giants game on TV in the early 70s, and the Cardinals TV announcer (probably Jay Randolph) commented on a situation where there was a Cardinal on first and the pitcher was throwing to first. Randolph said the pitcher ought to be careful throwing over to first, "the way Kingman covers that bag." And we're just talking catching a thrown ball, never mind a batted ball. Kingman was a born DH, but unfortunately for him he didn't get to DH until late in his career. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One side note on the Kingman article: I noticed that Kingman had hit that 550-foot shot at Wrigley in 1976 just a few days before that home run orgy between the Cubs and Phillies in which Schmidt hit 4 of them. That was a vague precursor to the 1979 Cubs-Phils 23-22 game. Someone tried to take away the Schmidt reference from 1976. Maybe that's "synthesis". I dunno. But this is baseball, not nuclear physics. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, in the articles I generally follow, I still have to revert "born in Kenya" twice a day. Count yourself lucky. PhGustaf (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be Obama, I suppose. They're still whipping that deceased equine? Oy. Although, for some similar entertainment, check out the Carmen Miranda talk page sometime. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

2012 could be revenge time, as some liberal-leaning "birthers" might present claims that Sarah was actually born on Mars. →Baseball Bugs carrots 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason I saw the Miranda page. So many of these dumb arguments are about what things are called — see, for example, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Benjamin's_Syndrome. Essentially, a group of gender-dysmorphic people decided that they weren't transgender at all, so they made up a new name for it and want an article about it. For the most noise about the least issue, though, I lean towards Speed of Light. PhGustaf (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's one thing I find irksome here, the amount of time wasted trying to define what to call something, when we have redirects just to cover situations like that. Who cares what an article's called, as long as you can get to it. Likewise with categories, which are constantly being created, renamed, deleted - a total waste of time that I avoid like the plague. If I create a baseball article, I call it "Category:Baseball" and let someone else figure out how to fine-tune it. And, o lord yes, I've seen some of that ridiculous arguing on ANI about stuff concerning the speed of light. It's hard to imagine editors getting themselves into the threat of being indef'd over such silliness. Baseball and cartoons are relatively non-controversial, although I remember a minor edit war once over someone insisting that "Dumas" was Daffy Duck's middle name, just because they used it as a joke in "The Scarlet Pumpernickel". →Baseball Bugs carrots 01:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

On the Miranda thing, it seems like only about 3 editors are actually watching that page. That one guy goes on for a long paragraph, and the other editor goes on for a long paragraph rebutting him - with the same arguments back and forth, ad infinitum. I'm doing the same thing, except I've reduced it to the simple statement, "You're wrong." That's a signficant time-saver, and accomplishes the same thing, i.e. nothing. →Baseball Bugs carrots 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of relevant, well sourced material is inexcusable.

This edit is inexcusable. When a politician says he has one position on an issue, but he acts the opposite of his claim, the article should cite both of those things. Obama said he would stop the raids, but his true position is that he is still continuing them. If he truly wanted to stop them, he would have issued a simple one page executive order to do so.

Furthermore, NPOV states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the edit.

1. As others have pointed out, your interpretation of WP:NPOV is faulty. Your approach also treads close to WP:SYNTH.
2. The matter is at best questionable under WP:WEIGHT.
3. You didn't even mention my lovely haiku edit summary.

PhGustaf (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Your haiku is lovely, now that you point it out to me. I just didn't realize it was a haiku because you want people to pronounce "W" with only syllable.

Now, regarding this new edit of yours: There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding this, if you feel that way, please feel free to respond to his latest accusations at ANI. Thanks. Grsz 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Statement_by_Grundle2600

FYI, your recent edits are (unfairly) mentioned by Grundle2600. I read your clear explanation of your edit, but Grundle2600 seems to not get it. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Thanks. I have made my opinions known at the right place. PhGustaf (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama's ethnic categories

I saw the adding of the category 'Irish Americans' and then saw it changed to 'Irish American Politicians' and was going to revert it too. But I searched on the Obama page and there are two links that are used as references that seem to prove that President Obama does have Irish in his background. Here and here. Both are in reference #6.

Now, I realize that it has been decided(and rightly so)that President Obama should be referred to as African American as his race. But that doesn't exclude, imo, from placing his bio in the category of his ethnic heritage also. It seems that it has been proven, by reliable sources, that President Obama is definitely of at least partial Irish Heritage. I don't think this is a slippery slope and is just a category placement. DD2K (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama certainly has distant Irish relatives. So do I, more than he, in fact, but they don't make me Irish-American. Unless he makes his marginal Irish heritage an issue himself, it;s a non-issue. Do look at the archived talk, and thanks for the thoughtful response. PhGustaf (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I rather not wade through the old archives for this particular issue, I just thought it was interesting. But not interesting enough to pursue. heh-heh In other words, I can live with it either way. And thanks for your responses too, thoughtful and interesting. DD2K (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

Please stop trolling on Grundle's page and posting links to a train wreck image. That kind of disruptive baiting is unhelpful and isn't collegial. You should know better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have enough history with Grundle to trust him to complain to me if my criticisms of him ever get out of line. And I really love that picture. PhGustaf (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I note that you and a certain Cubs fan have this page on each other's watchlists, but are prohibited from dealing with one another. My call on my page is to have at it, like Killer Kowalski and Haystack Calhoun. PhGustaf (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch list

That watch list tool on Grundle's page is pretty handy. I was shocked (though not very) at how many eyes are glued on my page, and it sure looks funny with all those eyes glued on it. (Apologies to Doodles Weaver). Probably mostly users who made one comment and then forgot to disable the "watch" checkbox. The next question, then, is who is on the most watch lists? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Keep your eye on the ball, your ear to the ground, and your nose to the grindstone. Then try to work in that position." PhGustaf (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

National Lampoon once had a cover illustration depicting someone with his nose to the grindstone. It weren't pretty. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

They also had a "split beaver" centerfold once. PhGustaf (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall that. That wasn't pretty either. That expression also was the punch line to a shaggy dog story of an HBO short film called "Disco Beaver from Outer Space". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the first minute or two of that film: Not coincidentally, it was produced by NatLamp. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And the last 8 minutes or so. Featuring a young Jamie Widdoes. Not sure who the other players are. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

nyt and holocaust

hi - i'm sorry, i didn't understand what you were explaining to me on my talk page re the request to delete the entire nyt and holocaust article. could you please walk me through it step by step? thanks. --Cimicifugia (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

I nominated the article for deletion because it was a horrible hatchet piece that violated a whole alphabet soup of wikipedia policy. During the ensuing discussion (see the link on your page) the article was cleaned up and kept. I'd still like to be of it, but (feeble) consensus seems against me. PhGustaf (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)