User talk:SMcCandlish - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 4 May 2007 (→To Do List: Keen.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:21, 4 May 2007 by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) (→To Do List: Keen.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

My IP address(es)Occasionally I get logged out and don't immediately notice. Any edits from the following IP addresses, during the timeframes specified, are by me. Please note that any edits that seem to be from me (example) but which are not from one of these known IP addresses are not me, as I do not edit from any other IP addresses, ever. My IP address very infrequently changes, and mine is a single-user machine.

Current IP address: 69.241.164.230 (beginning ca. January 2007, last updated 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC))
Former IP addresses:

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

Logorrhoea

Hi there. I see you've done some work on the Logorrhoea article and was wondering whether or not you had read my comments on the discussion page there. IMHO the section on rhetoric is sub-par in many ways and actually I was considering expanding the mental health part and significantly trimming the rhetoric part, which mostly appears to be the opinion of people who don't like high-falutin' sentence structures.

Are you suggesting we split Logorrhoea into (use in rhetoric) and (use in medicine)? --PaulWicks 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dicussion moved to direct e-mail (short version: YES. Better to split than to remove material.) --Smccandlish 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: Logorrhoea (rhetoric) should just be merged into Prolixity anyway. — SMcCandlish - 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You managed to work the word "Logorrhoea" into an edit summary of some work I did on Labile affect. Nice. --PaulWicks 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Was vocabulary practice. I'd just been at the L. page, and thought I'd try making myself use it (and even use the UK spelling); I usually use "prolixity"; it sounds less insulting! Heh. ;-) — SMcCandlish ツ 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Out-standing: Article still not split. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Active guideline

Resolved

The consensus on the wikipedia:naming conventions (books) guideline *including notes on notability* was prior to wikipedia:notability (books) being started. There is no consensus on that new proposal. Until there is, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria is the *active* guideline on book notability. --Francis Schonken 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of plain curiosity, I'd like to see evidence of that, specifically that the passage in question was present and substantively identical to its current wording at the pont of transition from a draft Guideline on book naming conventions to a non-draft one. But it's a moot point. It is almost ludicrously inappropriate for a non-controversial guideline on naming conventions to have a totally off-topic rider in it that attempts to set a guideline in one of the most hotly-debate spheres of Misplaced Pages, namely "notability". If this rider was present in the original draft naming convention for books, it is entirely possible that the only reason it survived is precisely because it was a hidden rider - few who would have any reason to object would ever notice it and weigh in. If it ever represented any form of consensus at all it was only a consensus among people who a) care about book naming conventions, and (not or) b) either support the vague notability rider, didn't notice it or didn't care either way. Ergo it it not a real Misplaced Pages consensus at all. But even this is moot. The existence of an active push to develop Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) demonstrates that there is in fact no consensus at all, period, that the notability rider in the naming article is valid. If it remains, I'm taking this to arbitration, because I believe the presence of the rider to be deceptive and an abuse of the Policy/Guideline formulation process and consensus mechanism. — SMcCandlish ツ 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From proposal to guideline, 09:07, 25 January 2006 — no changes to the "Note on notability criteria" section.
From the day it became guideline to today, 16:29, 23 July 2006 — no changes to the "Note on notability criteria" section.

--Francis Schonken 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But as I said, I think this is a moot point. — SMcCandlish ツ 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Further information: Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (books) § Notability criteria

Please refrain from removing content from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books). It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You reverted the *consensus* version of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria to the version you had proposed earlier today. That version of yours is not consensus, and you knew that when you reverted. For guidelines one needs a new consensus for major changes. Yours was a major change. It had no consensus. So I'm posting this warning on your user page, and will then proceed to revert the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria section to the version that had consensus when that became a guideline about half a year ago.

You're welcome to discuss other versions of that section (whether that be a temporary version until Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) becomes guideline or a more permanent solution) on the Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (books) talk page. But consensus is needed before it can be moved to the guideline page. --Francis Schonken 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cute, but a total misdirection (as to at least three claims, of consensus, my tacit agreement that consensus existed, and new edit not reflecting consensus, and possibly a forth, as to edit scope. I do in fact dispute, in more than one way, that the section in question represents any meaningful consensus, for reasons already stated and evidenced. I contend that it is someone's "pet" section and removable as such; that it is an off-topic insertion and thus subject to removal on other grounds; and that even if it had some merit at one point it has been superceded by the current Wikipedian editors' consensus on this topic (which is that the topic needs a Guideline, period, so one has been started as a Proposal; notably it is not a consensus that the rider needs editing and improvement; rather it is being replaced, to the extent its existence has even been acknowledged. To continue, I further assert that removing the rider would in fact be a consensus move. Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) would not be well on the way to becoming a Guideline if there were any consensus that the off-topic notability rider in the naming guideline already had any consensus support whatsoever. It is very notable that no one has proposed a section merger or in any other way addressed the rider as valid or worth even thinking about. It is simply being ignored. And I assert further that it is at least questionable whether it is a "major edit" to remove a small section that is more adequately covered by another article (whether that article is considered "finished" or not) that has a lot more editorial activity and interest, and replace the redundant section it with a cross-reference to the latter, as I did.

The fact that no one has even touched the rider at all since Jan. strongly supports my points that a) virtually no one who cares about notability of books is aware of it, got to debate its inclusion, or even considers it worth working on or authoritative in any way, because the topic of how to define book notability is generating quite a bit of activity on the other article; and therefore b) it reflects no consensus on the topic of book notability, period. Which is what one would expect, given that it's buried at the bottom of an article about spelling! I also dispute the notion that an approved Guideline on is also an approved Guideline on unrelated just because it happens to mention some ideas relating to how to deal with . If you are aware of another example, I'd love to see it.

PS: I'm posting most of this, with further (case-closing, in my opinion) facts, references and evidence, on the article's talk page, since otherwise the debate won't affect anyone's views other than yours and/or mine in User_talk.

— SMcCandlish ツ 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

Months later, the points I raised were never refuted or even questioned at the talk page in question, and Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) is well on the way to becoming a Guideline, meanwhile Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria was nominated two more times for removal, with the unanimous support of those who commented, and was replaced with a wordy wikilink to Misplaced Pages:Notability (books). I rest my case. One may wish to actually look into establishing what consensus actually is on whatever matter is at hand before presuming to lecture others about it. PS: The abuse of {{Test2a-n}} on my Talk page (it is intended, and instructed, to be used in series with {{Test1}} or a variant thereof) was very heavy-handed. I'm leaving it up instead of archiving it, because I think it says far more about abuse of the label "vandal" than it does about me. >;-) — SMcCandlish ツ 10:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eight ball

Gad what a mess eight ball is. I'm gearing up to rewrite it if I can figure out a logical way of doing so. Regarding you query on the section about the Mexican ruleset (where you wrote "Is there a name for this?"), I don't know of a name but I know the origin, and if I can get off my ass and do the cleanup I can take care of it. In short, after B.B.C. Co. Pool was invented, eight ball went through a number of distinct ruleset periods. One of them, which lasted for a number of years, had these exact rules. Once that is defined, it can be added that these rules are still used in Mexico.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The blackball section could probably use expansion. My take on it is that it should dispense with the "possible" ruleset language, describe the intl. std. rules, and if/where they differ mention that the APA or VNEA or BCA or whatever rules differ on this little point, and continue. Amat. variations like bank-the-eight and last-pocket should remain in a "rules variations" section. Yes? — SMcCandlish ツ 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure exactly how to do it, and I agree that "possible variations" is clunky as hell, but here's what has been percolating 1) continue the history section I started, going into the variations up to the modern era. Then define the world standardized rules. Then the standard bar/recreational rules and how they differ from the BCA (with some explication of that there is no standard because no formal ruleset, but widely followed and explain that they vary). Then we can go into game variations such as last pocket, etc.. Last pocket, by the way, is apparently very, very widely played variation in South America.--Fuhghettaboutit

I'd suggest doing the WS rules, and interspersing them with Big League differences as needed (BCA/VNEA/Blackball/APA/IPT), just to keep it shorter - might be a bit frustrating to have follow-on sections like "BCA exceptions", "VNEA exceptions", etc.; then close with a section on amat./"bar rules" variations (which will need somehow to discourage additions of "in my neighborhood..." variants; I think the present HTML comment language is probably a good start). Agreed that last-pocket is huge in Latin America; was why I added it. EVERY native Mexican, El Salvadorean, Nicaraguan, etc., that I've met plays that way (and not the "magic side pockets" way detailed earlier in the article; I'd demote that to a minor variation), and without any differences (e.g. as to 2 free scratches, etc.) It seems quite uniform. There's a bar called City Club in the Mission district of San Francisco with really great players none of whom seem to speak a word of English where what I described are the house rules. The players are from all over Latin America, quite friendly to Gringos if we can figure out the rules, and they never internally argue about the rules - these seem to be the rules they've all played with their whole lives. It's a called ball-in-pocket (not called shot) game, e.g. "cinco en está lado" however way the five gets into the designated side pocket, which I forgot to mention, so it has a bit in common with the older (pre WS) BCA rules, I think. — SMcCandlish ツ 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe it's my POV, but the way I see it the article should start with WSR as the "official rules" and then in subsequent sections instead of defining the whole rulesets, siimply state how they depart from the official rules. For instance for bar'recretaional rules (which I do think need to be prominent as they are so widely played--probably the most wide ruleset for the most common game in the U.S.) all that needs to be done, is state that (in contradistinction to official rules): wins (or not) if eight ball made on break, choice of group is decided on the break, if both groups pocketed then it's choice, no foul rules but for scratches, scratch penalty is from the kitchen (and can move object ball to foot spot if none available), most but not all venues make you call every nuance of every shot (rather than "ball and pocket"), the Player loses sometimes if he doesn't contact the eight ball when it's his object ball, eight ball has to go in "clean", and the alternating racking crap. That's may not be exhaustive but there's not much more. If those distinctions follow a treatise on the correct rules, little defining should be necessary, so the section would not need to be very long.

Doing it by defining each separate ruleset's variation for each official rule would be confusing I think, and an invitation for endless parenthetical notes. Plus, the way articles evolve, people add a one-off difference from some game to one section and then go their merry way. So then we have each official rule followed by variations from some other groups of indistinct rules, with each official rule being treated separately, some getting variations some not from the same league rules. It seems to me it would lead to an organizational mess.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Just wanted to make sure that the VNEA, etc., variations get in there, and are differenced from the mess of "bar pool" variations; many of them predate the WSR by a long way. :-) NB: "Rules variations" or "variants" seems like a good section heading, perhaps with a three-"=" subsection header for each set discussed? I'm thinking in terms of the promised but presently vaporware article "templates" at WP:CUE. I guess eight-ball is as good a place as any to start developing that. NB: Also thinking that the "rack" article could really be folded entirely or almost entirely into the articles about the various games it covers. I think this sort of opens the more general question of what to do about equipment articles. My present take is that I'm not sure we actually need articles about cues, chalk, racking, tables, etc., rather than general mentions at Billiards (side point: Should we move it to Cue sport now?) and more specific details under particular games (nine-ball, etc.) or game-type (carom billiards, snooker, etc.) articles. This is probably a better pack o' questions for Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cue sports but I don't see any reason to not come to a two-person initial mini-consensus on the direction here. — SMcCandlish ツ 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that subtopic articles should only be taken so far, but I don't think articles on specific items of equipment or specific things such as racking are too far. Let's look at rack (billiards) for example (and of course the elephant in the room is that I wrote the majority of that article, but I'm not just being protective): First and foremost, I can see someone coming to Misplaced Pages interested in how racking is done across many billiard games. Second, I can see someone coming to Misplaced Pages seeking clarity because of the confusing multi-use of the word (physical object; various types; used to describe the balls in starting position; the verb for placing the balls, etc.). Third, there is a quite limited number of specific objects and things in billiards of which racking is one. We don't and never will need an article on the foot spot--how much history can be found on that topic? How much room for expansion? It's a blackhole of content, but when it comes to racking, breaking, english, I think they can all have subarticles if someone is willing to take the time to write them (citing ulitmately to reliable sources:-). There is much room for expansion of racking, from other games, to the history of it, to primary manufacturers, to the Sardo tight rack (and the controversy that has arisen in professional play over its use), etc. Or take cuetips, they have a fascinating history and there has been much written about them. Did you known leather cue tips were invented in debtor's prison by Captain Francois Mingaud around 1823 who was later accused of sorcery for the amazing things he was able to do on a billiards table using them? Regarding cue sports, I have not really been following the debate. I'm not too concerned since if it's done or not done, the information will be retained and having been following the debate too much. If you have consensus, go for it.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the info will just have to be a little duplicative (in that the details on how to rack for eight-ball specifically need to be in the eight-ball article as well, etc. — SMcCandlish ツ 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Out-standing: Actually making the eight-ball article cover everything described, and as-described, above. — SMcCandlish ツ 06:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Polish interwiki

OK, sorry. I thought that Irish standard pool and english 8-ball are the same, looking at the pictures. Aren't they? Can you explain me the difference between these two billiard games? Thanks for information, Maciek17 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They are very, very similar, which is why Irish standard pool has been slated for merging into eight-ball#UK just before eight-ball#UK forks off into the blackball (pool). Irish standard pool is not quite the same as UK-rules eight-ball - different enough that the interwiki is misinformation - but similar enough that the articles can be merged, and handled with simply an "Irish variation" section, if you see what I mean. Dealing with all of that is, I think, the 2nd-highest priority on my WP to-do list, so it will be taken care of very soon. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Out-standing: Eight-ball ⇒ Blackball (pool) split has taken place, but the Irish standard pool merge in the latter remains to be done. — SMcCandlish ツ 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think when I clicked on the template it only brought me to the image, and not the description and talk pages. The link is back now. The template's been around for 10 months or so, and I'm surprised I'm only seeing it for the first time. I was a bit doubtful about it, because I can see some users pasting it in to guillotine an argument - but it's only an indicator with nothing final about it.--Shtove 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Guillotine usage should be reverted and criticized. I think the template itself should be udpated with a note that such use would be abuse. I think it does already say that if anyone thinks a tagged topic is not resolved they should just remove the tag. — SMcCandlish ツ 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Out-standing: Better template documentation. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Blackball

Resolved – Split is done.

Hello Stanton,

My interest is in 'blackball' pool so I'd just like to offer assistance should you require it on that particular topic.

There are various articles on my sites relating to the subject which could perhaps prove useful. For example..... http://www.blackball.co.uk/articles.php?cat_id=1

At present I provide around 150 free 8ball pool related sites. Mostly for pool leagues and the UK pool community.

As you will know blackball was intended to unify the game of pool as it is played on the 'small table' (generally 7ft X 4ft). These tables are of course commonly found in pubs and clubs in which larger tables cannot be accomodated. Plus the game is now played to this set of rules at international level and sanctioned by the WPA.

Unification has not yet been fully acheived in that two sets of (small table) rules still exist side by side.... blackball and what are commonly called 'world rules', as administered by the WEPF.

Anyway, Stanton, if I can be of any assistance do please let me know.

Best regards,

Bill Hunter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ukblackball (talk • contribs) 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Bill! We do indeed need some help in this area. Probably the biggest article change upcoming is the forking of the eight-ball article into eight-ball and blackball (pool). When I or someone else from WP:CUE gets around to that, the new blackball article will need knowledgeable review. My present take on the subject is that the article should detail the WPA blackball rules, as the more pre-eminent/global, and address WPEF variations separately in asides or in a subsection, but generally consider the entire English-style eight-ball game to be "blackball", as a classifier. I think the end result for the reader would be more confusing if WPA blackball had an article, and WEFP "quasi-blackball" remained a subsection of the eight-ball article. Interested in your thoughts on this. I am of course aware that the WEPF ruleset predates the WPA one, but the WPA as an organization predates WEPF by a long way, and has a more global scope.

In the interim, I invite you to join WikiProject Cue sports and to see what you can do with the WEPF stub article, which I think has only existed for about 2 days.

— SMcCandlish ツ 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Out-standing: Blackball (pool) not yet split from eight-ball. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Split done. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SMcCandlish! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Out-standing: I still need to actually install this.

Interesting

I am writing Baseball pocket billiards. In my search for sources I came across this patent application for a new game called "BLAZZ". Thought you might find it interesting (not the game itself, but the existence and methodology of the patent application).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The format it is nice, the way Google does it in that PDF frame (well, nice if you have a PDF plugin installed, but I would think most of us do at this point). The text itself was also interesting in that it indicated that the 1974 ver. of the BCA rulebook includes games not listed in the later versions. Time to look for a copy! — SMcCandlish ツ 16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you pointed that out. Can't find the 1974 edition, but earlier editions would likely have the same different material right? I just ordered the 1970 edition from amazon.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And I just got the '71! I think we were both doing that pretty much simultaneously. Anyway, yeah, I figure any version at least as old as 1974 should have that material. I've been meaning to add something somewhere about the differences between the World Std.ized Rules and the old ones, anyway, so that'll come in handy for that as well. — SMcCandlish ツ 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Out-standing: Putting blazz into WP:CUEGAMES under "probably non-notable", but with notes about this ref. and the Shamos one mentioned elsewhere, in case it is later deemed worthy of an article. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Non-authoritative

The problem is we have nothing better. My recollection of all this (based on bits and bobs that float about in conversations over the years) is that there is no real cast iron source on the origins - hence why it is regarded as a "accepted story" rather than fact. How do we source that? ! SFC9394 16:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, cite books about snooker than mention such details and say something, anything, about where they got the info from. I'm not saying the organization is inherently untrustworthy, by any means, just that they're obviously summarizing something else, and not bothering to cite it. They had to get the story from somewhere, right? — SMcCandlish ツ 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I will have a browse, I do have one book which I will have a look at later in the week which may detail it - the thing is I don't know if such sources would say - this "story" really does seem to be some sort of handed down word of mouth line that dithered in army circles and snooker circles up until there was wider interest from the 50's onwards - at that point those word of mouth stories were then just recounted as "fact". SFC9394 17:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If the books just say "this, by the way, is an aprocryphal story", that in itself is a citable fact to add to the article. :-) My issue with the World Snooker mini-article is that's just in a void; no author, no source, nothin'. — SMcCandlish ツ 17:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I guess I am in one of those "If I am going to do it, I ma going to do it right" moods! Also, it is observable that the main failing point of FA candidates is sub-standard reffing. In the past with previous articles I have added major contributions to I have never really bothered with it all, but this is on a "nice" subject - the BBC site coupled with a few of the broadsheets can just about cover everything online (I am also trying to provide Waybackmachine versions where possible, and where not submit the sites to archive.org (through the alexa site) to ensure they will be archived in the next wee while and so at some future point the whole thing has a degree of future proofing about it. SFC9394 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Resolved

On 2 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William A. Spinks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. We should have a special template for first timers with champagne and fireworks. I must admit it was the pic that swung it, but I couldn't go with the alternative suggestion which was too much in the style of Do you care: "...that John Doe was born in 1919" or "...that trees are a type of plant". Yomangani 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Danke! Yeah, that super-short alt. suggestion really made me cringe. Was that from a regular DYK admin, or just some random passer-through? — SMcCandlish ツ 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A regular. The alternative suggestion they made for another nom was very good, and I've put it in the next update. I just think they missed the point on yours. Yomangani 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, pobody's nerfect! Maybe after a while they start to blend into one another... — SMcCandlish ツ 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cue Sports?

Hi,

I learned a new term today, thanks to the move of billiards to its new location. Since it seems from the talk page that you championed this, I thought I'd stop by to let you know. This doesn't constitute an objection, or anything, but I must concur with Robert West's observation that I wouldn't have guessed that article name in five trillion years. If you're keeping any kind of informal measure on the currency of the term, lump me in with the confused. In it's own way, this is very fitting, as I'm quite bad at all forms of the game! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are bored and read the entire debate there (it is quite tedious, I warn you), I addressed West's issue that you raise here also. No one is suggesting that the average joe on the street says, "hey, Jane, let's go have a beer and play cue sports". The term is simply a classifier, and with this particular topic a disambiguator, because "billiards" means at least 4 different (conflicting) things to different people. The English folks were quite irritated that the main, general (now-) "Cue sport" article was (back then) "Billiards", because to them that word means "the game of English billiards, and no other". Meanwhile many but not all Americans interpret the term to mean "carom billiards games, as a class", as do many non-native English speakers. Other Americans mean " ツ 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stanton, if I might chime in. While I agree with your summary above, I am concerned about its usage in the text of articles. I think we need it as a disambuation term for organizational purposes (I think you've heard me say this a few times but I don't think I've ever embellished), but I think its use in article prose should be minimized as much as possible for the very reasons detailed in Xoloz's post above. Oh, and on a complete tangent, remeber that patent url we looked at for the game Blazz? Well get this: the game actually has an entry in Shamos.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, are we actually gonna argue for once? >;-) Gimme some examples of over-use, perhaps. I stand by the sourcing I did in the rename debate - it's a legit term, used (internationally) in the industry, and remains the only truly non-ambiguous blanket term for the whole shebang. I'm also trying to be sensitive to User:Alai and other Brits about "billiard", without going too far in that direction. I'm thinking (favorably, I mean) of usages like the text in William A. Spinks that says "his lasting contribution to cue sports" - billiard chalk really does seem to apply across the whole board. And note I didn't call it "cue sports chalk". Heh. If there are other, dumber, examples I doubt I'd mind undoing them. There probably are some, but I'm not remembering any of them (or probably would have already dealt with it!) I tend to treat "pocket billiards" the same way. The industry has preferred this term for almost a century, but because it isn't used much by "real people" I try to only use it as a classifier in reference to the table type (e.g "snooker is a form of pocket billiards" - but emphatically not of pool, per se). I've probably poohed that screwtch a couple of times too, but I'm sure those can be edited away over time. Jist: Not trying to be particularly argumentative, but not aware of any particular, egregious "industry terminology geeking" instances. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think either you're reading more into my post than I meant, or I implied something I didn't mean to with loose writing. I've only noticed its use in prose crop up a few times and the one for which I objected to I edited it out (I forget which article). I don't really like the beginning of the main article cuesports, but I haven't thought of a good change. What I meant to say, is that we should strive to keep in mind that it shouldn't be used generically all over for the reasons Xoloz brought up, and we should keep an eye out for its overuse, without implying that it's currently a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right! I do remember the revert you are talking about; it was "back when", but I saw it and thought "oh, yeah, there wasn't really any reason at all to use that longwinded term there". Heh. Anyway, there probably are a few unnecessary uses of "cue sports" (and "pocket billiards") here and there. I'm with you that Xoloz's and (Robert West's) concerns have a valid ultimate base. If I go to the Efren Reyes article and see "is a Filipino professional pocket billiards cue sport player..." I'm going to cough up my own skull. >;-) I do think the terms have some value in introductory materials about the actual sports, as such, e.g. snooker, but thereafter do not need to be used in such articles at all. Also think the utterly general, all-inclusive stuff like Cue sport, Glossary of cue sports terms and Category:Cue sports are properly named, but would resist renaming billiard table and billiard balls, because literally no one actually uses phrases like "cue sports balls", even among industry marketing flacks. It's one thing to use cue sports as a generic classifier, but quite another to impose it as name, per se. Are our wavelengths any better synched now? If not lemme know. E.g. I'm not certain you'd agree with using the c.s. term to explicate what snooker is, for example, or concur with my use of it in William A. Spinks. — SMcCandlish ツ 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're pretty jibed. Note that if I ever get around to writing it (I'm not touching it unless and until I get the Stein/Rubino encyclopedia back), I would call an article on the history of the sport, "History of billiards" because that is what it is called historically. Of course, writing all these articles with history is laying the groundwork for that eventual article, which, by the way, is the best prospect I see in the subject area for an article that would lend itself to being an FA.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur on all points, I think. "History of cue sports" is kind of plausible, but only from a late 20th to early 21st century perspective, and just doesn't sound right, even if Category:Cue sports does; the latter is a thoroughly modern classifier. I think I'd only go with "History of cue sports" if the article ended with "And this month's tournament winners are..." Heh. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this discussion and thought I would add my 2-cents (which is too late since the matter has been resolved). The U.S. Patent Office has been dealing with descriptively classifying cue sports for a very long time and probably to as great of extent as any other organization. They actually settled on calling it "billards or pool", which supports the idea that the term "billiards" or the term "pool" is not sufficient by itself to convey the topic name, even in the United States. I could not determine how the United Kingdom patent office handled the name issue. The analogy to water sports is good. In reply to a post above, if there is a desire to modify the beginning of the cue sports article, this description might provide some ideas. -- Jreferee 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; may come in handy, as someone has tagged the main article's intro as insufficient. — SMcCandlish ツ 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Billiards pics

On another topic, any ideas where I could get a picture to upload at commons of a leather shake bottle? Would be useful in a number of articles—kelly pool of course, and I am 80% done with a write up of bottle pool.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just found my digital camera (now if I could just find the box that has my Shamos book in it...), and I happen to have a shake bottle (leather not plastic, though it is not an antique), and modern plastic pills/peas, so I guess I can do it after I charge up the batteries. Have intended to produce a boatload of pics for commons, on every other billiardy thing I can think of, but have been doing other stuffs — still working on William Hoskins in a sandbox, and have been building (maybe 15% done) perhaps the most badazz template of all time (a unified WikiProject talk page banner that can serve multiple projects at once, intead of having 5 on a page; initially inspired by the fact that we (WP:CUE, I mean) don't have the human resources for our own Assessment Dept. but could make use of the ones at WP:SPORTS, WP:BIO... long story about where it's going beyond that, to do with increasing community complaints about the "over-templatification" of talk pages, boneheaded attempts to hide all such templates in a "drawer" virtually no one will ever open, and so on; like I say, long story), and various other time sponges. So I just kind of backburnered the pics idea, but if you need that one now, I don't see why I can't produce one post-haste. Gimme a pointer to the draft bottle pool article, and I'll see if I can put together a pic or two that very directly address it (vs. Kelly pool). I don't yet have a set of clay balls for that old-tyme feel, though have been eyeing a few sets on eBay from time to time, much less antique peas. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As with most articles, I am writing it offline. Note though that the bottle in bottle pool is a prop used in the game itself and peas aren't used at all. The bottle is placed upside down on the center spot and is a carom target that scores point if knocked over by either of the two cue balls used in the game after caroming off a ball, but loses a player their turn if knocked over by either of the two object ball in the game. There's more to it than that, but that's the gist. A picture of the bottle upside down at the center of a pool (with no view of pov background, people posters etc.) would be ideal.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can do, but I just found my 2006 BCA rulebook, and it says 1 cue ball, and the #1 and #2 object balls. — SMcCandlish ツ 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

MoS type stuff

"Thou art God" - the greeting used in Stranger in a Strange Land.
Dates - there is near consensus about delinking years, however one or two of those that were anti, were vociferously so, mainly User:Rebecca, who has blocked users and done "admin rollback" on their edits, to the disgust of many other admins. WP:MOSNUM points out that context is key, it's as far as we could get with unanimity, with mere consensus we could have maybe gone a little further. I have certainly de-linked many hundreds of years with two complaints (both from "antis" in the long long debates) and a handful of queries. You can certainly point to WP:MOSNUM to say that default lining is not policy.
Combination links - I certainly agree with calcium carbonate, I suspect the place names depend partly on display style. I us pop-ups, so I see the link, but the browser hint is too far away for me. If you see underlines then that and the comma probably make the two links clearly seperate, if not the comma can appear (psychologically) blue. Also in the article you cite, since California is already linked to, the argument for leaving it unlinked grows stronger. I did think there was some guidance on this, but haven't been able to find it recently. Rich Farmbrough, 12:46 3 March 2007 (GMT).

I'd completely forgotten! Been a long time...
Hmm. My read of WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT are that it's kind of a toss-up. Darn.
WP:CONTEXT suggests strongly that using one link is better, but doesn't go very deep into the topic - that part could have been only intended to address on such situation, not all of them, so its again not very authoritative. Ah well.

— SMcCandlish ツ 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography articles by quality statistics modification request

Resolved

I noticed that you edited the Biography articles by quality statistics template on February 18, 2007 that thought that you might be able to reply to my request that I posted here. -- Jreferee 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't know a thing about KingbotK's workings; I only just installed it into my AWB today! The only effect I've had on the template in question is narrowing its left-most label field so that the template fits inside right-side infoboxes again (and even this trick I borrowed from another, similarly-formed, though very different-purpose, template that used a similar table. What you ask for seems like a good idea (esp. given I'm a bio article assessor myself, though I stick to B-class and lower; not sure my understanding of the criteria are truly deep enough yet for me to be determining something as A-class). But, I don't know enough about the background code to make the changes you are seeking (at least not without possibly breaking something). I'm sure someone else reading that talk page does, though. — SMcCandlish ツ 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My warning of 71.183.11.205

Have a look at this person's history, he had edited the page twice when I came along and has since replaced and blanked several pages, I assumed bed faith because the page was being deleted progressively. Thank you for your concern but for tests (edits that change content in good faith) I do scale back the warning I give. I'm glad you assume good faith, but Adding insulting content is not good faith, and v3 is the minimum level that assumes bad faith. I'm sorry if you dissagree with this but I feel justified. Adam McCormick 03:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do disagree, strongly:

User vandalizes twice in rapid succession (first two edits ever), which counts as one vandalism since not warned between them:

19:55, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Albinism (→Causes)

19:57, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Albinism (→Types of human albinism)

You warned, using a level-3 warning...:

20:00, March 4, 2007 Alanbly (Talk | contribs) (Warned about Vandalism)

...yet user had not done anything at all other than the one vandalism until:

20:16, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) List of rabbit breeds (→British Giant)

(Those are my local timestamps, not UTC, but copy-pasted directly from history & contribs.)

It isn't right to ABF based on two edits. The assumption did turn out to apparently be a correct one, but it was simply an assumption, and if the user continues to do this, but is not warned properly (in numerical order), it is likely that AIV won't do anything about him/her/it, which is why I fixed the warning levels. The numbers in the uw- templates are not severity levels of infraction, they are counts of warnings in the last week.

PS: The fact that an edit deleted something or added something dumb or insulting doesn't necessarily mean bad faith. Lots of especially younger noobs goof off like this when they first get here because they don't really understand yet and can't believe they can actually change things but why not do so for kicks. I'm not saying that this is certainly this user's modus operandi, but it could be. The fact the the user tried to remove the warnings suggests someone possibly embarassed - outright malicious vandals rarely bother. I guess we'll see if he/she continues to do this sort of stuff and gets blocked. :-) Anyway, I'm not trying to bite your ankles, just trying to help your uw tagging actually eventually get the desired results at AIV.

— SMcCandlish ツ 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that there will be no action until someone is malicious four times, I had no idea that this was the user's first edit but I'll check before leaving a message next time. I'll just stick to uw-bv for easily identifiable abuse then instead of v3, I will endeavor to give new editors a long leash. Thank you for your concern Adam McCormick 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Keen (n.b. I didn't find anything uncivil about either side of the dicussion). Minor word of warning though: Over-use of uw-bv gets people upset too. It's better to go through the 4 step process. AIV rarely rejects a ban request that follows that process. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my adoptees asked me about this discussions, so please allow me to interject (a month after the fact). While I agree that starting at level 3 is too strong here, there is a case for using {{uw-test2}}, which was intended partly for those who make an random edit to a page, then revert it themselves. If self-reverts are good enough for a test2, then this should qualify as well. Thus, literally, the numbers in the uw- templates are not "counts of warnings in the last week", at least not all of the time (I suspect it's more of a generalization anyway). Another situation I can think of is if someone makes five deletions over five days; it's likely that you can start at level 3 at that point. Xiner (talk, a promise) 15:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I can buy that. In the former case I think I would still use uw-test1, since not everyone agrees with "jumping" to uw-test2 just because there's been a self-revert (if anything, I think self-corrective action militates against it, and that uw-test1 should be upgraded to also mention self-reverts). In that latter case I think I would do:

===Your XX Month YYYY deletion edit to the ] article==
{{subst:Welcome2}}
{{subst:uw-delete1}} ~~~~
===Your XY Month YYYY deletion edit to the ] article==
{{subst:uw-delete2}} ~~~~
===Your XZ-ZZ Month YYYY deletion edits to the ], ] and ] articles==
{{subst:uw-delete3}} ~~~~
Edit summary: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, but please do not remove material from articles without discussion first; it is considered vandalism.

(Minus the welcome parts if not a new user.)

Just to have a record in place of the deletion activities for AIV investigating admins. I also agree that the blatant vandal tag is sometimes appropriate, such as when an article is replaced en masse by a string of profanity aimed at a specific person and that sort of thing. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I started editing wikipedia again, if you don't mind.

? You hardly need to notify me what you are doing... I really hope that won't consist of filing more frivolous AfDs, however. — SMcCandlish ツ 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bottle pool

The pics were invaluable. Much appreciated. Was a lot of work. Tell me what you think. Up for dyk here.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ehhhxcellent! I was expecting a 1-2 source restatement of the BCA book pages, and here's fourteen sources, incl. Sinclair Lewis even. Nice. A yeoman's job! PS: Did you try the bi-level image trick like I used in three-ball? For those with thick glasses it might work better. — SMcCandlish ツ 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! If you look at my replies to you on my talk page, I looked at three ball and didn't see what you were talking about. Is it possible it was removed? By the way, regarding Sisyphus, I hate to remind you of this but language in direct quotes never gets wikified (see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links)#Quotation. By the way, I'm turning in right now so I won't see any other messages until tomorrow.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The 3B article: I mean that I inlined the closer-up version of the pic in the article and then in the caption I linked to the wider-angle shot, so that the balls are a little more visible if you glance at the picture, while the more expansive view of the table is available if you really want to study the setup. As for wikilinking in quotations, the weird thing is I was just reading this stuff about a day ago and it said that there wasn't actually any consensus on that point at all. But it wasn't in that particular policypage, though. The two pages are thus obviously out-of-synch with each other as to consensus on that issue. I wasn't actually looking for details on that point, but more about date linking. I can't for the life of me remember where it was now, but to paraphrase it said "some editors think that material inside quotations should never be wikilinked, while a countervailing view point is that if anything in a quotation might be unclear it should certainly be linked, because this is a wiki and an encyclopedia, and it should be as helpful as possible to the reader." W/o finding that again, I have no idea which view might be more current. I feel torn on it myself. I think the average 2007 (vs. 1927, when Greek and Latin material was de rigeur in any education) reader will not know that word or even know enough to look for its eponymous namesake, while I also think it looks funny and out of place to have the link inside the quote. I guess, revert it - people know how to use a dictionary, after all, be it online or off. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 05:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Thank you for your unsolicited comments. In response, it's necessary to note that the man's rationale for not accepting the proper subhead was "I wrote the article." One might ask: What does that mean? Why is he saying that? Any reasonable observer would conclude he is asserting ownership, saying his edits supersede those of other editors.

In this light, of course, your WP:DICK remark was needlessly insinuating, to be polite.

Finally, many editors have trepidation about new messages. That's because people are slow to compliment and quick to complain. I hope you can see why ascribing trepidation solely to those receiving the message paints a selective and incomplete picture. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If you new issues at some other point, please do communicate them. --69.22.254.111 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not his rationale for not accepting what you believe was an improved edit. Here's the quote: "Those are not references because they were not used as references (I wrote the article; please see the page history)." I.e. he was saying "I should know, since I'm the one that put them there". He then proceeds to explain to you in quite a bit of detail what his actual rationale is. "I wrote the article" wasn't even part of the rationale, it was a side note). And yes, I'm aware that it is pretty WP:DICKish to mention WP:DICK. I don't do it often, and I try to do it humorously. Maybe that wasn't conveyed well in your case - sorry! — SMcCandlish ツ 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why this is so important to us an apparent third party. Please understand: For that person to say that certain things weren't References because he didn't use them as references implies that either no one else used them as references (which I, for one, certainly had), or that anyone else who used them as references didn't matter. And really, to say, "I wrote the article" does a disservice to everyone else who wrote that article. Thank you for understanding, and for the op to respond. --69.22.254.111 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

Resolved

Ah, what is this supposed to mean? If you're referring to me, note that (1) The project was MfD'd first and (2) I didn't have anything to do with it. It appears to be just a coincidence. If you are referring to me, I'd request that you make the appropriate correction, thanks. Herostratus 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't follow you. I'm defending Misplaced Pages:Service awards and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Awards from a concerted attack. I'm on your side! Where does it look like I'm not? I don't think I've referred to you at all, other than obliquely as something like "the original creator of the page" or whatnot. While I did make a mistake in there (I mistook User:Dev920 for a WikiProject Awards opponent when he/she is in fact a supporter, and fiddled with my text to fix that mistake) I'm hardly attacking you! Just the opposite. It pretty well ticks me off that the page is under attack, after a 50/50 public opinion almost a year ago followed with nothing but constructive and increasing community participation. I'm your ally in this. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I am truly sorry, I misread you altogether, my apologies. Something seems to be up at WikiProject Awards but I'm not up on that. Nevermind. Herostratus 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Looks like the MfD is going very well (from our perspective). — SMcCandlish ツ 04:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Billiards

No, I don't play billiards (although I did play some pool in college - not really the same, I know). The reference is actually somewhat more obscure than that. Ajwain is an Indian spice similar to cumin or caraway, and is often known in the English speaking world as carom, or carom seed. Although it can be difficult to find, I prefer it to more readily available substitutes because it has (in my opinion) a slightly more complex flavor (I'm a snob, I know). At any rate, it seemed like an obscure enough choice of pseudonym that I wouldn't encounter other editors with names like "Carom15" and "xCaromx" - the connection to billiards, snooker, etc., did not occur to me until somewhat later. Carom 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! I'm actually quite a spice "freak", so I am curious what the lesser substitutes are. Cumin? Turmeric? — SMcCandlish ツ 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The most common substitutes are cumin and caraway, although dried thyme can be used in pinch. Carom 19:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! I like both cumin and caraway, so I'll have to give carom a try. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Considering what a goldmine Shamos' encyclopedia is, I picked up another book by him. Wow! You want an overview of the entire sport, you have to get this. Pool: History, Strategies and legacies (Amazon listing, if you're interested).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. Just ordered one (for $7, not $64, heh). — SMcCandlish ツ 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:merger of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/List_of_stubs

Hi SMcC (Stanton? I always thought your name was Scott!) - the "List of stubs" was created as an easy way of keeping track of all the stub types (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Archive_7#Compact_list_of_stubs). Judging by the comments at the time, I'm surprised it still exists, but going by the number of userpages linking to it presumably it has some use. The problem is trying to keep it updated. Perhaps it might be prudent to hold off on a merger until we've worked out how to cut the main "Stub types" list down to a more loadable size...? Grutness...wha? 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Stanton. I'm sure there are some Scott McCandlishes out there somewhere of course. Anyway, as for the merge it's just a tagged proposal. I wasn't meaning to just go do it in 5 minutes or anything. :-) The thing to me was that (and yeah, I'm surprised one of these still exists too), the two pages seem to serve precisely the same function, and keeping them both up-to-date seems rather unlikely to happen. Until I updated it just now, one of them was already a month or so out-of-date, meanwhile the mergefrom target article appears to be being very regularly updated. But, I could be completely missing something, and maybe their purposes are subtly different? — SMcCandlish ツ 05:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in the Mosconi Page

I do not understand why you suppressed the section I added on "similar events". There will never be 100 links as the similar refers to the Ryder Cup like event opposing continents and mainly the USA and Europe. The article refers to the Mosconi as the Ryder Cup as a template for the competition. There is therefore a logic in linking other event on the same format or opposing different continents. I realise that you may have been unaware of the logic I gave to this section. If this is a a problem of precision I understand. I will call this section. "Others events opposing continents". BestGpeilon 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Something like that would probably work (and no I wasn't aware of the logic, since it wasn't in the edit summary.) — SMcCandlish ツ 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:High school sports associations in the United States

Resolved – Moot issue.

You added a speedy renaming template to Category:High school sports associations in the United States, but the nomination was never completed (needs to be added to the speedy section at WP:CFD). As it was nominated a long time back, I've removed the tags. If you want to renominate it, and have any problems with the inaptly named CFD "speedy" process, please let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was in there; someone objected to this along with a zillion other consistency renames on the silly basis that it was a UK vs. US English fight (given that I'm an American, you can see why I think that was silly). I just gave up on the issue. Whoever dumped it out of speedy didn't remove the speedy tag, methinks. Either that or I just forgot to add this cat. to the group speedy rename nom. Either way, it's a dead issue. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the rule was that things American were supposed to be spelled wrongly^WAmericanly. Ah well, better luck next time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bigger issue than that, but I'm not sure I want to get into it again. A lot of people like to get hot around the collar about this. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikiworld template?

Resolved – Moved back to original talk page to keep the thread consolidated.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to in the message you left on my talk page. I'm not new to Misplaced Pages -- I've been a constructive editor and community member here since sometime in 2005, and I don't run around deleting things willy-nilly... Can you clarify? Killdevil 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Double-checking to make sure I'm not in error. Yep here it is - you deleted all of the documentation from this template. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. You're right. That template was added to article talk on the Dinosaur page, which I help maintain. I was archiving discussions on that talk page, and I suppose I must have clicked through to the template page somehow. Killdevil 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Billiards Page

Resolved – (self-resolving commentary)

Great work! I will try to make some time to look at the references. MichaelJHuman 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keen. — SMcCandlish ツ 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strickland

Resolved – Moved to User talk:MichaelJHuman

Let me know if that's an improvement. I removed much of the reference to specific obscenties. I think the link to breaking of the cue, as well as Strickland on Strickland should fortify my points. I was unsure about mentioning of talking during matches, but I thought it was noteworthy...no other pro player I have seen talks as much during money matches.

MichaelJHuman 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As said at article talk page, anything that can be reliably sourced (i.e. from Billiards Digest or some other reputable, longstanding publication, not from "Jim Bob's Pool Blog") is probably good material; the Mosconi Cup article already sourced should probably be re-read for details, and honestly there's more said about him at the Michaela Tabb article, almost, than in his own. I think some of the details should be restored. I wouldn't bother with removing obscenities just because they are obscenities; WP:CENSOR and all. If they can be reliably sourced. I do think Strickland is one of the real "characters" of the game (though I think it is too PoV for the article to boldly state this without directly quoting someone notable as having said it). Wouldn't want his article to be too dry, if you see what I mean. By the same token I wouldn't add that he called Efren Reyes a "jerk" in 1982 in a pool hall in Tokyo, just because Reyes said so in a ten-year old interview. Picking fights with fans at televised events is noteworthy. Getting in the face of other players and the ref during World Championship Matches is too. Sharking on his own time while on the road or being testy at minor events really isn't encyclopedic. If it was, hell, I would have an article here, as a "notable cranky pool player". Heh. I think we should aim for the article to be colorful in direct proportion to that of Earl's antics, while always being sourcedly factual and not making PoV judgements. Even calling him "controversial" or something to that effect should be sourced (i.e. cite the controversy and those labelling it as such). These articles, esp. on Strickland and on O'Sullivan, and... it's coming back to me now — I think I was thinking of Marlon Manalo as another article with serious problems like this — tend to wander too far into WP:NOT#SOAP and {{Magazine}} territory. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page

Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list.

The instructions for getting or receiving a coach have changed. It's now a self-help process: just look for a coach from the list of coaches, and contact one. See the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching. Good luck.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strickland pics

Hi :)

AZ Billiards replied to my request to use their photo of Strickland. Here's what they said:

>Use any of the ones that are credited to Diana Hoppe. Just make sure that you credit her as 'Diana Hoppe - Pool Pics by Hoppe'.

>Thanks, >Mike

Does that make it sound like we can source their photo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelJHuman (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Probably. Do you have a last name and contact info for "Mike"? If you get me the details I can take care of this at the image page (use e-mail - see e-mail link at top of my userpage; other people's e-mail addresses shouldn't ever be put into WP pages, even talk pages, since spammers can harvest them, even from article histories!) If you want to do the license tagging and stuff yourself, a good trick is do something like 'Mike Smith, contactable at the site "AZBilliards.com", with a username of "MSmith"', so e-mail address harvesters won't recognize it as an e-mail address but any human could figure it out. But anyway, I know how to source pics with the right licensing templates, so it might be easier for me to deal with it. You could just forward me a copy of the e-mail. Might be good for more than one of us to have a copy of it anyway, just in case!

Oh! Can you write back and ask him if this means we can use other photos (of other players and stuff) by same photographer? Their "any of the ones" language suggests this, but I think we should know for certain. That could come in very, very handy. Or I can do it; either way. — SMcCandlish ツ 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't grok

Resolved – Just a miscommunication.

What's up? I see you found cribbage. As you see, I couldn't find any sources but pool sources describing the game:-( Don't understand your recent edit "Twiddle to avoid idea that the link went to card game". The link does go to the card game!--Fuhghettaboutit 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No, it was "to card game". That is, the original text said ], so I futzed it so it could say ] so it wouldn't look like the article was directing someone to the generic Card game article. See what I mean? Just a usability tweak. — SMcCandlish ツ 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Got ya. Up for dyk here.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

BCA books

Resolved – Discussion is at other talk page.

Hey we cross-posted. Answering your recent quiry on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And edit conflicted! I'll drop by your page in a sec. — SMcCandlish ツ 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic.

Resolved – Moved to the other user's talk page for some pointers to WP:ATT, not to mention WP:NPA.

I do not see how my work is unsourced or does not meat other criteria.

if you have obsessive compulsive disorder or some other mental derangment which means you don't like people touching your perfect (oh, the lie) work, GET A LIFE.

It seems that what ever you do to the article, thats fine. Anybody else? NOT ON.. Correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtorey (talk • contribs) 07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Hello SMcCandlish,

Thanks for your edits to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I'm afraid I reverted the larger one, though; I have some sympathy with some of its points, but I felt it changed the guidance too much to be implemented without being discussed on the talk page first. (I've found it advisable to be more cautious in editing the MoS than ordinary articles, because it affects all the other articles, and people tend to quote it as gospel in edit disputes).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood, sorta. I think my monster justification/rationale/explanation post just made at the article talk page may have come off as a little more testy than intended, but I hadn't seen your note here (someone else left a comment after you, below, and I only noticed that one at the time). My main concern was that the reversion was so total instead of selective - you even reverted some simple typo and grammar fixes. But I'm sure it'll all sort out. As for caution, well, I take WP:BOLD to heart pretty much. There is nothing sacrosanct about guideline pages; I edit them all over the place, generally with positive reactions and results. As it was a pretty big set of edits, I'm not angry about the revert or anything, I just expected I'd be reverted on specific points that were contentious, while the more obvious stuff would be left in place. The end result is a sprawling set of subtopics on the talk page, but oh well. Talk archives exist for a reason, after all. Lastly, the fact that people quote it like some form of holy writ is precisely why I think it needs these changes and fast. For a good example of the ridiculous problems being caused, please see Talk:List of redundant expressions#Re-inserting my changes and the revert at issue. — SMcCandlish ツ 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law AfD

Of course you're right that that would be an awful argument for notability! I didn't mean to imply otherwise--I meant it as a swipe at those who keep trying to have it deleted (or to try to have their own 'variant' added to the entry). Their very attention to the article argues against their own point. I made an actual argument on the first AfD but now am a bit annoyed, I suppose. To my mind the Washington Post article and a Google search establish that WP:N is met, and the two media uses of the entry establish its usefulness. JJL 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<grin style="sheepish:very;" /> Do'h! Sorry, I'd totally misunderstood your point. I was a heavy player in the Notability Wars of Nov. 2006 - Feb. 2007, so I am probably a little oversensitive when it comes to misuse (real or apparent-to-me) of WP:N in AfD. Anyway, I totally agree with you on this stuff. Both of the AfDs were in utter bad faith, and the Speedy Keeps were completely appropriate. If you are bored and want a fun read, check out the talk page of the user who had their pet "Criticisms" OR section deleted. — SMcCandlish ツ 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Template Esoteric

Hi SMcCandlish, I saw your 'parser functions' being incorporated in the template, though I think it is not always enough to understand selectors: there can also be intricate handling e.g. by complex css etc by the choices being made. I therefore think 'setup' should remain in as well: it's the best word as it can as well mean the general concept, as a particular handling on some lines of code. I had already suggested a renewed template and as others I think the name should be changed, to 'Intricate' which appears to be the middle ground between 'Complex' or 'Conditional logic' as has also been suggested, on the low end, and AzaToth's concern for the more esoteric templates. Would you mind inspecting the suggested template at Template Talk:Esoteric#Move? and the comments thereunder including the one I just placed there with once more a request to unprotect, and please leave a note there; else we're going to get stuck with 'esoteric' forever, though few people seem to be hapy with its current name. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 17 Mar 2007 05:27 (UTC)

Template:Uw-delete3

Thank you for fixing it. It was driving me nuts and I could not figure it out. Kukini 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure which of my 4 recent edits to the page in question that refers to, but glad at least one of them was useful. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 08:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

/NG section removal

Very much not! Must have been a browser problem of some sort. Thanks for pointing that out... fortunately in time for me to recover it from my browser history. Alai 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cache good. Missing data baaaad. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

templates wikiproject

Hi,

Have made several such templates. Can pop in from time to time but mostly busy... Cheers --Ling.Nut 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I don't expect it to be controversial or anything; it's whole point is to reduce controversy (and bugs, and inconsistencies...) — SMcCandlish ツ 04:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your monster sig

Resolved – Moving discussion back to other user's talk page.

Can you please reduce the incredible hugeness of your sig? It's very distracting on talk pages. Something about 2/3 the current size would do it. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My sig length is 147 bytes and renders at 72x16 on Firefox on Vista, yours is 277 bytes and renders at about 200x16. Honestly, don't you have something better to do than be critical of other editors' signatures, when you yourself could be subject to the same criticism? -/- Warren 13:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Hi. I really, really appreciate your comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Consensus -- even though we disagree about a particular point. Disagreeing is OK. Some other things that have been happening are teetering on the brink of being enough to induce me to resign from Misplaced Pages.

Since we disagree on that point, let's discuss it. You think it's better not to say "Not everything which is attributable is worthy of inclusion" in the Attribution policy because it's covered in other policies. I wonder how strongly you feel about this and what the reasons are for not wanting to have some duplication of information. More importantly, I would really appreciate it if someone who disagrees with me would acknowledge understanding of my concern and explain how they think the thing through so as to avoid or otherwise take care of that particular concern.

My concern is that people may interpret the new, unqualified "not whether it is true" wording as a license to knowingly insert false (but attributable) statements as direct assertions without prose attributions. Perhaps more realistically, my concern is that when someone argues that something should be deleted or prose-attributed on the grounds that it is false, people may take the "not whether it is true" wording as a license to refuse to discuss the other person's argument and to insist that the material stay in as written on the grounds that it is attributable.

The particular sentence you disagree with including is only one way, and not the best way, to address this particular concern. I would appreciate it if you would indicate that you understand my concern -- even if you don't agree with it -- and explain how you think about this, and maybe even suggest other changes in wording that could address that concern without raising too many other problems. I've already suggested deleting "not whether it is true" (which, to me, would result in wording with meaning more closely resembling the original policy); or changing it to "not merely whether it is true" (or "solely" as someone else suggested) or going back to the original wording "verifibility, not truth". I'm sure there are lots of other possible ways of handling it.

I think in all these discussions people haven't been very clear about the difference between a statement with a prose attribution and a statement without a prose attribution. There's an important difference: in the second case, the Misplaced Pages article is asserting the statement.

Thanks again for your comment. I feel as if finally some communication is happening. --Coppertwig 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this to talk for discussion. I wish more editors would do that (myself included; I wish I had a "Spock button" that would turn my emotions off sometimes.) Re: "teetering on the brink of being enough to induce me to resign" I hear you, but I hope you won't go that far. Much of this WP:ATT mess has me steaming from the ears, too, but quitting will be a net loss for everyone I think.

On to the details: I think the "knowingly insert false (but attributable) statements" behaviour would absolutely qualify as WP:GAMEing the system, and that experienced editors would, en masse, recognize it for WP:GAME on sight. Re: "not merely whether it is true" (or "solely" as someone else suggested) — that language works for me. To be forthright, I'm not dreadfully opposed to your original wording. My main concern is that WP:ATT is a madhouse right now. Hell, it got The Jimbo to come out of the woodwork for the first noticeable time in, well, I'm not even sure how long. So introducing stuff that is more the purview of other policies and guidelines seemed an unnecessary distraction to me, more fuel on the fire. I honestly don't feel very strongly about this point. If you make a good case for its inclusion, perhaps others won't revert it (and I'm stating that I won't, myself.) Just because I don't think the point is important here doesn't mean that anyone who does think it is important is nuts. I'm perfectly happy to shrug and walk away without kicking that snoozing dog again. — SMcCandlish ツ 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and for your notes on my talk page. Actually, I didn't find Crum375's note on my talk page helpful. He said to try to achieve active consensus on the talk page first. That is exactly what I had already been doing. I've been practically standing on my head trying to get people to discuss my concern, and I was getting mostly silence in return. To go ahead and make an edit under such circumstances (while others are also making edits, without asking me first) seems very reasonable to me. The alternative seems to be to go away and let the others claim there is "consensus" -- can you think of any other possible way to proceed?

I'd rather just delete "not whether it is true". This wording is not needed once the word "verifiability" is gone. However, if that wording is there, then something needs to be inserted to balance and clarify it, (in my opinion), even if it overlaps with other policies. I feel very strongly about this since some people seem to be talking as if the whole purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to try to provide information that conforms with reality, and as if it's OK to knowingly insert false statements. The whole meaning, purpose and credibility of Misplaced Pages is at stake. I know, we can't "guarantee" that the stuff is true -- but that doesn't mean we have to run totally in the opposite direction and present it as if it's all a fiction novel or something. Maybe you can think of another counterbalancing wording you'd (and others would) be happier with. --Coppertwig 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I say just explain the reasoning and put it back in. If someone reverts without explanation demand an explanation. I guess that's really the only way. — SMcCandlish ツ 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your mediatorial-ish comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Strong objection. Very helpful. It's nice to feel understood. --Coppertwig 23:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Most welcome. It is nice sometimes to step back and not take (much of) a position and just be a referree instead of one of the players (for the most part). — SMcCandlish ツ 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've been very helpful. I'm relieved to see the merge/whatnot tags up on WP:V and WP:NOR.

I think I've finished editing User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy. I'm not planning to take any action using it other than this message to you and a message to Rednblu. If someone wants to copy or move it (or mention/link to it), that's fine. Note that if it's copied or moved, it's probably best to copy or move the whole thing including talk page and page history.

Remember that tone of voice doesn't come across in text messages, that some people edit while tired or hungry in spite of a guideline suggesting the contrary, and that tempers can tend to flare. It's probably best to phrase any criticism in the nicest possible language, for example avoiding words like "tiresome" to describe an editor or their behaviour. I-messages may be better received, e.g. "I'm getting tired of..." rather than " tiresome". (I'm also learning about ways of accidentally annoying people by doing things they don't like, even if not using insulting words, and learning to avoid doing those things as much as feasible.) The more someone is being annoying, the more they might be tired or hungry or something (angry at their boss, going through a divorce, chronic pain, terminal illness, grieving etc.) and over-react to the slightest nuance of how a criticism is phrased.

Thanks again for the good work you're doing in all of this. --Coppertwig 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM

Small world... I created Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (currency) "back in the day" in an attempt to deal with this issue. It appears that the Currency page got folded into the current Dates and Numbers page. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anything I'm saying at that talk page seems to make sense, please weigh in (or even if it doesn't; I'd just as soon get it over with more quickly if I'm spouting nonsense!) — SMcCandlish ツ 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AAJ

As I recall you were bringing up "Jimbo said so" arguments several times in the WP:N discussion. >Radiant< 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Only the one that I recall (though mentioned more than once, because the thread kept getting archived before it was actually resolved) - I quoted him from the original "Fame and importance" debate. And didn't assert that it meant much, that I remember (I could be wrong about that); I rephrased it as a question later, even. I'm sorry if that gave you the impression that I run around quoting or interpreting Jimbo all the time. I don't. — SMcCandlish ツ 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Updated for clarity 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I've actually relied upon WP:JIMBOSAID quite a number of times in the WP:ATT debate, because certain parties are pushing an interpretation of what JW said, vs. simply quoting him in context. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote something else....

Misplaced Pages:Shouting things loudly does not make them true (or WP:SHOUT)

I was actually surprised that someone else hadn't written something like this. I do realize it's part of civility, but I figured at least someone would have written about the "I'm right, you're wrong" method of arguing. Anyway, I did my best to get the point across, but I'm sure it can be improved. Just thought you might like to take the first crack at it, or just read it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 10:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Amusing. I think the point could be made more generally though - it's not just shouting, but repetition, assertion without any facts, assertion against facts and evidence, denial of validity of others' opinions without a rationale for the denial, and a lot of other childish argument tactics. — SMcCandlish ツ 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See, I knew I hadn't gotten all of my points across. One of the things I was trying to state in that essay was that being repetitive, assertive with no facts, etc. etc. is just the adult take on the classic "it's mine it's mine it's mine it's mine it's mine!" Point taken though. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I guess I'm saying that the name of the page doesn't sum it up. Maybe use {{Nutshell}} then? — SMcCandlish ツ 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, {{nutshell}} would be good. I'll add that. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue )

I just added a brief little explanation of the point of the essay and how it relates to the title. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 23:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I added two new shortcuts which I think make more sense: WP:IMRIGHT and WP:YOUREWRONG. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 05:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. — SMcCandlish ツ 05:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Very happy to see the mediation you opened re the disputedpolicy tag. I wonder whether it would make sense to add putting merge tags on WP:V etc. as part of the same mediation? One of my main complaints about the earlier process was that I didn't know about it, and would have if there had been merge tags during the whole 4 months that WP:ATT was being edited. Now that same mistake is being repeated!!! There's supposed to be a broad community discussion going on, but readers of WP:V are not being prominently told about it or invited to participate! It needs merge tags with links to the appropriate discussion. Could the merge tag issue be added to the same mediation thingy, or should I try other channels? --Coppertwig 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem of course with mediation is that it requires the cooperation of all parties, and the opposing parties in mediation issue (as I predicted) rejected the mediation. I think that estabishes a good faith effort on my part to resolve this sensibly, and it frankly helps demonstrate the over-control and resistance-to-consensus issues I've been raising. I encourage you to bring the issues up at WP:AN. I already have, but I pissed them off by being too longwinded about it. I'm not being listened to at this point. There needs to be more than one voice taking this through proper channels. The merge tags issues should be brought up at WP:RFPP under the section for requests to edits to protected pages. I did once, but it should be done again so that RFPP admins understand that this is a multi-party request. — SMcCandlish ツ 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point it would be reasonable for us to elevate this to a complaint to the Administrator's noticeboard/Incident subpage. If this isn't an issue of admins abusing their power (which I fear it may be) it is certainly an issue of consensus-building being directly impeded by the effective shut-out of non-admin users. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I've already tried WP:AN (not AN/I) and got nothing but a "be more concise" note in response. I don't think I should be the one to take it to AN/I. — SMcCandlish ツ 23:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please let me know if either of you proceed with either or both directions of action, so I can keep and eye on them. — SMcCandlish ツ 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article National Union of General Workers

Resolved – Request fulfilled.

A request for comments has been filed about the use of anonymous sources in reliable publications. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:National_Union_of_General_Workers#Request_for_Comment_-_Use_of_anonymous_sources_in_reliable_publications in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. Sparkzilla 06:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Been led a merry goose-chase, we 'ave...ah well. Thanks for the heads-up on the @ mark e-mail protocol. David Lyons 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yar, just toss a few extra words in there and at least most spam'vesters are hosed. — SMcCandlish ツ 11:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I brought the RFC for the benefit of several editors on the page who were complaining that the reliability if the source was suspect because they felt that the identity of the writer was hidden. It was a fair question, given the circumstances.

That aside, I am still confused about the issue. The discussion started with you agreeing that the disputed sentence was fine, and then changing your mind to say that the op-ed piece was the equivalent of "noise" and comparing the op-ed to "trivia". The op-ed is here:

If the writer was notable, or the response itself was notable (e.g. for generating sourceable controversy, forming the basis for a movie about it, whatever), good to go. Otherwise it's just a random "who cares?" factoid, like the fact that it rained today in Albuquerque for a little while. — SMcCandlish

This confuses me because 1) I thought that op-eds could be used to show claims, but not facts (this was supported by editors when I asked for coment on WT:ATT/FAQ#anonymous sources and 2) I think the claims that the union is overly militant and that its actions will affect ordinary teachers' paypackets are neither trivial, nor random, nor a factoid, and merit inclusion because they are valid criticisms of the union's actions. I suppose there's also 3) why would the source be acceptable when the person was anonymous, but not when the user is identified?

The op-ed was notable enough to merit a letter of response to Metropolis from the Deputy General of the union.

I understand if you find this tiresome, but I would appreciate your clarification. Sparkzilla 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the union D.G.'s job to respond to such things; doesn't make what he/she responded to notable. I used to have a very similar PR job, and it was even my job to respond to the most ridiculous thing, if they'd appeared somewhere notable. (Note, no pun intended, what the notability is adhering to, namely the publication/venue). Op-ed can be used to show claims, but not always. Let's stipulate that the claim in the article is something like "A coutervailing view of the medical report is that it was disingenuous, paid-for by the very interest group whose views the report ended up supporting, and was written by people whose creditials are much more questionable than those of the studies refuted by the report", to make up a new example so I am not commenting on your article in particular. Let's say that the source of this claim is an anonymous (or heck, even non-anonymous) op-ed piece by a non-notable college professor. This is not a reliable source for the claim. If the claim were from the president of the American Association of the Advancement for Science, or the managing editor of Nature, or a nobel laureate in medicine, biology or statistics (i.e. someone notable, and more to the point notable in a field that has relevance to the topic of the reliability of medical studies), then it might well be a good source for the claim. To return to anonymity, if the source were a member of the White House Science and Technology Advisory Committee speaking on condition of anonymity, that might be enough; I know some editors would disagree with me. If the anonymous condemnation of the report had been widely publicized and sourceably led or contributed to controvery over the report (i.e. some other source that the publisher of the anonymous op-ed made that connection), then it definitely would be a reliable source for that fact.

I hope that is clearer. There is too much going on in the article you are talking about and too much weird stuff happening between you and the other major respondent to your RfC (see his talk page for previous arguments between the two of you) for me to be willing to say anything more concrete about the article in question, other than to say that your point #2, " I think the claims ... are valid criticisms of the union's actions are absolutely WP:OR (aside from the "I think..." framing); they can't be reliably sourced because the op-ed piece wasn't written by anyone notable or authoritative. If a third source (1 being the original publication, 2 being the op-ed in response) says something like "ever since that op-ed piece was published, there has been a storm of controversy", or "the union has entered into negotations with teachers, after last Saturday's scathing op-ed piece by a teacher", etc., then you have something both notable (the effect of the op-ed piece and reliably sourced (both as to the effect, and as to the fact, from source #2, that the op-ed exists and who wrote it and whether they were anonymous or not). If the Emperor of Japan condemns the union in a new op-ed piece, that's good to go without a third-party source saying anything about the effect of that op-ed, since he is both notable and at least arguably authoritative on issues relating to the government and economy of Japan, unlike the teacher (cf. the siamese cat example; the teacher is the random small-town cat owner, by way of analogy). Without something like that, the teacher's op-ed is simply trivia (or noise, or whatever term one prefers for a non-encyclopedic factoid). I hope that helps. And of course feel free to seek others' opinions, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of this. I watch and clean up several hundreds of bio articles, among others, so I have to deal with RS issues constantly. — SMcCandlish ツ 05:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That was very clear. Thank you for your time. Sparkzilla 05:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Further clarification: If the Emperor of Japan writes a piece on how exciting the movie 300 is, that isn't enclopedically of any value at all (except perhaps in his own article, but even that's iffy.) He's notable in his own right but not as a movie critic, unlike Leonard Maltin or Roger Ebert (who in turn are not of any use in a WP article quoted as commenting on Japanese economics.) — SMcCandlish ツ 07:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Glad you liked them; I only hope they have some impact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WPATT protection notices

Hello, this is just a tip about notices on WP:V and WP:OR. Please design a new notice which draws on both the notices at WP:ATT and WP:RS, and merges the protection and merge notices, and then propose it on the respective talk pages. There is a danger of template overload, but a need for a decent notice, which I would be happy to apply once it has been proposed in full. -- zzuuzz 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds raisonable. I was just about to hit the coffin (dawn is coming, after all), but I'll do this first-ish thing when It Lives again. — SMcCandlish ツ 12:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done: Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag and Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag (the template code itself is at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability/Header. How much discussion time should this have? — SMcCandlish ツ 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm being attacked for doing this, at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag. — SMcCandlish ツ 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag — SMcCandlish ツ 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Further update: WP:RS version now exists, because the tag presently installed at RS drew some criticism; see Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#New combined merge/community discussion header tag — SMcCandlish ツ 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good resource

If you are looking for a free online newpaper resource for articles, I just found a new one (other than the NYT which I don't pay for). Note that I have searched high and low and there are very few free archives available. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, apparently one of the most popular papers in the country at one times and headed by Walt Whitman for a time has a free online archive from 1841 to 1902 at http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/. Type in billiards and you'll see pahe after page of results for example.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! How do you get the full NYT articles then? — SMcCandlish ツ 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a home subscription, you don't pay for any of their premium online services (so in a sense it's not free per se). You are restricted to 100 archive articles per month but I've never even come close to using that up.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can fix that for you; just look up "biliards" and save every hit. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

?? Not sure what thou meanest. Searches, verily, get you abstracts. Each abstract, for sooth, thou wishest to see in glorious whole, one must invoke as one and not en mass.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant just spend 2 days downloading 100 of such article PDFs and storing them locally, so you have them any time you want them, do it again next month, etc, until you have all of them, then you'll always just have them. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are over ten thousand articles (all pdf) in the nyt archive with the word billiards appearing and once downloaded no targeted searching would work, but if you want i'll donate one percent of the money you'll need for the exabyte-size drive necessary to store them all;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well get to work! >;-) Seriously, I thought it would be a few hundred! Yeesh! — SMcCandlish ツ 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Resolved – Other parties refused the mediation.

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-24 Attribution has been opened. I am currently reviewing the various pages to get a solid feel on the situation. Is there anything in particular I should note? Could you provide a few links to what you feel are the areas I should pay most attention to? I'd also like to know who is having a difficult time assuming good faith and who launched a personal attack, so I'm aware of the situation. You can reply here, on the case page, on my talk page or send me an e-mail if you wish to respond with some of the information privately. Vassyana 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that would auto-close, as the parties on the other side of the dispute refused mediation, and removed the mediation header from the page (I had guessed that the header tag did something with categories, such that if the header were removed the page wouldn't be in the category and the case would just no longer be there, other than for a moot case file). I took the issue to WP:AN instead, and it has "settled", though not been entirely resolved. I trust that it will sort itself out eventually. Thanks for looking into it, and sorry your time was wasted. — SMcCandlish ツ 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No waste of time at all. Sometimes drawing the attention of some mediation-minded editors so they participate as outside voices or dive into the discussion isn't a bad idea. Besides that, it wasn't a waste of my time because I became much more aware of some ongoing issues and discussions. I will close the case and join in the discussion. Vassyana 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All good then! The more "I don't put up with uncivil nonsense just because you are popular admin from 2004 (when the standards were lower)" voices that get involved, the better. — SMcCandlish ツ 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because the official case is closed doesn't mean we can't act in an informal fashion. <innocent look> --Kim Bruning 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) The standards were actually higher in 2004, I feel ... but I digress.

You go! Re: Last point - Really? A common type of complaint about RfA that I hear resolves to "it's too hard, nitpicky and investigative compared to back-when, and we're chasing off good potential admins as a result, but really need them." I wasn't around (I'm a late '05er), so I can't legitimately offer my own perspective.) — SMcCandlish ツ 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, new case in point: Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag. — SMcCandlish ツ 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Todo vandalism?

Resolved – It was indeed vandalism, and has been fixed; vandal blocked.

An anonymous editor went through your signatures to change the font, and added a comment at the bottom under your name. Thought you should be notified if this is not you. –Pomte 07:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalistic silliness, thanks for the heads-up. I posted it to WP:BJAODN. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied

at User_talk:Kingbotk/Plugin#WPBio_Listas. Summary:

I don't like listas= either, if you want to argue for it's deprecation we're likely on the same side.
If I can placate you by having my plugin recognise DEFAULTSORT, consider it done. If there's more to it than that you'll need to let me know.

Cheers. --kingboyk 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that would do the trick. And I just went and proposed said deprecation. — SMcCandlish ツ 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Start with randomly placed talkheader, skiptotoctalk, and DEFAULTSORT template; insert WPBio, move aforementioned 3 to top, use DEFAULTSORT magic word keyword. --kingboyk 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Except, that page doesn't seem to be properly sorted... so what's gone wrong? Hmm... Can you help? See anything amiss? --kingboyk 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Nothing is coming immediately to mind. I know the DEFAULTSORT-at-top order is important (even the docs of it say that order is important), and that this works fine with {{Cue sports project}}; the WP:CUE categories it puts articles (well, their talk pages) are sorted by family name, as intended. Oh! One thing I noticed while testing this stuff myself a month or so ago, and just about pulling my hair out, is that it can take up to a couple of hours for the DEFAULTSORT to work! I think the DB has to "catch up". — SMcCandlish ツ 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Condense poll reply

Resolved – Self-resolving chat topic.

Unfortunately, brevity is not a strength; don't you think others will scream if I edit my comments after the fact? That's always a slippery slope ... Maybe if I bold each main point, it will be more readable? I think the poll is a fiasco anyway; I've been traveling for almost a month, and intended to weigh in on talk beginning tomorrow after catching up, but since the poll was launched, I just dove in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not an issue in this case; I believe the poll text even encourages self-refactoring over replying to people in threaded discussion style. Also, see the bottom of my "Wikilosophy userboxes" for a link to a template about "I reserve the right to refactor myself at any time" that you might want to add to your own userpage. Since adding that, I've never had a single 'Pedian challenge my self-edits (though I am careful to use ~~old version~~ new version here, and added Updated ~~~~~ after original sig, if I refactor a point that someone has already responded to and I'm revising myself in a way that would make their followup comment no longer make sense. Either that or I reply to their reply and let them know I have refactored my original in a way that makes their point moot.) Poll: I think it is a fiasco too, and apparently so do enough others that its start has been reverted, so there's nothing for you to go refactor right now anyway. :-) Anyway, why I wrote to you was that I actually agreed with much of what you posted, but it was so lengthy that I think few will read it unless it's compressed a bit next time. Even mine was a bit long and I started refactoring it to be shorter before the entire-poll revert. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do tomorrow; I really don't have the gift of brevity, but sometimes I can see it after a good night's sleep. What a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you're not a member of Red Sox Nation; we definitely worry about the fat lady singing :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. — SMcCandlish ツ 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Resolved – Self-resolving FYI.

I put my reasons in there...I was multitasking and hit submit earlier as I was answering the phone at the same time. Mike Searson 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted; thanks. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 06:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Resolved – Moot.

I did it. I called mine "arguments in support," and his "arguments against," so it's all equal. SlimVirgin 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I hadn't seen that we'd simply cross-edited. I changed the deleted thing to a redir, since it was mentioned prominently on the poll talk page with "my" (CT's, really) name for it. — SMcCandlish ツ 06:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Resolved – Just mis-remembered.

I don't think it costs anything, but thanks for offering. :-) SlimVirgin 07:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I was pretty sure it did. It used to be free in-country but international was supposed to cost something !? Maybe they dropped that plan! I hope so. Heh. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered that it's when you use Skype to call a real phone number that it costs. Duh! I feel silly now. — SMcCandlish ツ 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Resolved – Self-resolving chat.

Thanks. This is the problem with this format. I support some things (the general idea of a merge, much of the text of WP:ATT) and strongly oppose others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya. I ended up objecting on process grounds, basically, but I'm not sure my heart is in that !vote. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Resolved – Self-resolving chat.

Thanks for these new userboxes I found! However, calling yourself a native American English man and using French spacing is sickening. Sickening! ~ UBeR 21:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by French spacing; if you mean double-spacing after sentence-ending punctuation, I was actually taught to do that in American school, and the practice is recommended by many American style guides and such. Opposition to it seems to have arisen only in the last generation or so. I find the matter rather silly, since it is clearly an aid to readabilty. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

French spacing :-) ~ UBeR 22:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambig. term. I definitely don't engage in 'placing a single space before a question or exclamation mark'. Ick! — SMcCandlish ツ 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! British American punctuation too?! Now I've really begun to run for for the hills. ~ UBeR 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Only when I'm lazy. — SMcCandlish ツ 07:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

3-cushion coming out of the closet

On May 6, 2007 ESPN will for the first time broadcast professional 3-cushion. It may also be the first time 3-cushion has ever been broadcast in the US. Migel Torres (a professional in Queens New York) told me this earlier today (in his best approximation of English), and also told me that he has been giving lessons to Mike Massey. I'm not sure what is being broadcast, but I know that Semih Sayginer will be playing. As you probably know, he performs the most spectacular artistic billiards exhibitions. Watched him year after year at Carom Cafe (Sang Lee's room ), and it is something to be seen. Since Mike Massey is getting lessons, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not 3-cushion per se, but Semih doing artistic shots, with Mike Massey tagging along as the face far more people know. Anyway, mark down the date. Semih's a bit of an asshole in person (he does great caricatures and makes fun of Blomdahl by imitating him right to his face) but he's incredible to watch. His stroke is really not of this planet.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad I still have VCR. I'll tape that. Thanks for the heads-up! — SMcCandlish ツ 07:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Steen article

Hey there. I noticed you recently made some edits to this article. I wanted to point out that rather than creating a trivia section, it would have been preferable if you had incorporated any notable information into the body of the article (and deleted the rest). The guideline, Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections in articles, explains why and how this should be done. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do it myself right now, but if you are interested in the article, perhaps you would like to take a crack at it. Thanks, and happy editing!--Vbd (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:TRIV. While that article still has a Trivia section, I think trivia should be in it until someone thinks of a better way that putting trivial facts into their own pseudo-paragraphs consisting of a single pseudo-sentence. I am not interested in the article and don't know enough about Steen, I feel, to determine what in that section is notable (not to mention not a copy-paste copyvio from IMDb...), otherwise I might well have eliminated the Trivia section by merge & refactor myself. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I meant no offense, so I hope you didn't take any. Much of the trivia section appears to be truly trivial. I've added a {{toomuchtrivia}} tag; maybe someone who is truly interested in this bio will edit it appropriately.--Vbd (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken! I was just trying to make it clear that "if you are interested in the article" didn't apply to me. :-) The {{toomuchtrivia}} tag sounds like a good plan. — SMcCandlish ツ 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Inkscape template

Here's the answer you requested at Template talk:Created with Inkscape: Inkscape is free/open-source software. Templates such as this one point users and editors to free software they can use to create free works. Rl 15:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still spammy. W* is not Sourceforge. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, torn on this one. It's just about the only decent SVG editor out there, and having more people know about it would be a boon for commons. <scratches head> Are we only allowed to mention software hosted by the wikimedia foundation, or is all software we use to maintain the site ok? --Kim Bruning 10:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You have discovered something

Bravo! Good insight! Brilliant! How about if we propose to everyone that the "Neutral" section should appear first for 24 hours to see what effect that has on the distribution of votes. Surely, who could object to the order being Neutral, Support, Oppose for 24 hours. We could propose that the switch occur at the beginning of the measurement period in the table. What do you think? --Rednblu 08:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be OK with it, but the neutral votes don't mean much for gauging consensus (the comments in them will mean a lot when it comes to figuring out what to do afterward.) I think it's the +/- order that is skewing the poll. When it was small, it started out pretty much 50/50, but is slowly shifting toward +, for no other discernable reason. The arguments haven't changed at all. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We have only begun to discover what it is that could be discovered here. Let us think of voter-friendly designs. At the top of the StrawPoll page there should be three links that would to the appropriate subsection (Neutral, Support, Oppose) which would open in edit mode, and, as instructed, the voter could enter the vote at the top of that edit section. That would make it voter-friendly. What do you think? I mean someone has to really demonstrate intelligence to find the place to vote Oppose as it is now. --Rednblu 08:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, everyone on WP for more than a few days understands bottom-posting. I find it really annoying when I encounter the few remaining XfD and other adminny process pages that actually want top posting. I don't know what they are thinking. If I could reboot WP from scratch, top posting would be the norm, because it is far more useful and intuitive, but I seriously doubt that anyone can change the years-worth of bottom-posting that is ingrained into WP. And everyone knows how to use the edit buttons. I'm talking about something more substantive, the bias in the survey, not ease of adding to the survey (in a bias-led fashion, no less). — SMcCandlish ツ 08:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Great ideas! I'm glad I checked in just as you were having your brilliant insight. See you later. --Rednblu 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. — SMcCandlish ツ 08:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's hard to understand in what order things were said. Why is top posting a bad idea?

Latin script has been written from top-left to bottom right for over two millenia. Define "intuitive". ;-)

--Kim Bruning 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) vi versus emacs, anti-aliased vs aliased, white background vs black background, top vs bottom posting, it's the holy wars! ;-)

I think top-posting is vastly preferable, at the new topic level, but that for some reason unbeknownst to me, WP largely settled on bottom posting long before I arrived. I suspect it is the influence of threaded newsreaders and later webboards, which present each thread with the first post at the top by default instead of the newest, which makes some sense. But Wiki for some reason went too far with this, and wants everything bottom posted (except at a few hold-out process pages). My User:SMcCandlish page has a mini-essay about this topic, under the notability one. I may have muddled something above to sound anti-top-posting in general; it's more that I've just given up here. WP is so "everything must be bottom posted" that I get used to it here, and find the handful of top-posting pages to be jarring. My real feel is that top-posting is good (except inside threads). Like at WP polls, I would rather see the new comments in each section (if there are sections) at the top of the pile. All of the human-hours wasted scrolling around trying to find that thread posted 20 minutes ago, now with 7 more following it, somewhere near the bottom of this section of the page, but it's hard to tell where... if spent on actually writing an encyclopedia... Wow, WP would be so much better! — SMcCandlish ツ 11:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think my "Nah, everyone..." paragraph above will seem a little less self-contradictory now. By intuitive, I meant just what you did by "two millennia". But note that even in books and stuff we start (i.e. new topic) at the top left, and work down, which is why I think new replies in extant threads should be bottom posted in that thread while new threads should be top-posted, because they're new/news. — SMcCandlish ツ 11:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A cup of tea

I don't think that would be a bad idea for anyone involved in that debate, really. And yes, the number of people that support something is certainly a factor in determining consensus, but a "Support, why not?" or "Oppose, this is dumb" tends to get a lot less weight than a well-written, coherent rationale. Seraphimblade 11:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for writing back so quick. :-) Sadly, no real tea for me; have to take the trash out before the trucks come around for it. (IRL, I mean). — SMcCandlish ツ 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR cavassing?

Hi there! I notice that you made statements like "I'm not willing to violate WP:3RR over this, so additional eyes on the matter would be helpful". This sounds like you're asking for other people to help "your" side of a revert war, which is not a proper way to resolve anything. Please don't do that again, and instead discuss a more productive approach on the relevant talk page. >Radiant< 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This has already been aired on said talk page. I think the intent has been misunderstood. I'm saying I won't revert-war over it, but I'm asking just three other editors whom I know have aired similar misgiving to watch the situation and get involved in the debate if they think the issues I'm raising are valid. What's wrong with that? I'm not hiding anything at all. Why can ATT proponents plan and coordinate (off-wiki, where they can't be seen), but those with concerns about it can't, even publicly? Is it just because I mentioned the word "revert"? — SMcCandlish ツ 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm looking if you answer me. And of course you can discuss or organize all you like. But the phrasing "I don't want to break 3RR so please help" sounds quite a lot like asking other people to help your reverting so that your side "wins" while none of the involved break the 3RR individually. Aka gaming the system. Now I'm not saying that was your intent here but it sure is what it sounds like. >Radiant< 16:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what he's talking about; a handful of editors, strongly pro-ATT, are automatic reverters. But in this case I would expect the reversal, which I am probably too late to affect, will be reverted out of sheer Queegishness; independent of its merits, it wasn't invented by the small group of editors who pat each other on the back, so it must be nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea in principle. I'm not planning to do even 1R of a revert war over this and I might not even comment on the poll talk page. I note that certain poll guidelines weren't followed, e.g. putting "Yes (pro-merge)" etc. rather than plain "Yes" as a section title so people could follow it on their talk page, or avoiding specific start and end dates. I'm not sure whether all the poll wording discussion and prepolling was archived properly. Nevertheless, the proper time and place to bring up the issue of the order of questions is at the poll guideline page (I'm thinking of redirecting WP:Poll to WP:Straw polls; currently it redirects to RfC I think). Or before the poll was started. Yes, I know, the wording hadn't been finalized, but there were many versions of the wording proposed and in many cases some sort of do-you-support-ATT was first. Was this issue of changing the order of the questions raised before the poll was started? There was about a week for discussion of poll wording; it could have been raised anytime in there. I think it's a good idea and I may get involved in support (for future polls) at the poll guidelines page. Jimbo wanted hundreds of responses and is getting them. Anyway, the original policies have a strong advantage of inertia: if there's no consensus, the policies don't change. Putting "yes" to a new proposal first can be seen as somewhat balancing that. With respect and as an independent thinker (and person who is trying to get back to actually spending time writing the encyclopedia, besides doing RL occasionally :-) --Coppertwig 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: on second thought, the "in broad suppport" section etc. does follow the section-heading guidelines re following on watchlists (I meant watchlists and edit summaries, not talk pages). It was some of the earlier proposed wordings that didn't. --Coppertwig 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I agree it can look that way; it was a poor choice of wording. Seraphimblade said the same thing basically. Wasn't the intent, as I think my action demonstrate (I did one revert, with a very descriptive edit summary justifying it, then took it to talk when it was re-reverted.) — SMcCandlish ツ 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Defender sock case

Due to your concerns raised on a RFA, I filed Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jeff Defender, please add evidence if you can. Thanks! Wooyi 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh... I wasn't really ready to proceed just yet. Well, since it has started, I'll do what I can, but I was still investigating... — SMcCandlish ツ 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for starting it too early, but I will investigate and do my best as well. Thank you! Wooyi 00:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the evidences. Now the case I'm pretty sure they are sockpuppets and I hope the reviewers think so as well. Wooyi 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and no worries on just going for it; on second thought it probably is important to address this right now, when they are causing RfA trouble again, rather than wait any longer! — SMcCandlish ツ 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work unearthing this, Stanton. A Train 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What scares me though is that all of those "users" combined don't equate to nearly enough activity for a user that knows as much as this person does about the finers points of WP policy and how to game them. This means that the real puppeteer has yet to be outed. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the words of the immortal Jay-Z: "Ya boy is back." A Train 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably a different one - the tone isn't right. I think that one may just be a genuine noob, or someone else's puppet. The candidate though premature seems quite earnest, and I can't find any evidence of Natl1 being a jackass, so I doubt it's his/her puppet. The ones I'm after have pretty clear goals (pushing COI articles and minority POVs in other articles, making trouble for those who oppose them, and trying to influence blocking and banning policy to make it easier to be disruptive.) — SMcCandlish ツ 00:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, I can credit you with opening the discussion but an not sure if you're trying to stop me from editing or from voting. At least the webmaster said not to post about it so now I fear anyone who reposts will point to me. Have some admin look as both deleted revisions. Jeff Defender 03:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already suggested that admin examination will be necessary in the SSP. — SMcCandlish ツ 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I was so extreme about blocking. Its a matter of jumping to conclusions vs. taking things on a case by case basis. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. As for your RFA, you can always try again. Jeff Defender 01:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether you have extreme opinions about blocking, it's about suspect behavior patterns that point to sockpuppettry. You can be as wikianarchist as you like - this isn't about your opinions. That you and Honda Pilot a.k.a. Uninsured Driver showed up out of no where but already knowing all about Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and essays (yet have track records of disruption), and continue to show up out of no where to do little other than attack people in RfA and make noise at WP:AN in favor of vandal leniency, and somehow always seem to come to each other's defense just when it is needed, is very, very suspicious. PS: This also isn't about my RfA, either. I could actually kind of care less, as I focus on article writing and cleanup, not admin-ish things like vandal hunting. Someone else nominated me. — SMcCandlish ツ

Snooker rest

Hi there. I have to say that "the rest is the rest!" There are only two variations on it: the extended rest and the one with three indentations for placing the cue, but I have *never heard the rest called the "cross rest". So in that respect the article is wrong and, IMHO, "cross rest" is overkill. But you do great work with that page and others, and I'm not going to change it but think you should. What about "a standard rest"? bigpad 09:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are playing, but there are at least 4 rests (not counting American-style rakes). See Rest in the Glossary. The disambiguation and specificity are needed to avoid reader confusion. — SMcCandlish ツ 09:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: As my edit summary suggested, just invert the order of the {{Cuegloss}} links in the caption, so it reads something like "rest (cross type)" or "rest (cross variety)". I'll just go do that.

PPS: Sorry if that sounded brusque; I was multitasking a bit too much, I think. I un-brusque it: I'm sure you are right that experienced players probably say things like "gimme the rest" and it is understood that they mean the cross; if they wanted the spider or the swan/goose-neck (or the controversial hook for that matter) they would have been more specific. I approach all of this stuff from a usability angle though - with the average reader understand this? Probably no, so we be a little more specific/educational for them, even if some of the prose might be a little tedious to a snooker maven (who is probably here to work on the article, not learn anything from it anyway, right?) :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right to say that there is a wide range of accessories now available. In the cotext of the recent overhaul of the article, to cut down on its size and make it more readable and less involved,

I was thinking that the "average" person reading the article would not need to know anything more than the player pictured was using "a rest". Anything more than this I think is unnecessary. And "the rest" is always understood as what you call the "cross rest". If a player wants something else, he will ask specifically for it. And I'd say that the varieties of spiders in use are not rests: they are spiders. Keep up the good work bigpad 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I can buy most of that. If you want to revert the caption expansion, go ahead, though please leave the cuegloss link to Rest. — SMcCandlish ツ 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

An invitation

Resolved – I Decline.

You're invited to criticise me. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't interacted with you enough to have anything to criticize. — SMcCandlish ツ 10:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Something you may be interested in

Resolved – RfA has launched.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Fuhghettaboutit Thanks. Xiner (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just replace "Please allow me to serve as an additional nominator" with your paragraph(s) and remember to sign it. Xiner (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, sorry if I wasn't clear. Just go to the nomination page and replace the sentence after "Co-nomination:" with your paragraph(s). There's NO other procedure. Xiner (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, any questions? Xiner (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, enjoy your dinner. Sorry! Xiner (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! There's no rush. The nomination instructions provide:

"Finally, once the nomination has been accepted and the questions answered, the nominee should transclude it on the RfA page when they are ready for the RfA to begin. Alternatively, the candidate may ask the nominator to do so."

When you are ready, tell me and then we'll go live (I see no reason why it couldn't wait until tomorrow evening if that's better; it's late).--Fuhghettaboutit 02:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not late for many people. The only reason I can think of is that some of the newer ones there will probably have been removed by then, thus freeing up people's attention. I still think you should go live now, though. Xiner (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

NB: I think the answers were well-crafted anyway. Any input I'd get in would just be twiddles, and a third party has already voted, so even if it's not listed, it's already been found. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 02:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am ready to go live, just didn't want you to be rushed, but you posted lickety-split. Stanton, are you ready? By the way, if I haven't already made this clear, to the both of you: much appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sho' thang. Let's do it. — SMcCandlish ツ 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay gonna go figure it out--probably just placing the name of the nom in template form into rfa page.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Complicatedness

I don't know. A few things (lowercase names, mathbot, edit stats) already tripped me up. So no thank you. =P Xiner (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a wrong username in the stats, but that's all that looked "off" to me.— SMcCandlish ツ 03:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved your comment back where it was. That's another pitfall of RfA's. You could of course add an exasperating note in your vote. Xiner (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No worries. I just thought it might look funky if the co-nom's vote came later. — SMcCandlish ツ 03:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jeff Defender -- an invitation

I am really impressed by your detective skills.

At WikiProject Spam, we don't so much deal with petty one-off spam but rather complex, multi-article, sometimes involving as many as 50 different domains subtly spammed one link at a time over many months using lots of socks or IPs. Our work involves a lot of stuff like what you did on this sockpuppet case as well as off-wikipedia searching of related domains, comments made in linkspamming forums, etc.

You're probably busy with other priorities on Misplaced Pages for now, but when you have the time, I encourage you to check out the talk page (where all the real work occurs). In particular, take a look at the work of Hu12 and Requestion -- probably the two best at the sleuthing part.

Again, nice work on the sockpuppet case! --A. B. 12:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Interested. I'm not sure how much time I'd devote to it, all things considered, but there're definitely some "career spammers" on here. Even just on the billiards/pool articles I have to fend off the same spammerators under different usernames every few months. — SMcCandlish ツ 12:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't move my vote again...

Resolved – I think we grok each other.

I put it under support for a reason. Read the hidden comment. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Why confuse the vote on purpose? — SMcCandlish ツ 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I try not to make WP:POINTs, but I freely admit to it here. He is a great user, RfA is largely broken, and my comment was meant to be a reflection of that. For any confusion, I genuinely apologize, and, in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have bugged you about moving the vote. You were only doing the logical thing. Sorry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll both live. :-) I added a note below it that should prevent others from moving it again. — SMcCandlish ツ 22:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ATT post

Resolved – Just an FYI.

Regarding your recent post at ATT, you might find this recent afd debate interesting. Thanks again for the nomination:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Made note of this at WT:ATT. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Defender sock puppetry --- checkuser

I've went through the case and felt a checkuser is definitely needed, I've just filed it on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeff Defender. Hopefully that will give the conclusion. Cheers! Wooyi 04:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arch Stanton

Hi there! No, Stanton is not a typical Norwegian name - and not my real name I must admit. I've taken the name from the best movie ever: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. It is the name on the grave next to the unknown grave where the treasure is buried, remember??

"Stone village" would translate to something like "Steinby" in Norwegian. Cheers, and happy editing! ArchStanton 17:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I haven't seen that movie since I was about 11, so I didn't remember! — SMcCandlish ツ 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

i admit i have done sily vandalism on wikipedia, and i am sorry. But i have also made over 100 constructive edits on ip addressess and on the account user:cherhillsnow. I promise i will never vandalise wikipedia again and i will only make legit edits.

Thank you; that would be a very good re-start as a Wikipedian. — SMcCandlish ツ 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, please dont contact BT. I am all good now. Cherhillsnow 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I know we haven't always seen eye to eye in the past, but I'm indebted to you for your help in my RfA in tracking down the Honda Pilot/Jeff Defender sockpuppets. Honda Pilot was obviously suspicious, but as an RfA candidate, I was powerless to make any accusations lest I be accused of harassing the opposers. Despite your personal reservations about me, you stepped forward to expose them and compiled an extremely detailed WP:SSP report. If you ever need help, don't hesitate to drop me a line. —dgies_c 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to SMcCandlish for sleuthing out sockpuppets being used to subvert RfA. —dgies_c 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you right back! :-) PS: Any criticism in your RfA is intended only and absolutely constructively. I'm sure you'll make a fine admin around here. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy...

Sorry, I just undeleted the rollback of my unintential protection of your userpage;-) Seriously, now that I have these buttons, I'm scared to get my cursor to close to the top o' me screen. Baby steps shall be my mantra for a little while. Well I said it before, but, thanks for the nom, the support, creating {{rp}}, inveighing with me against mean bot tagging, creating needed images, the arcane book comparisons, being a billiards fan...--Fuhghettaboutit 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's half of what I'm here for. >;-) G'luck with the Tools o' Doom. I'm sure they'll be familiar in no time. I was lucky for a while - someone made a great script that simulated a number of admin tools (including rollback), by excuting multiple manual actions in series w/o human interaction, as if they were one thing. Got used to it pretty quick. Then it went away. I guess it was perhaps too close a simulation... Couldn't do anything truly admin, like delete or protect pages, but it could nuke vandal edits, and even leave them vandal warnings, in about two clicks (one for the former alone). <sigh> I miss that. Rollback, rollback... Even simulated the good-faith rollback option. As for {{rp}} I'm surprised it didn't get attacked by some citation purism ~~nazi~~ (Godwin's law, dammit) eh... obsessive; looks like we may get to keep it. Sandbaggers suuuck. I was out at the Dragon Horn (my league team's host bar) for pool - just re-watched The Color of Money, so I was very in that mood. Beat this pretty good shot 5x in a row. Realized by game 7 he was totally sandbagging on me. Must be attempting to butter me up for money games next week or something. D'oh. I guess I should be proud I sussed him out, but I was feeling pretty good about the winning streak. Anyway congrats on your "everyone supports, except 4 irrational cranks" winning streak. >;-) — SMcCandlish ツ 08:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

About control

I would like to say a few things about people trying to "control the debate". I know there are a few bossy editors here, but please hear me out, because I was also there, together with PMAnderson, I spent a few hours designing a poll with him that I think at least deserved more attention. It received 4 positive votes and nobody was vehemently objecting to it, had people had more patience it could have lead to some better solutions, so I'm also not all that pleased about the consensus process, but I don't see why you are opposed to this group now. Why don't you think WAS4.250 would be neutral, he voted first support, and then listening to what opposition people were saying suggested a compromise based on transclusion. I think that's a bad idea, but I like his willingness to listen. Also, I have seen him here, arguing against SlimVirgin with not exactly the kindest of words, finally Crum gave a third opinion, but as you can see WAS and SV were quite opposed to each other, but that WAS can argue strongly why still remain rational and civil I think makes him very useful on this committee, don't you think? --Merzul 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the group. I'm opposed to any more shenanigans by SlimVirgin, Jossi and Jayjg in manipulating the perception and direction of the process away from balance. I don't buy the bit about WAS. He was a supporter. Like all supporters, and hopefully any opposers who wish to be part of the new process, he will be seeking compromise, so saying that he's moved form support to neutral because he proposed a compromise means that everyone nominated has to be classified as neutral. The classifications were drawn from the poll, not from present willingness to seek consensus. PS: Bossiness doesn't particularly bother me; I just ignore it. Some of these folks are going way beyond bossy. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But the position WAS is taking is very much a compromise that no true ATT supporter should hold. Many people who proposed ATT are very much opposed to having V and NOR remaining, I'm myself not sure what would be the best solution, but WAS's position is for example heavily disputed by Marskell, who abhors any speech of keeping all 4 policies, and transclusion I think is just as bad. I see his position as a terrible compromise that undermines much of the merge's intention, ok, that was overstating it a bit, but it is not really a support for the merge. --Merzul 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I don't think anyone can rationally hold an extremist non-compromise position in the debate at all any longer, on either side. The entire thing is so farcical, I'm just backing away warily and going back to writing an encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but one idea would be a better formulated ATT that would replace V and NOR. For example, giving more prominence to synthesis and stressing the need that attribution is verifiable, perhaps removing the sentence "not whether it is true", etc, BUT keeping it one single policy. Anyway, thanks for listening, and have fun with the real work :) --Merzul 01:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not saying it won't work itself out; I have absolute faith that it will. What concerns me is the "triumvirate" trying so hard to steer it in one particular direction. It's not entirely about how many documents there will be in the end. I'm sure you see this. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the barnstar, very much appreciated :) - Nick C 12:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See good work, throw star. Is Ninja way. <nod> — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 12:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WPILT logo

Hello Stanton McCandlish. I've replaced WPILT logo.png in {{WPILT banner}} with inline text styled by inline styles. Do you have any objection to this, or to deleting the now-unused image? —{admin} Pathoschild 14:27:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, other than it is also used in {{User WPILT}}. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ATT

You might want to reconsider Mikkalai's project, outlined here. As far as I can see, it doesn't have to be a competing committee (at least for a long time), just a few people trying to work for real consensus on what the existing policy pages say, and whether they can usefully adopt ATT's language. As for the bullies: if you want to write up an RfC, I will endorse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: M's thing, I'll look into it in more detail, but I'm getting weary of policy debates at this point. Re and RfC, see last sentence. :-) If things continue to worsen, I'd consider it, though. I was already approached once by someone wanting to file an RfC on SlimVirgin, but I really didn't come here to fight. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to file an RfC, so much the better. I may not find the incentive to do so myself; my offer stands, however. I will let you know if a project gets underway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:RMB

Thanks! I haven't actually been running much with snooker articles for the past few weeks, partly due to holidays and time away from WP. What time I have had I have been investing it in modelling a 3D snooker table, (unfinished WIP render), partly for my own enjoyment, but I am also sure some renders of it can be put to good use in wikipedia articles at pertinent places! SFC9394 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty cool! Could indeed come in handy for illustrating glossary terms and stuff, if the balls can be moved around and the scene re-rendered easily. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just about finished. Yeah the balls can all be moved about, and render times are only a couple of minutes for 800x600. I kind of had inspiration for it when I saw Image:Chinese snooker.svg - thinking that it would be useful to create versions in 3D for various setups/situations to help explain things better. SFC9394 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New Mexico

I have just been bold and kicked the tires on this thing, let's see if she rolls. And god you made me hungry for posole dammit. Not going to drive down there today in the snow. Chris 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I stepped up and got active with it. PS: If you can find it (some groceries in the SW carry it, dried in clear plastic bags with paper tops, like the Mexican spices and stuff), look for blue corn posole. It is smaller and more al dente than the regular kind, and must be cooked longer, but the results are stellar, and it can be successfully frozen if you make a big batch (the regular white-hominy kind turns into goop if you freeze and thaw it). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User categories

I agree 100% that all user categories should be renamed to actually be of encyclopedic use (i.e. change all "who likes", "who listens to", "who supports", etc.) in the long run, but I think it should be done in group noms. Nominating a single category like Category:Wikipedians who use Google is very likely to fail, but making a group nom called something like "Category:Wikipedians by website and all subcategories" has a decent chance of succeeding. Most people at UCFD, including myself, value consistency among user category names even if we disagree with the currently established naming convention, and are not likely to support renames of individual categories if the rename goes against the current (even if unofficial) naming conventions. I highly recommend going with group nominations, or I doubt you will get anything accomplished. VegaDark 09:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to get the ball rolling. I'm effectively managing 2.5 (as it were) active WikiProjects and I don't have all that much time for XfD championing. I totally agree with you that massive multi-noms are needed, I just don't think I'm in a position to do them myself. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. Just thought you might want to read (and perhaps comment) on this. VegaDark 10:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen

Thanks for your contribution at Misplaced Pages:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_support_F.C._Copenhagen. I've responded to your suggestion there. --Dweller 12:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go take a look. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 14:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Awarded for your tireless work on articles relating to the field of pigmentation. Rockpocket 09:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Is this in reference to the Category:Pigment disorders stuff, or the work on Albinism and related articles? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've followed your significant contributions to the albinism article for a long while and, on investigation yesterday, noticed your excellent work on related articles. So a bit of both, I guess. Rockpocket 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Albinism

"Siamfarbenes means: color looks like that of a Siamese (cat). The mutation is incomplete dominant de:Marderkaninchen have one Copy of the gene and the de:Siamesenkaninchen has two copys. Kersti Nebelsiek 12:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Updated the English version. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Time and date maintenance templates

Hi SMcCandlish,

I see a category Category:Temporal templates. Do you think Category:Time and date maintenance templates should be moved into it?

P.S. It looks like both you and I are categorizing templates this evening. If you want me to stop until you are finished, please let me know. Thank you.

--Kevinkor2 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, though I guess both should be examined to make sure their purposes aren't subtly different; I remain skeptical that they would be, and a CFD seems like a good idea. They do serve different purposes! The former is a cat. for future and specific-year type templates (in general); the latter is for time-related maint. templates.

PS: Nah, I don't see that we're overlapping any other than on one template (see CFD under speedy; moving to rename Category:To do templates to Category:To do list templates which is what the cat is really for. The others can all go in cleanup/dispute/etc.) Also created a new Category:Request templates for the items cleanup/disputes that are for talk pages instead of article pages, just to keep them separate (needs infobox, needs photo, etc. Anyway, I think I'm done for the night other than "processing" the last two newly-found inliners.

— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex Higgins

Resolved – Problem fixed.

Stanton,

I can't get a reference in the above article to work. It's the one that relates to the amount of money Higgins is supposed to have squandered. Can you see what the error is and fix it, or let me know and I'll do it?

Sorry for my lack of expertise but, for the life of me, I cannot see what I'm doing wrong. Thanks, bigpad 07:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just needed <references /> in the ==References== section. :-) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Great! Sometimes a guardian angel isn't a bad idea after all. bigpad 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, that website where you can't get the real URL to the page: Please tell me the name of the site and if you can find the page again, copy-paste some signficant and likely unique text from the page, so that I can use Google's site search to find the page. I can probably figure out how to get a real, direct URL out of that; I'm pretty good with such geekery. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've located it ok now Stanton and page updated accordingly. That site uses frames, which I haven#t seen for some times. bigpad 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bigpad and SMcCandlish,

Here is a trick I picked up with Internet Explorer to get the URL of a frame:

Right-click on an empty space in the pane.
- A popup menu appears.
Choose "Properties" from the popup menu.
- A properties dialog box appears.
- The properties dialog box will have a field called "Address" which contains a URL.
- The URL will start with "http".
Right-click on "http". Choose "Select all" from the popup menu.
- The entire URL will be highlighted.
Right-click again on "http". Choose "Copy" from the popup menu.
- The entire URL will be copied to the clipboard.

Enjoy! --Kevinkor2 06:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Matrona

Resolved – Simple explanation.

My comment would have been more transparent if edit summaries supported italics: "Matrona doesn't derive from Matrona, it is Matrona". A bit of context: For many Celtic religion articles, a user had added 'etymology' sections with absurdly contorted language (along with over-linking, original research, and red-herring external links). As a result, many of these articles were dominated by long sections that actually said very little – or, in this case, alleged that a name was derived from itself (à la I'm My Own Grandpa). Cheers, Q·L·1968 ☿ 08:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get you. And agree that there is some pretty strange junk in some of these articles. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

List of World Eight-ball Champions

Resolved – Will WikiProject to-do-list the item.

Hi, would you be able to do that split you talked about? I am unsure how to, or what you mean by, a disambiguation page for this article. Normally these pages are used for duplications? And like you said, eight-ball and blackball are considerably different? Sandman30s 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it to WP:CUETODO. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Added. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub templates

Should all stub templtes incorporate a break as illustrated in Skippy (1931 film)? Rich Farmbrough, 20:51 21 April 2007 (GMT).

That one was weird. Someone had put a forced line-break at the top of the stub template itself; I've fixed that and fixed the article to be consistent with usage in most other cases. There are now two blank lines (in the article, not the stub tag; this spacing need is documented at WP:STUB, or was last time I looked), between the stub tag and everything that precedes it. There are probably a few other stub tags with hardcoded <br />'s in them that need to have this removed. Someday when WP:WSS gets around to it, we can use a bot to fix the spacing problem in the templates themselves and use another bot to remove the double-spacing in the articles, so the more consistently they are presently and henceforth used the better, since any exceptions will need to be dealt with manually. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, "Mr. Clever" was you! No offense intended. Anyway, I have cleaned up every article used by that stub for spacing issues (there were a lot more of them than just with regard to that stub tag actually; someone working on those article has no idea that putting 5 blank lines in wiki text actually has a spacing effect in the article! D'oh.) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Actually, the spacing is no longer mentioned at WP:STUB; not sure why, since the issue has certainly not been fixed in the stub template code. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)›

PPS: Restored that to WP:STUB. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Stanton! I'm not sure where this discussion started so I'm having trouble following it, but since I created {{Joseph L. Mankiewicz Films}} (the template you had to move the spacing of), and will likely create many more such templates, can you explain what I should keep in mind when placing them in articles in close proximity to stub tags?--Fuhghettaboutit 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the stub tag itself. Stubs templates all (when using standard stub tag code) have a spacing problem in that they need to have 2 blank lines in the article between the stub tag and whatever preceded it. In the case of Template:1930s-comedy-film-stubs someone thought they'd be "clever" and put a hardcoded linebreak at the top of it, which I removed, so I'm not going though all articles in that stubcat and fixing the spacing. Had nothing to do with your film nav template at all. From what I can tell, nav templates (if using standardized code) should all have a blank line before them (unless preceded by another nav tag) and one after (i.e. before categories) unless followed by another nav tag. I.e., you didn't break anything. :-) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the explanation. Just wanted to make sure. You're my "go to guy" for template issues.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC AWB used to put two blank lines before the first stub. However my point above (in my usual (overly) shorthand) was that it wold be better to change the (c.3,552) stub templates than the hiundred thousand plus articles which use them, and we could then remove one instruction the general editors workload (negative instruction creep!). Rich Farmbrough, 06:58 22 April 2007 (GMT).

WPBA NC event

Fuhghettaboutit, did you catch the 3 hours of WPBA action on ESPN-2 today? Schweet. And it's actually from this year. I couldn't believe it. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about the Xiao-Ting Pan, Ga-Young Kim match and the semifinals? I have "billiards" on my DVR queue. Watched that one last week.:-) I was in Master billiards in Queens about two years ago and in walked Ga Young Kim. No one knew who she was and she played a very good player, Tommy Walters, and beat him for the cash. We all thought Jeeze, we'll be seeing her soon, and sure enough.... It's such a shame the men can't get it together. Don't get me wrong, I like watching the women, but (and I'm not being sexist, just stating a fact that has been flogged to death in Billiard magazines as to why) the men are so much better overall. I'm pretty sick of seeing three or four women, three balls better than any of their nearest competition, always in the finals. By the way, I just noticed your uncyclopedia edit. HA!.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Pan/Kim match. Didn't realized it was on last week or would've watched it then. As for the men, yeah, it'd be really awesome to have good coverage of the WPA Men's World Nine-ball Championship. Uncyc: Yeah, I just thought it would be funny to mix in pool stuff in the swimming pool place, since "by right" the unarticle there should surely be about the game. Heh. The Wanderone quote is for real, too. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template abuse

Resolved – Discussion moved to User:Padraig3uk/Sandbox

Could you explain to me how this works, what effect would a abuse warning on the template have, and how would one go about asking for one.--padraig3uk 21:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just something like {{Warning}} at the top of the template page documentation. It wouldn't affect the template at all, but would be prominent to anyone looking at the template. It would not stop all abuse, since people use these templates without reading up on them of course, but if it specified that the template should not be used to represent NIR outside of specific contexts, it gives good ammunition to prevent editwarring to restore abuse of the template when it is removed from inappropriate articles (i.e. use an edit summary like "Rm. 1953-1972 NI govt. flag, per flag template's documentation." I think this should be proposed just below the previous discussion, since Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland isn't going to be watchlisted by many editors, even from the Flag Template project. You could also just be bold and go do it (if you understand how noinclude/includeonly work); I'm skeptical that anyone could have a legitimate disagreement with such a warning. But a short discussion about what it should say is probably a Good Thing, so I'd go the talk page proposal route at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Flag Template. The warning should also go in the dox for any deprecated or stand-alone alias templates, like {{NIR}}. Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that gives me a better understanding of the process. I would rather discuss the issue on the wording rather then going the be bold route, as I don't want to risk messing up the template, nor am I sure which template actually contains the icon, as many templates seem to link to others.--padraig3uk 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The "master" template for the NIR flag, regardless which of the flag icon (country name, country abbreviation, flag only, etc.) is called, is documentation, but as noted there are some lingering stand-alone templates of this sort such as Template:NIR. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will have ago in my sandbox at making a {{Warning}} using the abc points from the other discussion, and will post you a link when I have done so, to see what you think before I post it into the Template:Country data Northern Ireland talk page for discussion on the wording, thanks again for your help.--padraig3uk 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, though again: I think this should be proposed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Flag Template just below the previous discussion, since Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland isn't going to be watchlisted by many editors, even from the Flag Template project. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a rough idea User:Padraig3uk/Sandbox what do you think.--padraig3uk 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to vote seperately in that or is the fact I proposed it taken as a vote.--padraig3uk 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, being the proponent means you support it. :-) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you see now why I wanted to do this, some of them are just determined to push their own POV on this matter.--padraig3uk 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. What I find most disturbing is that the parties in question are so mired in this debate (perhaps it is one of their favorite fighting-about topics) that they cannot recognize that we are not pushing the other side of the debate at all, simply noting that the debate exists and that WP has to deal with it by preventing partisan use of the flag. <sigh>. Ultimately I chalk that up to my own inability to get the point across better, I guess. At any rate, I think the proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Flag Template is doomed, but that Misplaced Pages:Don't overuse flags will eventually sort it out. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that a small number of editors have in the past been able to dominate NI issues on WP and this has allowed the widespread use of the flag to happen, now that the issue is being challenged they are getting defensive of their position, and refuse to accept logic, it took six months to get the flag removed from the Northern Ireland Infobox, and into the main article, yet they are still arguing for it to be put back.--padraig3uk 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If it gets any worse, it may need to be taken to WP:RFC as a first stage dispute resolution (some day it could end up at WP:ARBCOM but I would avoid that at nearly-all costs if possible.) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the editors did WP:RFC on the Northern Ireland page over the infobox to try and stop us removing the flag, they were told that if there was no offical flag then none should be used.--padraig3uk 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of a necessarily fast-moving dispute resolution over at Talk:World Snooker Championship 2007#Dispute. Could you take the time to dig up that specific RFC page? I believe it would come in very, very handy. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try and find it, the request was placed here Talk:Northern_Ireland#Request_for_Comment:Infobox to which it recieved a number of replies, I will try and dig out the RFC page for it.--padraig3uk 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I found it here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Politics dated 4th April 2007, about halfway downthe list.--padraig3uk 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thx. I've added a comment to it, since the RFC remains open. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Snooker

I changed it so that the word image and the size did not need to be entered into the article. Most infoboxs are done like this. Buc 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The size isn't mandatory. The way this one is being done is a step forward, and needs to be taken further, so that the "|caption=" line can go away as well. ] already handles these parameters for us, and everyone knows how to use them already; infoboxes should not be reinventing the wheel on a level like that. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub

Resolved – Boneheaded misunderstanding on my part.

Er... would you please calm down? I said "wtf" in a light-hearted manner. Meaning: "Wtf? Why is this here twice? Editors who didn't notice eachother, maybe?", I didn't mean it as an offense. Do you actually mean that information should be mentioned twice in the same paragraph? Because that wouldn't make a lot of sense, would you agree? --Sn0wflake 02:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! I totally didn't even notice that it was in there twice. The edits by someone else, I think Grutness, after your concisifying of the sentence moved it, and it looked like it'd been deleted when I skimmed the changes too fast, so I "restored" it. Gaaahhh... Sorry I bit your ankle here. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Happens to us all every once in a while. ;) Hope to see ya around the project's page. Regards, --Sn0wflake 03:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great idea

I, **Λυδαcιτγ**, award Stanton McCandlish the Minor Barnstar Point for the creation of said Barnstar.

It's as useful as the WikiThanks flower, but I can use it for things that aren't directly related to me (whereas I use the flower for things I've benefited from). I've already given one within an hour of seeing it mentioned on your user page. Λυδαcιτγ 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks! I guess I should add it to the barnstars list in the "personal awards" section. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Hamilton (snooker player)

When I first started watching snooker on the BBC back in the mid 1990's Hamilton was frequently referred to as 'the machine' by the MC and by the commentators. As far as I can see in the article none of the nicknames have been attributed to a reliable source and I for one have not heard all of them mentioned on the BBC snooker coverage. I feel 'the machine' is as valid as any of the other names used, maybe if someone involved in writing the article knows Anthony this could be confirmed, along with the other nicknames. Also i did not intentionally change my IP address, I am on a wired network with multiple computers which i am informed is what causes it to change.

The Article on Anthony is merely a stub and I was seeking to expand it, if only a little. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.20.252 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

The fact that there are unsourced details in an article is no reason to add more of them (it's the "if O.J. can get away with murder why can't I" theme. :-) Even a year ago WP was sloppy about sourcing, but the strong trend today is to resist the addition of more unsourced material, and focus on sourcing the existing material, or the encyclopedia will never be reliable. The old idea of just "throw it now, source it later" is simply unworkable.

The problem in Hamilton's case, to get back on point, is that of all of the tens of millions of web pages and PDF files in the world that Google can find, not one of them uses this nickname for him. Even a credible website like WorldSnooker would be fine as a source, but there's just no source. Try Googling for:

"Anthony Hamilton" "the Machine" snooker -Misplaced Pages -Rage

(the -Rage is to get rid of false positives that refer to the band Rage Againt the Machine; and -Misplaced Pages because WP can't source itself.) There's just nothing relevant at all. I'll add the alleged nickname to the talk page, and note that it needs sourcing, and maybe someone with some older snooker magazines or something can do so. Sounds like a good compromise. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sounds a good compromise I agree to it since you have been very reasonable. But isnt that possibly open to abuse if someone simply stated they had such a magazine and used it to source something incorrect? I realise its unlikely here but maybe with the more famous players or especially in more popular sports. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.20.252 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Paper sources are generally not problematic because they can usually be verified at libraries if all else fails. WP:RS offers some guidance. Just because it's on dead trees doesn't automatically make it a good source - my (hypothetical) self-published book Hilter Had Two Brains for example, wouldn't be a reliable source for anything but me being nutty. But newspapers and magazines with significant distributions aren't generally problematic. And yes, PoV-pushing kooks do sometimes blatantly lie about what a source says or even make up a source that doesn't exist. These are usually found out pretty quickly at least in articles with any significant editorship. Overall we assume good faith here; 99.99% of the time source citations are for real (though maybe only 95% of the time sufficiently accurate; people do check sources to make sure that WP article facts being attributed to that source are actually what the source said). Editors who are acting disruptively are rarely able to hide this fact for long, and if someone is consistently a problem editor in one place, it tends to call into question all of their contributions for an extra level of scrutiny. I often check users' contribution histories for additional problems to fix if I see them making bad edits (especially over the repeated objections and warnings of others), and plenty of other editors do this as well.

PS: You should sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes at the end (~~~~) or you'll keep having "The preceding unsigned comment was added by..." stuff appended to your posts by the signature bot (this is not a good thing; it marks an editor as a newbie or careless. :-)

— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Defender

Thank you for the notice. Although the uninsured driver thing was inconclusive, at least we proved something. Anyways, as long as the Jeff Defender and his socks stay inactive in RFA, things will be fine. Wooyi 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Well, my concern is that the real person behind this probably has 20 sock puppets used for various forms of PoV pushing, disruption, RfA screwing-around, bad faith nominations and arguments in XfD, and attempts to influence blocking & username policy, among other things. There's interesting but highly inconclusive evidence that is it old Willy On Wheels. I also have a personal interest in seeing justice done in this case; not my primary motivation, but it is enough of one that I'm not simply going to forget about it. I recognize this user's patterns pretty well and will be watching RfAs and such for new socks. And thanks for the smile! :-) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve Davis/Jimmy White

Stanton, you have an "attribution needed" notice against the first para. of the White article, re his being 'considered' one of the most popular players ever" yet the Davis article has nothing against the claim that he is 'considered' one of the most successful players ever. Do you see any problems with this?

If we were to add that, from the crowds that attend White's matches and exhibitions, he is widely 'considered' .... or that, based on his world title and other championship wins, Davis is widely considered......, how would that fit in with Wiki policy? bigpad 08:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Davis needs one too. Such terminology is called "weasel words"; assertions of the form "widely considered", "many say", "a small but vocal minority", "critics have insisted" etc., that do not specify who they are talking about appear to the incautious reader to be meaningful, but really aren't since they generally can't be verified. In other cases it constitutes "peacock terms": assertion of greatness rather than demonstration of it by citing facts that illustrate greatness.

Two common solutions for this problem are: Directly quote an external and plausibly reliable source, such as a snooker magazine, saying that the player is "widely considered" thus-and-such, or quote its reader poll results stating that player-and-so is in fact the most popular. It's hard to challenge that. Or replace it with something more verifiable and meaningful, such as "was inducted into the British Sports Hall of Fame in (year), and a month later was named Player of the Year by Magazine Name". Thirdly and even more along that more subtle line, cite verifiable sources as to event turnout or other factors that indicate that a player is popular, or cite sports statistics ("seven-time World Champion, with a record 56 ranking tournament wins") that demonstrate that the player is at the top of the field, but never actually state it. Our readers are pretty smart and can take a hint. It's very tempting to have article label the most popular, best, and legendary players "a crowd favorite", "one of the world's finest", and "a living legend", but this is magazine language, not encyclopedia language. The problem is especially common in sports and rock music articles.

Two good examples (last I looked at them) of encyclopedic language would be Irving Crane and Walter Lindrum. In the non-snooker cue sports article, these are probably our best Featured Article candidates so far (in snooker, I'm suspecting Steve Davis will eventually get there after more "magazine" cleanup, and if someone really starts digging for additional life-story facts, Joe Davis would be get there too. Paul Hunter has potential as well, since sports heroes who die young get written about a lot (i.e. there's a wealth of citable source material). And of course Stephen Hendry has a perpetual top ranker is probably worth focusing on and raising to Good Article status as soon as possible.

— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub tags spacing

This has nothing to do with my personal AWB scripts - it's a built-in feature of AWB. If you're unhappy about it, plesse raise on the AWB discussion page. Colonies Chris 07:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh. Will do, and sorry for the false alarm. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 08:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cuegloss "process"

I've been trying to instill some procedure into Glossary of cue sports terms. We're kind of getting to the point where this article needs to be sourced to hell-and-back or it'll become an AfD target, and we're also getting to the point where more than just two editors are interested in it. I'd like to suggest that henceforth new additions (and deletions, and major entry re-writes) be proposed in the relevant "proposals" talk sections. I'm committing to using them myself. While I think for the short term it's going to be three to five editors paying any attention at all, it's still a good start toward establishing some form of process to avoid later accusations along the lines of WP:OWN, a concern I've had for some time now (based on some really nasty AfD action I've observed starting around last Nov.) Disclaimer: I also have some nitpicks about your latest round of additions, and would rather have talked them out, and would rather now talk them out, than go in and do a bossy revert, which even a month ago I probably would have. >;-) The point being, I think the profile has very recently become high enough with that article that some slower consensus-seeking vs. faster WP:BOLD wikihaviour is probably called for now. Thoughts? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: A radically different way of putting this is also that about once every couple of months we get a noob come in and add/change/delete stuff like mad, and I think part of this is because there's little evidence of any process on the talk page, and a big pile of "do what thou willt" evidence to the contrary. That needs to change or things are going get really messy-like next time this happens. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 10:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the recent additions, fire away. I don't delve into reference books for the terms I suggest I'm afraid, they're usually just things I've picked up from extensive playing experience and from TV commentary I hear, and find it's usually difficult to reference them. I appreciate the sentiments re: proposing them first on the talk page though, and will try to remember that. I'm really nothing more than casually interested in Misplaced Pages, as you may be able to tell from my user page, I'm just someone who plays pool in his spare time and looks at dead deep-sea animals buried in rocks the rest of the time, someone who looks at them so hard that people are going to call me a doctor because of it. An abstract existence. So I've never taken it upon myself to get bogged down with all the procedures, programming sides of it, etc. I'll certainly do my best to make it easier for you avid "Wikipedians" though, and appreciate your letting me know when I could've done so. Kris 11:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: The World Snooker Championships are on at the moment, extensively covered by the BBC in the UK, which may cause an influx of more noobs. Just a warning. Kris 11:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note. I am still committed to sourcing each and every entry. I've just been lazy recently and doing admin tasks and learning admin tasks so my focus has been a bit different as a noob all over again. You realize, btw, that this glossary, if ultimately sourced with inline citations from stem to stern, will I think be the only one of its kind on Misplaced Pages?--Fuhghettaboutit 11:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Huh?

Just you know, the username Klp88 was blocked indefinitely due to the reasons stated in WP:RFCN. Spellcast 12:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Double-spacing

Nope, and has me a bit puzzled too. I'm provisionally chalking it up to me doing too sleepy to notice that AWB was doing that, and more to the point, wasn't even doing any stub-retagging (d'oh). Alai 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mysterious Case of the Haunted AutoWikiBrowser. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Snooker World Championship 2007

You did a good job last night. 88.104.4.186 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Are you User:88.104.21.47 from last night? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and no doubt with a different IP address again. 88.104.86.114 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Trevor Ringland

Please do not ignore http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ireland_national_rugby_union_team#Flags_and_shamrocks when making edits to Irish rugby player articles. ThanksWeejack48 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't "ignoring" anything; I've never even seen that thread, and given that it is very short and represents few opinions, I don't see that it's indicative of any sort of a consensus. But I don't care what flag is used for such articles, really. I'm not pushing a POV, just doing formatting. Shamrock it is then. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

your edit to the NFC criteria

Rather than tweaking the existing wording, please have a look at the draft new wording, and comment if you wish. See talk page. Tony 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What's NFC again? I looked at WP:NFC, but I've never edited that. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 02:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Liam Neeson article

I think that image you removed from the Liam Neeson article was suppose to be there. Misplaced Pages:Fromowner documentation states that that image "should be placed on articles about people that have no current free image". So you probably shouldn't have removed it, since it is suppose to be there. 70.17.153.232 04:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This "Fromowner" stuff is a two-author random idea from last month, that has no consensus whatsoever, has not been through the formal Proposal process, is so disused it doesn't even have a talk page, and is in direct contravention of WP:SELF, a very long-standing Misplaced Pages Guideline. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the "Fromowner" stuff is pretty wide spread. also take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Fromowner. Also, take a look at the list of articles that use that use that image: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Image:Replace_this_image1.svg&redirect=no. That image is used on hundreds of articles, including many major articles and seems pretty widly used.70.17.153.232 05:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have. Misplaced Pages:Fromowner is not a guideline either, and has never been Proposed; it's simply random "my personal idea" nonsense that belongs in Userspace until such time as it has been proposed, debated, fixed, and then maybe becomes and actual guideline. The fact that its proponents have spammed it's bogus image to several hundred articles (which is nothing; there are over 1.5 million articles in the English Misplaced Pages alone) does not affect anything about this issue. And read the talk page yourself, please. You will note that it has been objected to by others. I'm not sure why you personally feel so invested in this, but I can virtually guarantee you that both of those related page will show up at WP:MFD pretty soon and will not survive. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel personally invested in it. I saw what appeared to be a policy that says the image is suppose to be there, and a list of hundreds of articles that use it (including some pretty major articles) and assumed it to be an official policy, and therefore attempted to follow it by placing the image back. If it's not an actual policy, then alright, I'll remember that. 70.17.153.232 06:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Where have you seen anyone say this is a policy or guideline? They should not be saying that. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages policies usually have the "Misplaced Pages:" thing in the namespace, so since this "fromowner" thing is at Misplaced Pages:Fromowner documentation, with "Misplaced Pages:" in the namespace, and it seems to describe itself as a policy, so the natural conlusion would be that it is official, that and the fact that it is being used on hundreds of articles makes it seem like a ligitimate policy. However, obviously I was mistaken, and know better now. 70.17.153.232 06:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely an unsafe assumption. Unless it has a policy header at the top of it (as at WP:NPA) or a guideline one (as at WP:N), it's simply a WP:ESSAY It should have an essay tag on it already, but anyway if you see a Misplaced Pages:-namespace page that doesn't specifically say it is a policy or guideline, then it isn't one. Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I'll keep an eye out for the policy header thing in the future. 70.17.153.232 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Fromowner

Resolved – Discussion is at MfD.

Surely we're all allowed to change our mind and think again. Geni's protect reason is giving me second thought. Where exactly is this template used- I've never seen it... WjBscribe 06:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't saying you can't, was just asking why. Anyway, there's zero evidence to date that there is any "new upload system" that this is part of. It's being used to put WP:SELF-transgressing upload exhortations and instructions into the infobox "|image=" lines of hundreds of bio articles, with Image:Replace this image1.svg. And Geni is not in a position to protect his own little one-person project. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm starting to see now- Image:Replace this image1.svg is being added to articles and it redirects to Misplaced Pages:Fromowner. Might it be better if I just tagged it for MfD and then you can write the nomination? WjBscribe 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, done... WjBscribe 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Does this mean you're a co-nominator, or are you just effectively fulfilling an informal editprotected on my part? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see it more as fulfilling an editprotected request. But I'm likely to support your nomination... WjBscribe 07:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Should be up in about 2 minutes. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 07:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Linkification

Resolved – Discussion is at MfD.

Please note that the above project page is currently being proposed for deletion. The discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkification, if you would wish to take part in the discussion. Thank you. John Carter 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User categories

Resolved – Discussion is at CfD

Hey - In regards to our previous discussion on group noms to change naming conventions, I thought you might be interested in this UCFD i started. VegaDark 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Working Group - Trying to start a discussion

Resolved – Discussion is at the WG page.

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So who's going to clean up 10,000 articles...?

I think this dreadful idea has some level developer buy-in. (Gmaxwell trying to nudge me is a big clue :-P). So like... a lot of your objections are based on mediwiki issues and database issues, right? O:-) --Kim Bruning 01:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Not at all. It's about spewing non-encyclopedic visual vomitus over thousands, probably tens of thousands of pages, annoying everyone, editors and non-editors alike, to the breaking point by showing them the same in-yo'-face exhortation again and again and again (when the absence of an image at all already conveys, quietly, the same message), all just to arm-twist people into uploading stuff 90+% of which aren't going be valid uploads. And without a shred of evidence that this plan has WP community consensus. I think what happened to WP:ATT is very instructive. Silence does not equal assent. Silence in WP usually means "This idea is so half-baked it isn't worth commenting on" or "Huh? This is so unclear there's nothing meaningful to say about it." I have no concern whatsoever for the server load issues and other engineering stuff (there's a WP:SOMETHING link to a page about that; I forget what the shortcut is). And I don't think that 1 or two developers' buy-in means much of anything here. The developers want to know that whatever someone is planning to try isn't going to break the system, which has never been an issue in this discussion. :-) I see what the proponets of this idea are trying to accomplish, and understand the goal, I just don't think that the goal (which wouldn't actually be reached anyway) should be striven for with a hideous, obnoxious kluge that is going to cause more problems than it solves and make the encyclopedia borderline user-hateful for readers. A lot of people have raised serious, logical concerns at the MfD, while the supporters' arguments largely consist of "I like it" and "me too", "it doesn't actually violate policy" and "I think it's a good idea so normal process doesn't apply". I think that says something. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spewing non-encyclopedic vomitus?

Hmm, rather than merely making sure it doesn't kill the servers, one wonders if perhaps something could pro-actively be done by the developers to make things rather less intrusive? O:-)

There are also related projects currently occurring at foundation level to help reduce the amount of invalid input. Also, commons seems to be clamoring for some sort of functionality like this, so it might be that local consensus on en.wikipedia will need to bow to a wide consensus indeed. ^^;;;;

--Kim Bruning 03:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Note that the ATT result was exactly what I had predicted at the start of the poll, and also for the reasons I predicted, so I am rather unsurprised, as you might guess. ;-) ATT was a rather expensive form of instruction, so I hope folks continue to study it and extract as many lessons from it as possible. :-)

I don't know what could be less intrusive than:

|image=

No image present? Yep, one is needed, and yes it needs to follow WP image rules just like all of them do.

Anyway, I have no objection at all to whatever nifty codework may be happening in the background, only to plastering placeholder images all over the place.

ATT: Yeah, I think it will be a solid example of a whole lot of things for some time to come...

— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And ATT is the canonical example of what not to do, of course. :-) --Kim Bruning 05:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And then some. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically polling was a bad idea. :-P --Kim Bruning 06:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a number of us said that, and I thought your point early on in its lifespan that it might as well just be closed now as "no consensus" was spot on, but oh well.

PS: I'm not entirely in agreement with you that making something a proposal is its death knell. If it were, no one would ever make proposals, and nothing ever proposed would now be a guideline. I have several things in draft/evolving state (WP:FLAGCRUFT, WP:CUESPELL, WP:CUENOT) that I plan to run through the process, so I guess we'll see...

PPS: On a radically different topic, I'd appreciate your take on how well my first attempt at informal mediation in WP went. Short version: World Snooker Championship 2007 was subject to a two-editor increasingly tooth-gnashy editwar, so I went to RFPP and had it locked down, then it went like this: Talk:World Snooker Championship 2007#Dispute. Not 100% resolved yet, but it seems pretty close.

PPPS: Shorter sig. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV report of User:WilliamMelvin

I've removed this report from Administrator Intervention against Vandalism as it looks like a more complex case of editing problems from a user than the normal simple vandalism which AIV deals with. This case is more suitable to be raised at the administrators' noticeboard where it can be looked at in more detail. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this thread. Sam Blacketer 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do! — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Shared IP

I just received a message telling me to stop editing on ridiculous pages I haven't viewed (e.g. on snooker players). It also says I'll be banned from editing ever again if I continue. This is a shared internet connection with many many users, so the threat should not apply to all of us. I've also found that when I HAVE edited a site correctly due to reliable information I have on certain topics, it gets deleted some days later anyway - BY WHO?! Who thinks they have all the knowledge available to edit these pages? Thanks for listening to my semi-rant anyway!!

That's just how it goes if you don't create an actual user account; you'll simply be tarred and feathered along with the abusive users of the same IP address (which will probably get blocked eventually, if the abuse doesn't stop.) Accounts are free and can be a pseudonymous as you like. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warning template?

What warning template did you use at User talk:71.103.69.176? Looks pretty handy. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

None, I write my own warnings; you are free to copy it, however – Gurch 05:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah so. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Davis

Fair enough, Misplaced Pages is based on verifiability not truth, but it is true that Davis is considered one of the greatest players of all time, just in a very unverifiable way. Imo an article about him should mention it, as the likes of Björn Borg, Roger Federer, Don Bradman and Jack Nicklaus do. Any thoughts on how this can be done? SteveO 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a very common problem for editors here. See WT:ATT and other ATT-related talk pages (Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Poll, Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Community discussion, etc.), and you'll see that the WP requirement of attributability/verifiability over alleged truth comes up again and again. The only solution I'm presently aware of is to either a) cite (as I changed Steve Davis to do) an "authority" of some sort as saying so-and-so is X (the greatest or whatever), and specifically note who is saying that; b) cite an award of some kind (Hall of Fame induction, Player of the Decade according to thus-and-such magazine), simply state that fact, and let the readers draw their own conclusions (see Mike Sigel for examples, though the "Player of the Year" one needs to be sourced to the awarding entity - maybe BCA, maybe one of the magazines); or c) cite a poll of some kind, e.g. "According to a Billiards Digest 2008 poll, Stanton McCandlish is considered the best player alive". Heh. That latter sort of case is the only one I'm aware of where a "broadly considered to be X" kind of claim can actually be sourced. Per WP:OR, someone else, like a magazine or institute or whatever, has to do the research, such as a poll, to demonstrate the "widely believed" type of claim that the WP article wants to put forth. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Billiard Balls

I agree that using Saluc's own site as a source is bad (even though that is the only source), however, you are wrong about Elephant Balls. They use a DAP-Resin, from the Phenoplastic family, NOT phenolic resin. I can't find a source, however I did call and inquiry through Elephant directly, Steve Maresea 1-800-840-8833. He will confirm that they DO NOT use phenolic resin.

A simple fact is, Phenolic Resin Billiard Balls are a like a trademark or patent. Saluc is the only legal entity that can manufacture or distribute "Phenolic Resin Billiard Ball". Think about it, they can't false advertise right?

So, you are either just making it up that Elephant balls are phenolic, or, you read something that claimed such in error, since the company itself denied being phenolic. If you can find even one other ballset online or anywhere else that claims to be phenolic, then I will drop it. However, if not, I plan to build a consensus and re-write the article to include Saluc/Aramith.

P.S. Brunswick Centennial balls are manufactured private label for Brunswick, by Saluc. Donny417 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I got the Elephant-phenolic connection from a Billiards digest article, ca. 2003, when their "Beautiful" line were used in some televised tournaments; BD could indeed have been incorrect. According to the article on phenolic resin and related articles on such compounds there is no trademark or patent issue at all; this stuff has been around for quite a long time. If Saluc competitors are not using (exactly) phenolic resin, it is probably because they believe they have developed something related but better. Saluc's own claim is actually false - if they used 100% pure phenolic resin, none of their balls could have numbers or stripes, and all would be a translucent off-whitish color with no markings. The markings and colors and opacity are created with dyes that are mixed with the resin. This isn't an utterly trivial note, either. I have noticed through long play that despite being hit more than any other ball, cue balls (the purest) do not wear out faster than other balls, meanwhile the heavily colored 1 ball, which is hit more often than any other object ball in pool, on the break, and at the start of a game of nine-ball if it was not pocketed on the break, wears out more quickly than the others. The only conclusion I can draw is that the more dye the ball has, the less resistance to wear it has, otherwise the cueball would absolutely wear out faster than the rest, probably several times faster. This makes perfect sense to me from experience with dye-mixed hard plastics in other areas. For example, serious skateboarders and roller-bladers opt for natural-colored wheels, while the kiddies are the ones who want the neon green or black or whatever colored ones. Experienced skaters know that colored wheels wear much faster than uncolored ones (very noticeably).

Anyway, to get back to Misplaced Pages: If you've been following the evolution of WP:ATT at all, and WP:V before it, you'll note that just because something is (allegedly) true doesn't mean it can be included in Misplaced Pages articles. It still has to be reliably, independently sourced. This is ultimately probably possible with Saluc, but hasn't happened here to date.

— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd show you something. This isn't for me to "prove a point" or anything. You obviously have interest in the billiard industry, so I simply think you'd find this information interesting. Here is the reply that was sent back to my e-mail asking if Brunswick Centennial balls were made in Belgium...hmmmm...if they were made in Belgium...I wonder by who? *wink wink*

Subject: Brunswick Billiards
From: Username:joan.ledanski
      Site:brunswickbilliards.com
Date:
Thu, 3 May 2007 13:37:19 -0500
To:Donny 
Yes, they are manufactured in Belgium.
Joan Ledanski
Administrative Projects Manager
Brunswick Billiards
______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail message may contain confidential or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and
any attachments and notify the sender by return e-mail.  You should not
retain, distribute, disclose, or use any of the information on this message.
______________________________________________________________________

Donny417

Yeah, I figured as much. Setting up an all-new plastics factory would probably be a bit much for a narrowly-focused company like Brunswick. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing

Don't bite the newbies]! I do like your user page though. It's probably one of the best I've seen. Whould you mind if I used some of your boxes? If not thats cool, I just don't know how to make them yet. And actually, even if you said yes, I don't know how to post them to my user page :) I'm still new and I did read some of the guidelines and policies you left, sorry about the disruptive edit posts. I am very familiar with the billiard industry, I've worked in it forever. Donny417 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No bite intended. Sometimes after a long day I am probably a bit too "short" with people; I try not to do that. If I came across as attacking, I apologize. Oh, and feel free to plunder my (or anyone else's) user pages for features. Installing them is mostly a matter of copy-paste, though it can take a little while to figure out which {{User foo}} template is doing what userbox. My page makes a fair amount of use of wikitables. HTML tables also work here, if you know those better. As for your background, you'd probably make a valuable member of the Cue sports WikiProject. It is mostly User:Fuhghettaboutit and me, with a 3-5 other fairly active editors. If you dig around in there you'll find lists of needed articles such as at WP:CUEBIOS, a big to-do list, templates, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Changing other people's posts

Hi,

Sorry, I did not know I was not allowed to correct peoples' grammar in talkpage posts? i am just curious, why is that?

Also, Yes, I signed myself up to Cue Sports Wikiproject. I forgot to log in first though.

Have a good day.

Psdubow 00:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's considered disruptive editing. Basically, it is a thinly veiled insult ("your spelling and grammar suck, and I'm smarter than you"), and often also leads to US vs. UK English fights. Just not worth it. A commonly recognized exemption is fixing something that is functionally broken, such as a typo in a link that makes it not work at all. Fixing indent levels so that who is replying to whom is clear, and fixing typos or unclarities in topic headings is cool too.

Anyway, welcome to WP:CUE by the way. :-)

— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

Psdubow 01:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner

Your repetitive point by point bickering with every respondent on the page is really going beyond the bounds of reason and fairness. There are roughly 10,694 words on the talk page (some error induced by not stripping out markup) and of those 5,026 are in your comments. So you are personally responsible for about half the discussion yet you are just one person out of thirty-eight participants. We can not have a fair discussion if a single party monopolizes the floor to such a great extent, and victory-through-exhaustion is not an acceptable debate style here. If this continues I will be opening an RFC on your behavior. --Gmaxwell

If one does not respond to invalid, illogical, emotion-based or incomprehensible arguments with clarity, then how are they to be addressed? If they weren't snowballing into more and more of these vacuous "me too!" responses, I probably wouldn't have bothered. But they are. I'm not sure what tactic you would recommend instead. And please don't exaggerate ("every"); I specifically did not comment on some of the recent "Keep" !votes and skipped them entirely, because (for a change) they actually provided rationales (that were actual rationales, that were actually understandable, and not emotive but substantively empty chatter or "keep per whoever, the end" hollow comments). Follow my activity at CfD, UCfD, SfD, AfD and elsewhere, and you'll see that I'm generally one to state my piece and move on. I just haven't ever seen such a brazenly substance-free set of "keep" !votes in my life as in this case. Not to mention that most of the respondents seem to think this is just a keep/delete debate, when it is clearly and has always been a keep/userspace/formally propose/delete debate. I'm sorry that we don't see eye to eye on that particular discussion, but I hope you can understand how mindboggling and frustrating it is to see an XfD go this far off the rails. If that's made me too debatory, I'm sorry about that. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I was asked (I think by you) to give others a chance to talk. I walked away for two days and came back and found nothing but WP:AADD. Many XfDs don't even last two days. I acted in good faith, even if the end result has been to irritate you personally. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First, WP:AADD is not a policy, only an essay. Second, I know you acted in good faith, but good faith sometimes produces bad results. The new image mechanism may be flawed, but here you seem overzealous to delete it. Let the community and the closing admin decide, and if it's not deleted it wouldn't even do any harm to Misplaced Pages. Wooyi 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, with the caveats that a) I think it's already doing harm (as do several others who've commented there), b) I've argued for userspacing not deleting (though the nomination also allows for deletion), and c) WP:AADD doesn't have to be policy to be right (cf. WP:RS and many other useful shortcuts.) Anyway, I don't think I have anything to say at that MfD that I haven't already so I'll just stay away. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT at Talk:Mohammed Yousuf and Talk:Alex Pagulayan pages

To retain the thread, I responded to your posting on my talk page. Romanspinner(talk) 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

I'm going to start working on the Cue Sport Bio's. I can see why you've been struggleing with this. There is almost no reliable information online. I do think I have some good stuff at the store that I can find, and take pictures of without too much threat of copyvio. Also, I know of a site that has some good info on some of the older Hall Of Famers ].

I'd like to join your project if that okay. I think I can make some good contributions. Donny417 04:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. You'll be our second new recruit today! I think that's a record. As for bios, I think Shamos's books and a couple of Byrne's are useful in that regard. See my Gallery page (off my user page) for a means of keeping track of your own image upload; might be helpful for you. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Active guideline

Warning

Update

Eight ball

Polish interwiki

{{Resolved}}

Blackball

Welcome to VandalProof!

Interesting

Re: Non-authoritative

DYK

Cue Sports?

Billiards pics

MoS type stuff

Biography articles by quality statistics modification request

My warning of 71.183.11.205

Hi

WP:OWN

What is this?

Re:Billiards

Book recommendation

Re:merger of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/List_of_stubs

Change in the Mosconi Page

Category:High school sports associations in the United States

Deletion of Wikiworld template?

Billiards Page

Strickland

You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page

Strickland pics

I don't grok

BCA books

Pedantic.

Godwin's Law AfD

Template Esoteric

/NG section removal

templates wikiproject

Your monster sig

WP:ATT

WP:MOSNUM

AAJ

I wrote something else....

Mediation

RFC/discussion of article National Union of General Workers

Thanks

WPATT protection notices

Good resource

Informal mediation

Template talk:Todo vandalism?

Replied

Condense poll reply

Poll

Your note

Thank you

Poll

Hi!

3-cushion coming out of the closet

Jessica Steen article

Inkscape template

You have discovered something

A cup of tea

3RR cavassing?

Jeff Defender sock case

Snooker rest

An invitation

Something you may be interested in

Complicatedness

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jeff Defender -- an invitation

Please don't move my vote again...

ATT post

Jeff Defender sock puppetry --- checkuser

Arch Stanton

Vandalism

Thank you

Holy...

About control

Thank You

WPILT logo

ATT

Re:RMB

User categories