This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 02:23, 7 August 2008 (→Please remain WP:CIV: - Typo.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:23, 7 August 2008 by GoRight (talk | contribs) (→Please remain WP:CIV: - Typo.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Return of the Son of Cobb
What you wrote looks fine to me. I agree it's 'weasly' and technically needs attribution, but I think Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules applies here: If someone is reading about Cobb for the first time, they should know his claim to fame: He is widely considered, among those who know enough to know who he is, to be one of the greatest ever. It's probably the most important thing about Cobb. It's a fact, it's just hard to cite (surveys? of who?) and hard to be specific (how many say that? who are they?). So the weasel words seem to be the best solution. Guanxi 18:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
CSD
No, not at all, anyone at all can tag for CSD. I appreciate your work; I removed the tags because I thought that if the articles were undergoing discussion, then they shouldn't be tagged in case they were deleted in the middle of the discussion, if someone had a valid keep rationale. I was, however, definitely in error, and I'm sorry for causing you trouble. I was wrong, and will definitely be more careful about articles tagged for CSD that are in AFD; thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. Regards, Keilana(recall) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
English?
What is wrong with my english? (on my RFA) Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, time is of affliction
Thanks for correcting that, and for your explanation of why the weird phrasing is consistent with DeNameland's character. Have a great day, and watch out for the yellow snow! RomaC (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fishing Derby (event)
Can you please be more specific about what areas you still feel are a copyvio? I'm seeing a large difference between the current article and the source document. Shell 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see that he just re-added the old article in there at first, but by the time we got to the end, it was significantly changed. Can you take a quick look at User:Shell_Kinney/Sandbox and see if you think that version has the same problems? Shell 04:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem at all, if I hadn't happened to look at the right time, I wouldn't have caught it either because the first recreation was definitely a copyvio again. I've gone ahead and restored any revisions of the new article without the copyvio. Thanks for taking a look to confirm! Shell 05:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Midgets and dwarfs
A midget is more properly proportioned, while a dwarf has proportionately short arms and legs. Eddie Gaedel was a midget, as can be seen from his photo. Adult midgets tend to look like children, whereas adult dwarfs tend to look like "normal" adults only with shorter legs and arms. I don't necessarily agree that either term is "better" than "little person", but only that they are more factually descriptive. Baseball Bugs 07:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Major League Baseball
Hi.
I (somewhat) disagree with your assessment of the paragraph I removed, however, I feel that a discussion will be of more value than a revert war, since I'm a bit frustrated with Misplaced Pages at the moment and may not be seeing things clearly. If I may be a bit pretentious/patronizing for a moment, the history behind the article is that I started it from scratch, sent it through a peer review, sent it WP:GAR and, after some tweaks, got it passed. So I'm pretty happy with that GA version, although I do agree that the sentence that removed is not really necessary. So I do admit a little bit of WP:OWNish bias. My big thing is, as you correctly pointed out, sourcing this has proved be extremely difficult; as you can imagine, there's even less in non-online soures than online ones. Given the efforts I expended to get everything cited, I'm just a bit uncomfortable with inserting a whole uncited paragraph smack-dab in the middle, particularly one on a bug. Gameplay is gameplay, and there's general agreement that it does not need to be cited, but I feel that bugs are a bit different. For starters, I played this game all the time as a kid, and I certainly didn't see the second bug. Obviously that's not the least bit conclusive, but it does get to the issue at hand: WP:V (which is probably more accurate than what I mentioned in my edit - WP:OR). The "gameplay" section of any video game can be verified by playing the game whereas a bug, I feel, cannot, unless there's a guaranteed method that can be used to recreate the bug, which I don't believe that there is (am I wrong on this?). So that's where I was coming from with the edit.
Having said all that, I'm not entirely opposed to keeping the material, but I do feel that a good compromise would be to integrate it better in the article. I am pretty convinced that it sticks out like a sore thumb in its present state, even if it is technically in the correction section. Sorry for the long ramble. Cheers, CP 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, I can accept that argument. Would you mind if I tried to integrate the information better into the article? The only problem that I could see would that it would integrate the information in the middle of cited paragraphs, which would (falsely) imply that said references cited that material as well. Cheers, CP 15:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Mentioned in thread
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Badger_Drink Bovlb (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Lady Aleena's RfA
|
Badger Drink...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Misplaced Pages will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
Force lightning
Hi. You lamented in the article's AfD that the preponderance of Star Wars fans means that trying to get the article deleted is irrelevant. You should be happy to know that I've seen at least one 3-to-1 !vote decided in the latter's favor, and the decision upheld in DRV, because the minority had the rules on its side.
However, I also assure you that the attitude in your post is needlessly grim, and ask you to reconsider or at least quiet down. In your statement you assume that editors who are also Star Wars fans will disregard the principles of the encyclopedia they're here to build in favor of having more stuff on the Force. This is not so. Fiction has its raving fanboy quotinent, but this is exactly the kind of people whose posts have to be disregarded in AfDs, and we also have a lot of fiction experts who are willing to work within the rules to improve our coverage - but we are far from guaranteed to retain them, volunteers all, if both kinds are treated as the same. In my - let's face it - considerable experience, assuming a debate or a segment of our editors to be beneath rational cooperation is an excellent self-fulfilling prophecy.
And this is just personal opinion, but to paraphrase someone smarter than me: "To be honest, I think the thing that makes Misplaced Pages a "laughing stock" is not many articles on the minutia of television or other fiction, but the seriousness with which we take ourselves." HTH, cheers, Kizor 00:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeking feedback only from you
Hello and greetings to you. You have been one of the only uninvolved editors to comment to the Arb Committee. I certainly realize that there are a lot of editors who truly hate homeopathy, and therefore, don't like me. This is why I am interested in hearing whatever thoughts you, as an uninvolved editor, have on my participation on wikipedia. Although there are many more voices against homeopathy and me at the Arb committee hearing, I hope that you are reading some of the responses from the editors who support my efforts. You can comment here or at my user-page or via email. If you have any personal thoughts about homeopathy (pro or con), I'm open to hearing whatever is. DanaUllman 05:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Qur'an and science
Discuss in the talk page before removing referenced material. Imad marie (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
John Coleman
How is John Colman's opinion to have a debate and Al Gore's comment about the debate being closed my POV?Wotring3 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Mdb1370...
...has been putting lists of pennants on a lot of players' bios. Good luck tracking those down. I don't have the energy for it just now. Baseball Bugs 10:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, apparently this guy doesn't have the sense to at least spell my screen name right, but I digress. As far as your problem with me putting pennant info on Hall-of-Famers' talk pages, I believe that it's the players' contributions that win pennants. Even though not every Hall-of-Famer has played in a World Series, helping a team win a pennant is alone a significant achievement. Look at what the Tigers did in 2006, three years after losing 119 games.
For the moment, I've placed the information back on the Ty Cobb page, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that helping a team win a pennant is not an accomplishment. I think we're all better off assuming good faith. Thanks. Mdb1370 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed the heading. I don't buy the argument, but the consensus on the project page seems to support your take on it; in fact, I was going to revert Badger's change "pending project discussion", but you beat me to it. Baseball Bugs 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Requesting an Editor Review
Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Misplaced Pages. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well done!
I saw your revert on the Frank Zappa article. I think the person has "simply" saved an old version of the page. The changes were not put in there individually, I think. Good catch! Cheers.--HJensen, talk 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
genero-cruft?
Hi. What is genero-cruft?! Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- (copied over from my talk page:) Heh. Some people tell me there's not enough in it, and others such as yourself that it's bloated. I'm half-tempted to cut even more from the biographical stuff. But out of interest: which bits would you cut? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- (copied over from my talk page:) Ah, OK. I understand what you're saying better now. I do rely on quotations a lot. In part, that's my style (sorry!); though I feel it's fairly justified when the subject is a BLP. On the other hand, I do believe that we should try to make our articles interesting and engaging. That's probably just a different philosophy as to "encyclopedic" tone. I may not get it completely right, but I'd like to be able to write entertainingly, while sticking to NPOV. Peter Wall is clearly an interesting and colourful character; I wanted to get some sense of that across. NB I don't think that that means it's a puff piece. I've very much tried to ensure that it steers a careful line between BLP concerns on the one hand, and spam on the other. FWIW, there is one rather negative newspaper piece out there; I've linked to it (it's the Adele Weder one), but not used it very much. In any case, if one were to be negative about Wall, I don't think his personality is the deal, but rather the effect on people who can no longer afford to buy a house in Vancouver, while a few profit from this extraordinary boom. Again, I added a brief comment and footnote about that, but didn't feel it worth going into at length.
- Anyhow, thanks for your comments. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
YOUR BADGER
I.DRINK.YOUR.BADGER. I.....DRINK IT UP. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Muhammad image
What is the real reason why you are defending to keep that image on the article, it doesn't really need to be in that section. You are probably well aware of images not being allowed of the prophet, which is the reason why I have removed it, plus it doesn't really seem necessary at all to be present there. My edits are not seen as vandalism, it's my point of view and action of whether or not the image should be allowed. Your point of view of having the image on the article is not greater than my point of view, so it gives you no right. Thankyou! May peace and blessings of Islam be with you! Please understand. Moshin (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Actions that . . . deny effective recourse to dispute resolution . . . are completely unacceptable
Wow. I totally missed that. F'ing amazing lack of introspection. Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Funny
Very good joke on the arbitration case. I didn't even relaize that until you pointed it out. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin RFAR
Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe
Maybe not really that high on the friendliness, but by god we're civil, or at least we are as civil as an individual admin's interpretation of CIVIL for a given day, in a given hour, dependant on how they are feeling, is ... :-). Shot info (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Soundtrack, Simpson's episode
The reason I moved the Soundtrack listings into Cultural References is because a powermad editor, L0b0t is going around to all the episodes arbitrarily deleting info. He had deleted the entire Soundtrack section (see history) saying it was unnecessary, I put it all in C.R. in the argument that its a standard category in Simpsons Episodes (since he argued Soundtracks is not). I have no problem myself with a "soundtrack" category, but you may have to contend with him deleting your entire section again and again. He seemed ok with leaving it in C.R. (he didn't delete it again, anyway.)71.100.0.107 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, like I say, I don't care either way, I just thought the section had merit and wanted to preserve it, and if moving it to CR would keep him from deleting it, I didn't care what the "heading" was. Anyway, when he logs on later don't be surprise if he deletes it again.71.100.0.107 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, it was Martarius, not L0b0t http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Little_Big_Girl&diff=224327312&oldid=224316561 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.107 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Water memory
Good point. I guess my problem is with the word dubious. I'll try to think of an alternative/rephrase, but it isn't really a big problem. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Profanity
Please do not use unnecessary profanity in your edit summaries, like this. It may be interpreted as incivil. Just a request. -kotra (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Ohai there. I see you do a lot of vandalism work, and I must say, I'm impressed. May I interest you in the rollback feature? It makes it faster to revert vandalism than using Twinkle. You can request rollback at WP:RfR. But rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and not good faith edits. You are allowed to revert your own edits though. If you are interested and you do want to request for it, then I suggest you read WP:VANDALISM, Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature, and Misplaced Pages:Rollback policy first just so you know when and when not to use it before requesting at WP:RFR. -- RyRy (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Suicide threat
I would appreciate it if you would consider deleting this quote from AN/I. I'm thinking of a case that was on the news in which a teenager told people on the Internet he was going to commit suicide; people replied with comments like "It's about time", and he did actually commit suicide. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Block
Your comment here was completely unacceptable, thus I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please don't resort to name-calling again, you should know better. Al Tally 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|terrible block by an involved admin. Even if we throw out his tiresome and consistent oppose-badgering and the light in which my comment was intended in, this is just as bad as Tango's block of MONGO.}}
|
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Request handled by: weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
- I will talk to Alex about this block. Please have patience. east718 // talk // email // 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Shall do! --Badger Drink (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
While you have been unblocked, I'd just like to recommend you refrain from comments like you made at the RFA, especially when they have nothing to do with the RFA at hand. I don't know what your motivation was, but there is no reason to go into a seemingly random RFA to attack another user. If you have an issue with another editor, go to that user's talk page and discuss it without A. disrupting non-related natters and B. name-calling. Just a bit of advice for the future, Metros (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Responded on your talk page. Short answer: it had everything to do with the RFA at hand. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
Per discussion, I have unblocked your account and make no further comment on the merits or otherwise of the original block. Pedro : Chat 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for a block review You can find your name there.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Elonka RFC
OOps! Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please refactor your claim in the RfC that Elonka is "callous, impulsive, and mercenary"? That seems really excessive, it's very impolite and frankly I think it will only serve to discredit your other comments on the matter. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Long reply on your talk page, short version: No, but I understand where you're coming from. --Badger Drink (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
3RR at The Great Global Warming Swindle
You're veering awfully close to a WP:3RR violation. Note that your three reverts have been of three different editors. Sometimes, we have to accept that we don't like the consensus and move on. Oren0 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Badger, I suggest you chill a bit. Whether this article is labelled "Denialism" or "Expose" has not the slightest importance to anybody except the people who are arguing about it. Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Please remain WP:CIV
I take note of the edit summaries at: and . Neither of these is in line with WP:CIV, IMHO.
On the issue of the reversion you have made, please justify your actions on the talk page as is customary. There is extensive discussion on this edit there and I have provided more than sufficient justification for my edits. In this respect, please answer the following:
(1) Do you deny that the reference I used provided a statement from Durkin wherein he denied misrepresenting Wunsch?
(2) Do you deny that the reference I used for the ofcom report explicitly confirms that they felt the program had NOT misrepresented Wunsch on his statements regarding the relationship between CO2 the oceans and rising temperatures (see direct quotes provided in the article history and on the talk page)?