User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive007

APR 2009 - MAY 2009

Uh oh...

-->[1]<-- They've almost protected mind control!Soxwon (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No. They. Haven't. I. Deny. It. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OH NO, THEY'VE GOTTEN HIM. BASTARDS!!!Soxwon (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AOfbnGkuGc HalfShadow 16:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Until the 4/1 virus scare passes, I'm staying away from youtube and such as that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I really think you should watch it... HalfShadow 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel strangely compelled to agree. Everyone should watch it. Though I am concerned about this 4/1 virus - do you get it by licking toads? This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if, instead of saying "Ribbit!", they say "Conficker!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment regarding your RfA

I have no intention to make you waste your time with this visit. But I want you to stop commenting further as referring to your RfA. That has nothing to do with Roux's incivility that I filed. I feel very odd, because I thought you're very cool with the RfA result. But obviously you don't. I do not think you're as much uncivil and disruptive as Roux does, but your comment blows the flame.--Caspian blue 16:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone tells you to stay off his page, you should stay off his page, no matter what words he chooses in telling you that. Me, I don't talk like that. And I very seldom tell people to stay off my page. But his page is not my page, and his way of doing things is not mine. If he tells you to stay off his page, you should do so, and not make a big thing of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I asked to him several times not to involve in my business more, he did not listen at all. After his mission based on hi antipathy was fulfilled, he hops to repeat his drama. I'm laughing at his behavior and various lying. Bogus sockpuppetry accusation is serious attack, but he is allowed to come out from the charge and to continue to do so. Sadly, that's who he is. If you still feel bitter about my opposition, then you know how you have to do for your next RfA if you still care to do that .--Caspian blue 16:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If he has made a false sockpuppetry accusation, you should focus on just that on the ANI page, and leave the other stuff out of it, which only serves as a distraction. Keep the ANI request short and to the point. That's how to reduce the "drama" aspect. Just state the facts, in a sentence or two or three, and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know how come he cooks up with the bogus idea. Maybe some who failed to become Checkuser and other things. But I don't want to prolong the thread. If he does that one more time, he will be taking the responsibility. Thank you for the advice after the strong punch--Caspian blue 17:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S I do not have any bad feeling against you, but you really frustrated me several times in past when banned users made bogus ANI-threads numurously, you were enjoying comparing them as "ping-pong game".--Caspian blue 17:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're specifically referring to, but I've tried to curb my ANI activity significantly since the RfA discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This might fresh up your memory? I can easily find others in your archive. But as long as you remain civil, there is not much worry for future. Thanks.--Caspian blue 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well here's one checkuser that would be interested in hearing about "bogus sockpuppetry allegations". --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask Thatcher, Rlevse former, and current Checkuser or Roux the disruptive accuser, not me. Since you're condoning Roux's "fuck" parade, no thanks for your care. --Caspian blue 17:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You say the sock charge is false, so you would be well-advised to try and prove it's false, as that would improve your credibility in the future. To say it's false, without providing documentation, is itself an attack, and undermines your credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The accusation without any evidence makes him open for blocks if he continues just like someone was indefinitely blocked days ago. I'm not enjoying the one from some Pro-agenda --Caspian blue 17:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll stop caring. Enjoy your accusations. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, when did you care about me? Enjoy your thin "trust".--Caspian blue 17:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I have a very high tolerance level for criticism. You will hardly ever see me complain about "personal attacks", because I don't care. What I care about is wikipedia content. But the one thing that will get me riled is to be labeled a sockpuppeteer. On the rare occasions that has happened, it has been met with swift retribution. So I'm just saying that if someone makes that accusation, it would behoove you to refute it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand how hard time I've been through due to various sockpuppet's and banned harassments from off-wiki. They have even stalking sites dedicated to me. The accusation also comes from some abusive editor known for his/her hypocrisy. So I can care less about the absurdity because I have nothing to hide. Checkuers saw my account when tit-for-tat RFCU files were made. I've still been seeing many socks around me, but I can care less as long as they do not make personal attacks to me. I've filed many RFCUs (most of them are successful), but only I file it when they extremely harass me with verbal attacks. That's a big difference between you and me.--Caspian blue 18:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point I don't know what advice to give. Evidently you've been personally attacked a lot. Actually, I've hardly ever been personally attacked, or at least nothing is coming to mind (other than the idiots who unwittingly contribute to my "fan letters", above). I'm just saying if you're going to complain about a false sockpuppetry charge, or a false charge of any kind, you should focus on that rather than on the distraction of all the F-words and such stuff as that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither native English speaker nor a good writer even in my mother language. So well, that writing was my best to summarize the situation as I was holding down anger. I've never heard of such many F-words in my real life and online, so my range of incivility tolerance hit the bottom. If such accusation comes from editors in good standing, I should be very wary of, but well, he is a little pathetic guy that I have to pity. However, thank you for the useful advice indeed.--Caspian blue 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Caspian, if someone tells you to stay off their page you should do so. It appears as if you are trying to get a rise out of Roux, so you can take it to ANI or wherever. Since you are so keen on personal attacks, you should no that calling someone "pathetic" is very much a personal attack. I'd quit while I was ahead if I were you. Landon1980 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

let's see, how many times he has used the f-words with various lies, and I've got no apology from the gross offender. However, you say that the quite fit label for him is the same as his "fuckism"? Not worthy to listen to. Advices are enough from Baseball Bugs so far, indeed. I have a valuable lesson about some of human nature from Roux's behaviors, so I'd rather read books of good maxims in Chinese.--Caspian blue 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, really I do. I think a lot of the time you don't convey exactly what you want to, with English not being your native language. Roux can say the word fuck as many times as he wants, and he if asks you to stay off his page you should. What did you expect when you templated him? My point is this: If you are going to complain about PA's, you should hold yourself to the same standard. Roux's comments being personal attacks are open to interpretation, but you calling him pathetic is a PA no matter how you spin it. Can I suggest you take a break and try and forget about all this? Landon1980 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree that Roux's personal attacks are open to interpretation. No matter how he and others justify those words, the bashing is not excusable. I'd rather blame myself for my poor writing that does not convey well what I'm trying to say. As for pathetic, I sometimes pick up idioms or usages from editors here, the usage of "pathetic" is what I learn from admins here. They use it when calling editors in dispute, so I can't believe it. What I want you from right now is just let me alone. That would give me have some slack. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Portland Ballpark

You probably already looked into the background of this a bit, but basically, Portland was awarded an MLS soccer franchise that is contingent on moving the Beavers out of PGE Park. So the Beavers are definitely out of their current stadium by 2011.

As far as I know, the funding for a new baseball facility has not been 100% nailed down yet, and there are some questions as to whether it will be built at the Memorial Coliseum site, but I think the city is pretty committed to keeping the Beavers in Portland, and keeping the door open to an MLB franchise someday--so everything I've heard is that a stadium will be built. I didn't create the article, but I think it's worth keeping and expanding as things become more definite.

It is certainly possible that everything will fall through, but I think it's far enough along in the planning stages to be notable. I'll try to put in some more detail and inline refs when I have a chance. --Esprqii (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Soccer is actually pretty big in the Northwest, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. (Personally, I'd prefer a major league baseball team, but hey, we take what we can get.) The current team is a minor league soccer team but they sell out anyway. Seattle's MLS team started up this year and they sold out their season tickets pretty quickly. I actually think the MLS is really counting on the NW to save the league as they will have three teams--Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland--in close proximity and hope to build strong rivalries. The soccer team and stadium retrofitting is a done deal; you're right that the baseball stadium is a bit more speculative, but I think it's newsworthy enough to keep the article for now. --Esprqii (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Retirement

I eally am retiring this time (I don't know if it is good news or bad news). I really was trying to assess the post-mortem reaction (like a living man who gets his obituary published)!! --Baseball Bugs (data sheet) (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Retirement

I eally am retiring this time (I don't know if it is good news or bad news). I really was trying to assess the post-mortem reaction (like a living man who gets his obituary published)!! --Baseball Bugs (data sheet) (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC) --Baseball Bugs (data sheets) (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Socip vs. SoCIP

[Copied from MBisanz's page]

They pulled a fast one on you - they renamed the article. You deleted the redirect. The actual article is still there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You did it so fast I didn't even get to copy it. I was thinking of going to this wonderful annual event in China. Now I'll never know. :'( Oh, well, dat's dat. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Its last remnant is its talk page. Isn't there some way to trigger a deletion of a talk page? Some template or another? If so, could you let me know, and I'll test it? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Drat, I am fast! {{db-g8}} deletes such page. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, and would that work for the subpage, now that I've downloaded it? In a vaguely related note, supposing I create an article (a notable one) in a subpage. Once I post the article, am I compelled to delete the subpage? Or can I keep it for "tinkering" purposes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To delete a subpage, that is {{db-g7}}, but you are free to keep it for tinkering. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Userfied

At User:Baseball Bugs/SC MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

damn you

Damn it Bugs .. your would make me go look it up .. shit .. be back as soon as I can find it .. ANI post I think. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

couldn't find the diff .. but the thread is here .. further down. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm only seeing little squares. Must be a special font of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's upside down text on my computer. Don't know what to say beyond that? — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Gwen Gale it's "UTF-8 :)", which is, I believe, lolspeak for "You The Fail Smiley Face". No, I don't understand either. I don't know, these kids and their crazy modern lingo... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What can i say, Bugs? I've always felt deep inside you were somewhat inferior. 'Little squares' indeed. I'm going to eat ice cream until I get over this. I thought...*sob* I thought we were friends... HalfShadow 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. I've just got an ancient PC that can't display the characters properly. This PC is so old that the hamster operating its insides is on a pension. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

http://i39.tinypic.com/mubxhe.jpg *snff* HalfShadow 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha! This reminds me of a comment from George Carlin ca. 1970 when reading a fake news report: "The Beatles latest record, when played backward at slow speed, says, 'Dummy! You're playing it backward at slow speed!'" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

UTF-8 is just a means of mooshing 16-but Unicode (or other) characters into what's basically still a seven-bit transport protocol. Someon withe more patience than I can dig out the upside-down characters from the Unicode standard. Entering obscure unicode characters just takes patience or a script. Rendering them is up to the viewing software; default FireFox shows them fine. The squares-for-unrenderable-characters convention is an artifact, I think, of (ptui) IE. (Bear in mind that I spent several years enforcing standards.) PhGustaf (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack!

I've put a request for my talk page to be semi-protected, as the impersonations are getting ridiculous. I told my Mom about Ron's antics, and she's not surprised, since it's near the start of baseball season *lol* :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at ZooFari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ZooFari 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RL socks

Yes, I shall. If you can provide me with any diffs, it would be very nice. I'm hoping you have some, as apparently you have been involved with this case longer than I. Also, my 'spit' edit summery was a mistake. It was meant to be SPI, but I typed a t in there for some reason.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The case can be found here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Matthau

Ok, thanks, I have read your exchange. I hope that 75.80.164.216 will make up his mind about original research and the like... Bye, Goochelaar (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Call this the Basic Barnstar, basically. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at ZooFari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ZooFari 03:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody likes you

Drutasgub (talk · contribs) appears to be taking up your gauntlet, even though his name is "Bugs A Turd" spelled backwards. You seem to need a better class of enemy. Moriarty this guy ain't. Dayewalker (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. He lasted from 21:05 until 21:13 before being blocked. You're right - with enemies like this... I need better enemies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• 'Moretardy', maybe? HalfShadow 05:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there might still be an Enemies List from the early 1970's lying somewhere around DC or California that you might want to browse for a higher quality of foe... Of course, the list must now be so old that some of the entries might no longer be readily available for active antagonism. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In short, most of Nixon's enemies are dead, like him. Closer to home, Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) maintained an enemies list, albeit a short one. [2] It might have grown longer, had he not been banned from wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're committing an elementary error of epistemology (WP:EEE or WP:3E). Tecmobowl's ability to act upon the list may have been hampered by his/her/its/their banning, but how can you determine the list's present length? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It could be like Scrooge's ponderous chain by now. He tried sockpuppetry and was caught red-handed (they were very cheap scarlet socks) and it's always possible he might still be around under another guise, just in a totally different corner of wikipedia, which would be just ducky. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Those are always fun, but fair warning on them. When it became obvious someone was being for lack of a better word, a shithead, I started to keep the diffs on them to file on the proper board. Filing a proper edit war complaint takes about a day and a half sometimes, so I tried to think ahead. I had a completed one I didn't file (in good faith) on a user who was edit warring. He went back more than 800 edits in my history to find another one I hadn't gotten around to deleting, then tried to take me up at ANI for it. He was laughed out of the thread of course, but I still had to waste time defending myself against a frivolous complaint. Lesson learned.

My motto? No good deed goes unpunished, and there's always somebody crazier than you are on here. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of that fact every day. I do my best to maintain my status in that pecking order, but someone's always a step ahead of me. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And in Tecmo's case, he took me to ANI because I had found his enemies list, so he accused me of "stalking". Talk about being laughed out of the thread... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, fond memories, like the time I had that unfortunate collision with a porcupine. The exchange with Tecmo was on June 27-28, 2007. On July 1, he was sent packing. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

*raises hand* I can make a good nemesis. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And you've already got sox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ItsHowdyDoodyTime inspired me, too

I enjoyed the imaginative autobiographies of the users also. I think I'll change my user page. --KP Botany (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I was especially inspired by the one who was 90 years old yet amazingly computer-savvy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, poor Korea...

http://i42.tinypic.com/2q382eo.jpg HalfShadow 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope they don't have the last laugh someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

TimmyTruck

Did you see? [4] Confirmed. - Josette (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I commented at WP:ANI. I think they've all been rounded up now, or at least the significant ones. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say "thank you" for your work on the Buttermilk/Lassie/Timmy crisis. (By the way, Buttermilk was Dale Evans horse. Creative naming, at least). That whole rodeo resulted in not one but two ANI reports on me within the last two weeks, neither of which was really justified (though I confess to losing my temper) and the dogpiling that can hit with those was rather scary. It would be nice not to have to go through with that again. By the way, in the process, a content fork was created called Rodeo in the United States, which I'd like to merge because, like your topic, Baseball, I think the main rodeo article can handle the international aspects without a spinoff. Would you care to glance at the two articles and comment if you feel so inclined? Montanabw^(talk) 04:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi ho, Silver (horse), who really was a white horse. But, When a white horse is not a horse, other than when it's a gray (horse)? LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 15:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The chemical symbol for silver, Ag, comes from "Argentum", which means "white" or "shiny". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Don'tcha just love latin? More entertaining trivia at white horse Montanabw^(talk) 15:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the Latin names of the elements. Especially mercury, Hg, which stands for "Hydrargyrum", which means "water silver" (there's that "argentum" root again). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there's the hapless radio newsman from many decades ago who attributed a story about the President to "a high white horse souse". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. A horse that hits the booze? That's a scary thought! LOL! By the way, can you remind me what "Plaxico" refers to? I'm curious. Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening Day

Main article: Opening Day

Just wanted to say Happy Opening Day. Whatever team you support, let's hope they don't do as badly as the 2008 Mariners. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the 2009 Yankees outlose the 2008 Mariners. Else, Happy season to all. PhGustaf (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WOOOHOOOO GO REDSOX! The only ones I'd rather see win are the cubbies since as a Sox fan I can empathize with a cursed team. Soxwon (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone tell you to change your username to disambiguate? Besides, some bleeding hearts are never destined to get their way, no matter how much money or clout they have ;D MuZemike 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the flexibility of signature setup, as he's a Red Sox fan, he could have his name appear in red. If he were a White Sox fan, he could have his name appear in white. Hmmm... Picture that... That would be the ultimate "transparency to the user". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually enjoy watching the confusion as ppl try to figure out if I'm a White or Red Sox fan, I might even remove the clues on my userpage and they'll never be able to figure it out. Muahahahaha. Soxwon (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there could be Republicans on the south side of Chicago, but I wouldn't bet the family jewels on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, how many Republicans are there in Massachusetts? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We've been building our forces slowly, we'll soon take over. TO ARMS! Soxwon (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Who, the Republicans? Or the Sox? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Both ;). The Sox have been building up their arms (Papelbon, Beckett, Smoltz, Lester, Penny, Matsuzaka etc.) and are ready to slaughter the Yankee monsters. And the Republicans shall soon make the streets of Boston run red. Soxwon (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They're already running red, thanks to deficit spending. I was thinking... let's see... in 1994, you had a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. In 2000 you had a Republican Congress and a Republican President. After 2006 you had a Democrat Congress. And now you've got a Democratic Congress and Presidency. Methinks the GOP is "building" in the wrong direction. The Red Sox? That's another story. May they finish ahead of the Yankees... and may the Yankees finish 1 game out of the playoffs. And then the streets outside the Stadium will run red. George will inquire as to Billy Martin's availability. When reminded that Martin is dead, he'll say, "Good. That'll be an improvement!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Republicans have gotten away from the conservative small gov't politics they used to get in. However, being a cynic I still say it doesn't really matter, neither party will actually decrease spending or do so in a responsible manner. After all, taxed money appears to be no one's and the temptation is to make it someone's (with your name attached). As for Martin, I'll laugh if Steinbrenner hasn't goes back on bended knee to ask Torre to come back.Soxwon (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're catching on. :) The GOP's gripes about deficit spending ring extremely hollow. We actually had a surplus in the late 90s. Once the Republican monolith took over, it went through the roof. They became the biggest spenders in the history of the world. Until this administration. Not a good trend. As for Torre, I've got a hunch he's very happy where he is, and would probably tell George, "You don't have enough money to get me back to the Bronx." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And personally I'd cheer for Joe :). However, I think the Republicans might actually reduce spending and get us in the black if either would. We only got the surplus under a Republican Congress. Unforetunately we either have to raise taxes or cut spending. I'm in favor of the latter but only b/c I'm small gov't (the less money they get, the less money they waste. I shudder to see the bueracratic mess that Universal Health Care will be). Soxwon (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognise the style?

User_talk:LaSylphide has a certain familiar quack. Odd, really - ItsLassieTime seems to edit perfectly well as most of her(?) avatars but have this propensity for what may be termed fabulation. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Now indef blocked, thanks for the heads-up (I'd read the last block log entry as indef' rather than 1 month). It's a weird editing pattern, but one common factor seems to be the repeated pleas for sympathy, which differ on the various accounts; "my husband just died", "I'm in a wheelchair". I'll be tagging with sockpuppet/suspected sockpuppet tags tonight. Tonywalton ^Talk 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs & carrots

I'm assuming this is not you? :-) Arakunem^Talk 16:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked {{usernameblock}} Tonywalton ^Talk 16:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not me. Liebman again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can answer this...

What's the difference between "rollback" and "undo(VANDALISM)"? I'm just not getting it. Padillah (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the other user explained it, but I see rollback as being simply a keystroke saver. And because it's so easy to use, it has rules against using it indiscriminately, especially edit-warring, as it also provides no edit summary other than the fact the previous editor was reverted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Axmann8

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template. I've added the template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:

No, no, no. If your presence there 'harms' the request (which is ludicrous anyway), then I'd rather it happened anyway. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Via some nifty coding, Roux helped me out with it. Grab the code from below here (without the stars)

:<*div style="height: 180px; width: auto; overflow: auto; padding: 6px;text-align: left; border:none;">
:{*{TOClimit|2}}<br />
:</*div>

:) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you did, but if you give me permission, I'll have a shot at implementing it. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fail moar. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You've got to float it, you silly banana. I'll do it. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was more simple than that. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what {{clear}} does! Fiend! — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That probably means you're using a failbrowser — cleared fine for me first time. :| — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You've caught me at a good time. I'll get on designing it now. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 11:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I would have done it anyway. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, did a fix for non IE browsers, should still work in IE. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is of course, therefore, the assumption that people can remember what to search for to find an archived discussion. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes like to flatter myself by thinking that people actually care enough to look at my archives.









...nah. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I got bored, and coded some boring crap. :( — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I could do that, but then I'd ruin my tasteful colour schemes. :( — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, I could do what Gurch did, and make his pages nigh on impossible to edit. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

World Series

Regarding the "World Series" edit, I was planning to add a section about the strike that was threatened to occur ca. 2002-2003. The line about steroids was based on an editorial cartoon that appeared around that time. I realized that I needed to do further research to obtain sources, and also needed to revise the text, so I reverted the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Paul Parks (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Another satisfied customer

Just thought you'd like to know Juliancolton just indef'd Baseballbugsisahomo (talk · contribs). KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's downright insulting. Where is there anything on my page that suggests I don't like girls? "Baseballbugsisaschizo"? I could see that. Not the "homo" thing, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we could AGF and say that they meant "homo sapien." KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good point. "Homo sapiens" is Latin for "wise man". So I should be flattered. Maybe they just ran out of characters or inadvertently hit "save" too soon. AGF'ing, I'm sure they'll come back, with a corrected version. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we seem to keep hearing from "Homo sapiens notsosapiens". PhGustaf (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Methinks that yonder fan of the good Baseball Bugs is a bit too obsessive in thy attempts to besmirge the good rabbit's name. Soxwon (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the fact that Julian zapped him within a minute of his arrival. Apparently some of these birds think that no one's watching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The high road

Please, just leave CENSEI (talk · contribs) alone. I think there's general agreement that his editing style was a poor match for Wikipedia, but that's no reason to kick him while he's down. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm quoting his words back at him. If you think that's unfair, feel free to revert. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't kick fallen editors

Comments like this don't foster the collegial atmosphere conducive to encyclopedia writing.[5] While it's an understandable human emotion to cheer the demise of someone who has annoyed you, it's best to keep those feelings to yourself. Kicking someone when they're down is petty.   Will Beback  talk  18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just a symptom; it's largely because of the way he led Axmann8 into getting indef'd. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. More explanation on MastCell's page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, disengage from CENSEI. BELIEVE ME, I know how you feel and I know human nature and there are many things I'd like to say to him that are unfit for Wikipedia as well but you're only going to find yourself blocked and other people screaming that your taunting is why he's so misunderstood and blocked, they will start feeling sympathy for him and eventually unblock him. We most certainly don't need that - you blocked and him unblocked. So please, I am asking you not to post on his talk page anymore. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If he hadn't betrayed Axmann8, I wouldn't have bothered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 is just as bad when it comes to the conservative agenda driven edits on Wikipedia. He's where he needs to be now. However, it is unfortunate CENSEI used Axmann8 as a pawn in his scheme to have me blocked at 3RR. But please, just let it go and focus on the thread at ANI. You should put the taunting diffs you left on CENSEI's page, at the ANI thread instead to further prove what a drain he is on Wikipedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

BB, there's a section on WP:BAN that applies here (an indef block that nobody's prepared to lift is effectively a ban). I'll quote it verbatim: "Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them." Tonywalton ^Talk 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth to tell, I don't think CENSEI should have been indef'd over this latest foolishness, nor did I support the banning of Axmann8. More than anything, I'm offended by a (supposed) member of our courageous American military who lets down his buddy in a time of crisis. He whines, "I happen to have a job!" But he always has time to speak when he feels like it. He's a disgrace to the military AND to wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank

Can I get your honest opinion on the opening of the Barney Frank article? Soxwon (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonably factual. What's your take on it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That second paragraph doesn't seem a bit like cheerleading? Soxwon (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kind of. Is it factual? How would you temper or neutralize it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of having the slightly out of context quote about dealmaking and comment made by Clinton's secretary, put in something along the lines of "Frank is considered by his peers to be intelligent, a compromiser, and an ardent supporter of civil rights." Instead of all that flowery garbage you get an easily citable sentence that doesn't lend undue weight. I also believe there should be brief mentions of gay rights and trouble with Fannie Mae. Soxwon (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I were writing it, I would probably say that he has been an outspoken and controversial figure, lionized by some and demonized by others. I've got a hunch there are plenty of cites to vouch for that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to add that, I think we're seeing both at work on his talk page (and I'm one of them unforetunately) :(. Soxwon (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Except, now that I think of it, that statement could describe almost any prominent politican. I could just as easily have been talking about Jesse Helms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I stuck the two together, we'll see how it turns out :). Soxwon (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you don't ask me to do any editing there. I'm on a self-imposed topic ban (of indeterminate length) on most controversial articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just seek thine advice, if anything this is an endorsement for you for admin, solving a problem, and nobody's feather's rumpled :). Soxwon (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. The votes I win for that will almost offset the ones I lose thanks to the CENSEI episode earlier today. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap, plead the fif Soxwon (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, that could work. Another thing about ol' Barn - I think discussing Fannie Mae in the lead is probably a little too detailed, unless it's really been a major deal (you can tell how little I've been watching the news this winter). Also, on the gay rights thing, has he really been that much of an overt activist, or is he just more of a "role model", as it were? Again, you can tell how little I've followed his career. He's a big deal where you are. I'm in the midwest, so the local politics here are closer to home. Blagojevich, for example - that sterling icon of modern statesmanship. Oh, wait... I'm thinking of Lincoln. Lincoln is on the Illinois license plates. Ironically, Blago might end up with a career of making those license plates. And so it goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt from the article:

In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[42] The two companies, which together own or back more than half the home mortgages in the US became "hobbled" by loan defaults.[43] Frank clarified in 2009 that Fannie and Freddie were not in crisis at the time and many financial institutions, like Lehman Brothers, also fell into crisis from 2003 to 2008.[44]Conservative groups criticized Frank for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. They claim the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and they blame Frank for not playing a stronger role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[45][46] Frank's former partner, Herb Moses, was an executive at Fannie from 1991 to 1998, where Moses helped develop many of Fannie’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs. In 1991, Frank pushed for reduced restrictions on two- and three-family home mortgages. During the time that Frank was in a relationship with Moses, he blocked tougher regulations on the banking companies while voting for the Government Sponsored Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1991 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.[47] Frank and Moses' relationship ended around the same time Moses left the company.

As for the gay rights again from the article:

Through the 1990 Immigration Act, Frank was a major force in removing restrictions based on "sexual preference exclusion" which had been explicitly prohibited by early immigration law.[20] In 1998, Frank founded the National Stonewall Democrats, the national LGBT Democratic organization. In February 2009, Frank was one of three openly gay members of Congress, along with Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Jared Polis of Colorado.

And a Barney quote: I do have things I would like to see adopted on behalf of LGBT people: they include the right to marry the individual of our choice; the right to serve in the military to defend our country; and the right to a job based solely on our own qualifications. Doesn't that seem to bear mention in the lede? Soxwon (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no question that he's an activist, then. And his statements about the lending institutions sound vague familiar - like when McCain was saying the economy was sound, just before it fell apart. As to whether it's a big enough deal to warrant being in the lead - what do the reliable sources suggest might be an answer to that question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly (no pun intended) I don't really care if the Fannie Mae stuff makes it, I could live w/o it. Soxwon (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially as it appears to be covered in detail in the article. Plus it's a specific event and it's fraught with potential POV-pushing; whereas the gay activism, while it may be controversial with those who don't approve of it, is non-controversial in terms of it being a fact, that he's an activist. If that makes sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sportsmans Park Waxman P99994 crop.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Sportsmans Park Waxman P99994 crop.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sportsmans Park Waxman p93 crop.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Sportsmans Park Waxman p93 crop.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Got 'em - thanks for the feedback :) Skier Dude (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on these two

As possible ItsLassieTime socks?

• Isthererelevance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Istherestillrelevance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• ReverendLogos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EveryDayJoe45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Created about the same time (20:50-ish UTC 4 Jan 2009), each makign exactly ywo edits - removing the same warning placed by SilkTork (who looks uninvolved in all this ILT stuff) from the ILT sock ReverendLogos and EveryDayJoe45 (about whom I'm not 100% sure, but verging to the "uninvolved" because of style and because they've made edits recently enough for CU to have seen them). Tonywalton ^Talk 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight RFA

FYI. Until it's live, no !votes are allowed, and that's for any RFA. rootology (C)(T) 05:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought Henry Kissinger's Nobel Peace Prize had killed satire for good, and now this? Schadenfreude, here we come. PhGustaf (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Jawohl! That's German for "You bet!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

An certainly Al Gore's collection of same should have killed off common sense. — Ched :  ?  10:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gore won the Peace Prize for being so boring he could even put warriors to sleep. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Actually, good, I'm glad you're up. I thought I read that there was now an AN or ANI thread on COM's RfA? Do you know the title? And to be honest and serious for a second (but only a second) Bugs. If COM had a bit more time under his/her wiki-belt, I'd probably be inclined to support. I'd have to look over the diffs first of course, but I do admire the ability and boldness to jump into the fire so to speak. I myself don't edit on the "hot topic" areas, simply because it seems like too much work for too little gain in regards to getting even a single sentence to stick. But I do admire those who toil in the political areas. OK.. sorry to get off-topic and serious for a moment there .. I know this page requires a sense of humor, an appreciation for sarcasm, and the ability to accept some really bad puns - (and I don't want to get banned for being too serious) ;) If you have a link, or thread title - I'd like to see what's being said on the COM RfA. Have a good one. ;) — Ched :  ?  11:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh .. nevermind .. I see, up at the top back when the "ban" issue was brought up .. I was looking down at the bottom for a whole new topic. — Ched :  ?  11:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You are weird

Just sayin'. :-) tedder (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's common knowledge. I'm afraid you'll need to be a little more specific, even within that scholarly discussion thread. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot provide reliable sources, but I believe I should be allowed to act as a primary source on this. I mean, it's obvious, right? In any case, it appears to have worked. (in case it isn't obvious to Bugs or anyone reading this later, I'm truly amused, and admire BBugs' levity) tedder (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, I thank you, and Henny Youngman thanks you. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah?

You think so? See you in court then... I mean wherever your granny is :D Chamal ^talk 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kinship

Hey Bugs. As someone who recently went through a difficult RfA I thought for sure you'd want to wait until I've had a chance to answer the questions [6]? :) Well, you can always change your mind. I wanted to mention that I responded to your comment on my talk page with a couple questions in case you were interested in responding. Thanks. Take care. Feel free to remove this at your discretion. I will not take any offense, it's most certainly your talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was later advised that I was supposed to wait. I didn't know the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, CoM, what's a polite way of saying 'I'd rather staple my own face shut?' 03:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs)

I don't know the exact meaning of 'I'd rather staple my own face shut', but given this news, the sentence sounds very offensive.--Caspian blue 04:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound comfortable, in either case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Bugs, is something a controversy simply b/c it's one partisan attacking another? I just gutted the Bill O'Reily criticism page mainly b/c every single thing I took out was a 'controversy' started by A) Keith Olbermann B) Media Matters C) Al Franken D) Some other liberal partisan group or figure. I figured that since there was a distinct lack of non-partisan groups talking about these so called 'controversies' that they were WP:UNDUE and had no business being in the article. (If the only qualification for something to be a controversy is a partisan taking it up every single liberal article would be covered with Limbaugh, Hannity, and other conservatives IMO.) Soxwon (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All of those guys thrive on controversy, so adding or deleting sections from those articles kind of misses the point of what their shows are about. In regard to O'Reilly, always remember that he came from Inside Edition. I recall the storm of outrage over his suggestion that the Hornbeck kid was happy to be living in captivity. I thought it was one of the stupidest things he had ever said, and that's going some. I haven't seen the article for awhile. Does/did it have the time that O'Reilly went ballistic over an unofficial, off-site and segregated prom conducted by white kids at a Georgia high school? He had Neil Boortz on there talking about the story, and O'Reilly got blindsided when Boortz suggested that O'Reilly was overreacting because he had been criticized for under-reacting to another recent segregation case. O'Reilly looked at Boortz with fire in his eyes, and called him a "real son of a bitch". So much for O'Reilly's claim that he never name-calls. But that's also the risk he runs, bringing someone in who's as quick on his feet as O'Reilly is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but back to what I was saying, is it really a notable controversy if it's limited to that select group? There were no links to anything save those groups/individuals. Soxwon (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Name 3 of the controversies and I'll give you my opinion. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He mispoke about getting an award, he uncovered corrupt proceedings (though through a mistake, but still), and mispoke about Malmedy instead of Normandy. All mistakes yet suddenly elevated to "controversie" b/c of him getting lambasted by partisan commentators. Soxwon (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall watching the show where the award mistake was discussed. It wasn't O'Reilly's show; I think it was on C-SPAN, of all places. It was at a booksellers convention or something, and I think Pat Schroeder was the hostess, who found herself in the position of trying to be peacemaker. I thought Franken and O'Reilly were on the verge of a fistfight - very unseemly stuff, especially for the usually bland, low-key C-SPAN. I've never seen O'Reilly so steamed. He called Franken an "idiot" (there's that not-name-calling again) and Franken has been on his enemies list ever since (if he wasn't there already). It's a good thing they were on separate sides of the podium. Franken was factually correct on his points that (1) it was the wrong award; and (2) O'Reilly left the reader with the impression that he himself won the award, which was not the case. To give you my take on it, I thought Franken was unfair in that he beat the subject to death. By itself, it wasn't very important. But I think it would be worthwhile to keep it in, and maybe find some sources that come closer to what I'm saying about it, to put some perspective on it. The reason is not the error itself, but that it gives some background to his frequent badmouthing of Franken whenever the subject comes up. It's not just that Franken's a flaming liberal, it's that he "personally" attacked O'Reilly and wouldn't back off from it. I felt badly for O'Reilly that night, which is something I rarely say about that guy. The point being that there's a lot more to that controversy than just the award mistake itself. OK, that's one. I don't know the details of the other two. If he uncovered something corrupt, shouldn't that be a good thing, regardless of how he found it? And what's the context of the Normandy thing? Maybe you can tell I don't watch the show so much anymore. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The above also points out a pattern on the O'Reilly show - that he will focus on stuff people say about him, as he appears to take it very personally. Limbaugh does that too, but he uses it more as fodder for ridiculing the attacker as opposed to just complaining about the attacker, if you get the difference. I don't recall Hannity ever commenting on personal attacks - I think he stays above that sort of thing, but you might know differently, as I seldom watch that show anymore either. Regarding Olbermann on the other side, it's important to keep in mind where he came from too, namely ESPN. He conducts his show like it was a political version of SportsCenter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)\

But the point is, these are listed in a controversy page. If they were listed on his page fine, but it seems they are justifying this attack page with liberal partisans smearing him is what I'm saying. Soxwon (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You may not know that the article's content originally was in the main article. It was created as a spinoff because the main article's section was getting too large. One question is whether this is about "him" or about "his show"? Maybe that's the root problem with the article. O'Reilly is so visible that it's hard to distinguish "him" from "his show". I wouldn't say the same about Colbert, since he's essentially playing a character on his show. The real Colbert is more low-key and "normal". But whenever I've seen O'Reilly, he's always "on". Anyway, maybe the title is wrong - maybe it should be controversies about the show, rather than about O'Reilly himself. I don't know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It just seems like the whole thing became a dumping ground for every comment, incident, and attack leveled at O'Reily despite the fact that they all seem to come froma select group of sources and never made it into the mainstream media or achieved noteworthiness. Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, here is the material in question:

- After the September 11 terrorist attacks, O'Reilly devoted substantial time on his television show and wrote pieces accusing the United Way of America and American Red Cross of failing to deliver millions of dollars in donated money, raised by the organizations in the name of the disaster, to the families of those killed in the attacks. - O'Reilly claimed that the organizations misrepresented their intentions for the money being raised by not distributing all of the 9/11 relief fund to the victims. Actor George Clooney responded to O'Reilly's claims, accusing O'Reilly of misstating facts (including confusing the United Way with the Red Cross), sloppy reporting and harming the relief effort by inciting "panic" among potential donors. Congressional hearings were called on the matter and an investigation by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer took place. Bernadette Healey, the president of the Red Cross, resigned shortly thereafter. In a statement before the House Ways and Means Committee in November 2001, Congressman J.D. Hayworth asserted that media pressure, most notably from O'Reilly, helped cause the Red Cross to increase payments to affected people and helped cause other charities to participate in an oversight database established by Spitzer.

- On October 3, 2005, retired four-star general Wesley Clark was a guest on The O'Reilly Factor. A topic of debate on the program was a ruling regarding the potential release of more photos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Clark defended the release of the additional Abu Ghraib photos saying the country needed to know what happened. While debating with Clark, O'Reilly incorrectly stated a historical fact of World War II when he said "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War II and the 82nd Airborne that did it." That massacre was the killing of 84 American soldiers by the Germans in the town of Malmedy, Belgium during World War II. - - The next day, on May 31, 2006, O'Reilly addressed a viewer email regarding the inaccuracy. As reported on The O'Reilly Factor, the email came from a Fort Worth Texas viewer named Donn Caldwell and stated: "Bill, you mentioned Malmedy as the site of an American massacre during World War II. It was the other way around, the SS shot down U.S. prisoners." O'Reilly responded to this by saying: "In the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough Mr. Caldwell. After Malmedy, some German captives were executed by American troops." - - According to Keith Olbermann and Media Matters, Fox News' website edited the transcript of O'Reilly's second interview with Clark, changing the line to, "In Normandy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces" when the video clearly shows that O'Reilly said "Malmedy" rather than "Normandy." - - This second instance of O'Reilly misstating the facts of the massacre, combined with his denial of doing so and the apparent cover up in the transcript by Fox News prompted a harsh response by Olbermann on the June 1, 2006 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Olbermann showed video clips of O'Reilly making these incorrect statements from the October 3 and May 30 editions of The O'Reilly Factor and showed the clip of O'Reilly addressing the viewer email the following day. - Olbermann lambasted O'Reilly, calling him a "false patriot who would rather be loud than right." He also compared the editing of the transcript to George Orwell's 1984. -

- After the airing, Fox News corrected the afore-mentioned transcript on June 2, which was noted in a follow up report on Countdown with Keith Olbermann the following Monday.

Again, neither received coverage outside MSNBC (Keith Olbermann), both are dubiously cited (Youtube, partisan sources), and don't seem really notable or to justify inclusion except to bloat a controversy page. Soxwon (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall the Red Cross discussion, and pressure from various folks including O'Reilly definitely caused trouble for the Red Cross. As I recall, they were taking some of the money that was supposed to be for 9/11 victims and using it to cover other funding. Maybe it could be worded in such a way that it points out that O'Reilly was essentially correct even if he got a few details wrong. About the Malmedy/Normandy thing, that's part of O'Reilly's pattern of having to kind of re-state things he has said before, to try to spin it (ironically); which is what happened in the Hornbeck case as well. He's an old-schooler who will never admit he's wrong, but will take some pains to try to re-explain it. That's an observable pattern, which is more important than maybe specific stories within that pattern. Good luck finding a neutral discussion of that, though. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cabeese!

Thank you for that, needed the laugh. Dureo (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Jennifer Lopez story, with the blinking lights? Yup. Now, the burning question is, if a group of geese is a flock or a gaggle, what is a group of cabeese? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Stock(yard)? I still like Caboosi though. Soxwon (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the caboose is essentially obsolete (except in the Jennifer Lopez case), I'm going to say that the proper collective noun is a decease of cabeese. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The blinky light on the last car is called a FRED, for "Flashing Rear-End Device". Just thought you'd want to know. PhGustaf (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And that also accounts for the blinky lights on J-Lo's bridal train. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bugs ...

Just wanted to stop by and say "Happy Easter" (if I've misjudged, then Happy "just another day"). Hope life it treating you well. ;) — Ched :  ?  21:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Misjudged what? Is it not Easter? Did I oversleep? P.S. "Easter" essentially means "Spring" and is a secular name for what is technically Resurrection Day in Christianity. There's your Fun Fact for the day. :) P.P.S. Do you know why Jesus' tomb was found to be empty that morning? Because Jesus had set His alarm clock and had arisen early. He didn't want to miss Easter Services. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

lmao .. hope it was a good one for ya Bugs! — Ched :  ?  11:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're not too tired from laying all those eggs. Seems like a strange chore for a bunny. PhGustaf (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a strenuous eggsercise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Even more taxing than hare-raising and hell-raising? Do you need a special Trainer? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Plaxico

I keep hearing his name, who is/was he?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I've always been wondering about that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back on that Lassietime and Buttermilk thing, I have to wonder if Casey Jones might not be more apt. ;) — Ched :  ?  11:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, here we go, with the train theme again. Hmmm... where is all of this leading? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

lmfao .. train bound for nowhere I guess ... toot-toot. ;) — Ched :  ?  12:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Casey Jones was indeed a train wreck, but it was triggered by someone else. But at least it has a catchy tune. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

re BC

As you are likely aware, Theresa knott has closed it down. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. Very good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There were very many who saw the potential, providing he could learn how to interact appropriately, and wanted for there to be a way back in. BC, as ever, is on a different wavelength. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bugsy

I know you opposed me last time, but I'm thinking about re-applying at WP:RfA. I think I've addressed most/all of your concerns at this time. If you could comment on my answers and/or give me some tips on my draft page's talk page, I'd appreciate it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

thought you might have use of this

Hey Bugs, I drove up to Cleveland today to see my sister; on the way back I stopped at a little mall to grab a drink and noticed this sign outside a laundry-mat. I grabbed my camera cause I thought you might be able to use it since you seem to attract so many of these. ;) thought you might get a real kick out of it! :-) — Ched :  ?  01:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

Hello. Due to frequent mentions of you in the evidence for this case, as well as frequent activity in the scope of this case, I added you as a party. If you have evidence of your own, wish to respond to any, or have suggestions for this case, you may post in the appropriate case areas. Wizardman 02:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series FAC?

So do you tink this article is ready to be nominated? BUC (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look tonight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at it? BUC (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Looks pretty good. I'm not an FAC maven, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place

I think your statement at the Obama articles ArbCom should have been placed on the evidence page. Presumably a clerk will move it if you don't. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If that was before today, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It was today, following Wizardman's response to CoM's suggestion of more names for the ArbCom. The page you edited had a banner at the top which you might have missed. I think the page for your statement was probably Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Anyway, this was just for your information. Best of luck, Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I recall now. I went to the site he told me, and posted my comments. Those comments stand. Someone can move them to the proper place if they want to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hustle

Did you see [7]? Pretty funny, they made the DR their centerpiece w/o talking to anyone involved w/it about it. Soxwon (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I posted it when I was annoyed and not thinking things all the way through. Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm in position to comment on the specific dispute. I do know I've had a few words with Collect from time to time, but nothing severe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, just to give you an idea of the filers motives, he also posted on AN/I: [8], [9] as well and seem to want to make sure to get him one way or the other. Soxwon (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I had seen that. So far, I don't think there's much of a case. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[10] and that's all for me folks. Soxwon (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Corn

Umm...sorry? I have not idea what you're talking about. I was never involved in an edit war that I know of, and I haven't even made any edits to this page. Your accusations are baseless and inappropriate. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not mean that you were in an edit war. I meant that by messing with things, you could start another one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Recommend a book for ya

Hey, based on a question you asked over at [11], I recommended a book for you. You may want to check it out. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I've got one edition of Take Me Out to the Ballpark by Josh Leventhal, but I hadn't looked at it for awhile. It's good. Thanks for the tip about the Polo Grounds / Yankee Stadium shot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

W-E-I-R-D

Did you know about this? http://sthweb.bu.edu/archives/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=User_talk:Baseball_Bugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)

It's just a mirror. you are on there too, as are ordinary articles and even me (which I suspect is the closest I'll ever get to theological college!) Tonywalton ^Talk 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know that, I just was wondering WHY he was on a theological website. Soxwon (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

They seem a bit over-eager with what they're mirroring. Maybe it's just an example of God's Omnipresence ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 10:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Or at least Boston University's omnipresence. And as of right now, the above comments are all on that site. I wonder how long it will take THIS one to show up? As regards the theology part, that's a touchy area. Let's just say that I talked to God this morning, and He told me to keep up the good work. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And the answer is that it showed up immediately. Hello! Hello! Echo! Echo! Quack! ... ? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they proved quacks echo, it just covers up the first one (not sure how you would type that one). Soxwon (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"QQuuaacckk" or maybe "Quack". And they've had a Betty Rubble in Flintstone Vitamins for years now. I almost spelled it Flinstone. I figured I'd better change it before maybe-you-know-who fixed it for me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of mirror sites, that reminds me of the Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, who asked, "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" The mirror, being old and hard of hearing, answered, "Tinker Bell!" The infuriated Queen yelled at the mirror, "Wrong picture, moron!" And went back to work on her poisoned apple. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What was her problem? If she wanted to get rid of tinkerbell, all she had to do was keep ppl from clapping. Soxwon (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

She tried. Following her career as a witch, she went on to become a movie critic, and panned it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought Ebert was a little funny looking. Soxwon (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Requesting Clearance, Clarence." "Roger, Roger, what's our vector Victor?" Soxwon (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't call me Shirley. And this is my associate Mr. Wang, no offense. Soxwon (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wow, that's a really ugly hat. Oh, but it looks good on you!" That's kind of a twist on a joke that's at least a hundred years old: "Meet me down at the pigpen. Wear a hat, so I'll know ya!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You lost me with the pigpen :$. Soxwon (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this one: A frumpish character walks into a bar, with a duck perched on the shoulder. The bartender says, "What are you doing here with that pig?" The patron says, "That happens to be a duck!" The bartender says, "I was talking to the duck!" Does that help? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

If we are still quoting movies, then know, don't know it either. Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The last two weren't movies, just old jokes. I don't know any new jokes. Except certain users, none of whom post here. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well at least I got they were jokes. Soxwon (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Jokes are guaranteed. Good jokes are not. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

From ANI

Is your intention to make the atmosphere around here less pleasant? I certainly find that to be the effect of posts such as this. Why not cut it out? If you have nothing to say that's actually helpful, please consider remaining silent. That's been a good rule, for millennia you know. People far cleverer than you or I thought so, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had it with that character, and will try to steer clear of him in the future. At the rate he's going, I expect him to eventually be banned. But that will be for someone else to take care of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And then you turn around and post to another thread in which that editor is having a conversation with me. That makes you a bald-faced liar, doesn't it? You claimed in your RfA to be 13-and-a-half years old - it shows. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're funny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comic Sans

See Typeface Inspired by Comic Books Has Become a Font of Ill Will. Exactly what font does Bugs speak in, anyway? —— Shakescene (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The font of knowledge. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent AN/I case

Bugs, you just archived the thread where I was going to put this - so please feel free to archive after reading.

As a comment to the discussion between you and GTBacchus... I have introduced evidence of what you call "coddling vandals" to the AN/I case. I use more straightforward language, though, and try to do it in a forum where it is already at issue rather than raising it where we are talking about other things. Specifically, there were multiple instances of COM shielding and inciting problem editors by attacking article patrollers on the Obama talk page. Also undoing and revert warring the article patrollers' actions. That does two very bad things. First, it frustrates the efforts of legitimate editors to deal with problems. Second, when a newbie editor is simply misguided rather than hopeless / socking / bad faith, they see that it is okay to use talk pages to accuse editors of thing, to complain about the liberal conspiracy, etc. So not only is their disruption allowed to linger by this, they are encouraged to become more disruptive as editors, which lessens the chance of them ever joining the community. If nobody does anything it is not going to stop. However, Bugs, although I believe your heart and head are in exactly the right place, your defense of things that you think need defending sometimes includes taunts, colorful language, impertinent comments, and other expressions of enthusiasm that have the opposite of the effect intended. Editors who are angry just get angrier. Those claiming a hostile editing environment point to your comments as evidence. I seriously doubt ArbCom is going to take action against you (though it is possible), but I can easily see their remedy including an admonition not to engage in the kind of comments you have been making, not even to clear vandals. Maybe that's just me talking, but I think it would be best for the project if you restrict verbal horseplay to us willing horses. You can come over to my page anytime and crack any joke about me you want. Sorry to use this thread for a side comment - I thought it's relevant. Wikidemon (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the reason I archived when I did was to have a relatively clean page in case of a block. Since this discussion would relate, it can stay for a little while. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed. Unlike certain other users I don't need to name, my talk page is open to anyone. I've already committed to disengaging from that guy, as he is not worth my time and energy, and I'm convinced that if he doesn't straighten up and fly right, he'll be history. Maybe I'll be history too, and that's OK; I've got other projects on my radar now, so if I lose wikipedia, it won't matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're actually the only person I've ever asked to stay off of my talk page. You must have found a button and pushed it. A good days work, eh? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And please note that now that I've been asked, I'm staying off your page and that other guy's page also. There's one thing you should understand, though: I do not choose my words randomly. What appears to be anger or other emotions may not be what it seems. It might be. But it might not be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Bugs. It turns out I'm not basing anything on any reading of "emotions". I just go by what's said. In this case, "I'm going to steer clear of that editor," followed immediately by a post to my talk page in a thread he's in. That's not "steering clear," is all. I don't know why you think I'm reading "anger". Where did I suggest that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes awhile to steer clear. And where did I say that you, specifically, were reading anger into anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't specifically say that, but you said just above, "What appears to be anger or other emotions may not be what it seems." I don't know why you said that to me, unless you think I'm reading some kind of emotion into your statements. What were you talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Actually, that was more intended to be a follow-on to my initial comment to Wikidemon, and after the edit conflict, I tweaked it a bit to "generalize" it. So it wasn't really directed to you as such, just to the general reader. If any. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Have a good evening. You can post to my talk page, if you want to, but I might poke fun at you there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that it was indeed poorly structured and unclear. I'll leave it stand now that it's sort of clear what I meant. OK, so the embargo on your page is lifted, eh? Well, I don't watch user pages very much anyway. But I'll stop by some time if I've got something as useful to say as I did earlier tonight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you and your sense of humor are welcome on my page, if you can maintain at least the appearance of respect for others. The funniest people I know don't find it necessary to use their humor to kick people who are down, call other people names, or disparage others. How do they do it? I can't imagine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM talk page record

lol ... ahhhh .................. yea, I got nothing. ;)

To be honest Bugs, at first I was looking forward to supporting that particular RfA. I think some of the things people (not you, just in general) were pointing to as WP:CIV issues were a bit of a stretch. It's tough for anyone to edit political articles and maintain a NPOV perspective I think. And I think at times some of the Obama stuff is a little watered down (nope, I have NO interest in contributing to ANY of the political articles). One admin I was talking to recently brought up a very good point though. Judgment. And I'd have to think that starting that RfA right now might not be a good judgment call. Personally, I like CoM, but maybe a little more seasoning, and a little less high profile editing would be better at this point.

On an editing note:, I know you're more into baseball, but would you have any interest in NASCAR too? — Ched :  ?  14:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, he came here with an agenda, and that's bound to get someone in trouble fast. If he were as belligerent as Axman or Censei, of course he'd be gone already. So there's at least some hope. But he needs to develop some perspective.
I don't really follow auto racing, although some of the racers' names are in the public consciousness enough that I recognize them. That's about it. But it's a great sport, a great spectacle, with a large following. And if I were in purgatory and could only watch one sport, and the choices were NASCAR and soccer, the clear winner would be NASCAR. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with an agenda, but ... it does have to include working with other editors, not against them. There's probably a belief among a lot of folks that Wikipedia is populated with more liberal minded folks than conservative. Given that many of our editors are either still in the educational system, or not long removed from it, I can understand that perception. Of course that's only the US, and in reality we have a lot of editors from all over the world - so I might have to throw that thought out the window eventually. On the NASCAR ... oh well, I'm sure we'll run across an article somewhere that we can work together on ;) — Ched :  ?  14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I will fight you to the death on it. >:) Er, no, I can't. My doctor has forbidden me fighting anything to the death.
You're right. As I was saying somewhere here recently, it's the unwillingness to collaborate that's the problem. It's true wikipedia probably has a liberalistic slant. But that shouldn't affect editing. I wish he had been around when the Sarah Palin page was under siege. You wouldn't believe how much drivel the left-wing mushrooms were trying to post there, and I defended it also. It should be about providing information to the masses, not about turf battles. But human nature figures into it sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh... yes, my doctor told me that "death" could be hazardous to my health as well. Actually the Palin article was the first place I noticed your work too. Very NPOV I thought. I love your sense of humor, but you're also a very good editor. Ah well, I'm sure we can find something to bicker about somewhere down the road >:) — Ched :  ?  15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow...

Bugs, can I ask you a favor? Can you say something humorous and witty, plz? If I have to read one more nasty comment I'm going to have to get angry. And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry. >:). Soxwon (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to head to the Fenway Farm at some point ... Collect (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

REALLY? Dude, you're so lucky. Did you get monster seats? Soxwon (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are usually expensive. I wonder if he got a monster deal? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's something I found humorous and witty, although a Yankees fan might not; someone on ESPN said this: "Cleveland scored two touchdowns in one inning at Yankee Stadium yesterday! How's that new ballpark working out?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA! That's great, it reminds me of that mastercard commercial they made a few years back when the Indians swept the Yankees in the first round. Did you get that one? Soxwon (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but the usual MasterCard punchline came to mind as I was watching the highlights of that debacle yesterday. In reality, it's only April, and the Yanks have gotten off to worse starts than this and still came back. But it's fun while it lasts. The ghosts across the street at the still-standing mausoleum are looming over the new Stadium like a lineup card's worth of albatrosses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep

you were right - I was wrong. I got played for a fool. ;( — Ched :  ?  20:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, but basically - I was referring to Child's RfA and my attempts to support and AGF. — Ched :  ?  21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

David Ortiz managed to lumber out a triple today. Long shots do happen. PhGustaf (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs. I appreciate your wisdom and your kind words ... probably more than I could explain. ;) — Ched :  ?  21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On a completely different subject, and while it is rather morbid, I thought it was important. I started a poll at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians if you're interested in adding any insight. — Ched :  ?  21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Step 1: Be sure they're dead. (Sorry, that's a twist on an old and mildly twisted joke). I'll take a look when I get the chance. I'm mostly on another project today. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I be the one to make sure their dead? I've got a gun. Soxwon (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And for hinting at the punchline to the original joke, the boy gets a cigar. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I get their wallets. HalfShadow 01:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In any probate, around here anyway, the estate's appointed Executor or "Admisistrator" has first dibs on the contents. Steveozone (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yankees to Skip Wang After Rainout

I didn't make it up, honest; it's right there on Yahoo. 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That might be a hint at what their problems have been in general. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What else are they to do? They can't send him down to work on his mechanics, he's out of options, so they'd have to put him on waivers, which means they'd lose him entirely. Three horrendous outings do not make the end of a career, he's definitely worth keeping - so, skipping an outing is the best they can do at the moment. (Maybe they should send him to get an MRI and bribe the tech to mark up the film, so they can put him on the DL and send him to the minors on a rehab assignment.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a hunch they could get a high-quality MRI scan merely by using the revenue from one day's worth of a few of those 2 thousand dollars box seats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Constructive Anger Management

I'm more than a little annoyed at User:Ikip for this accusation: [12], not only b/c of how wrong it was, but the reason he got it was looking up dirt on Collect to put on his RfC (or looking for supporting collusion b/t myself and Collect). What are the proper steps to take? I'm not sure this right for AN/I but it shows some seriously flawed methods for conducting an RfC. Heck, he also dragged you into this: [13] Soxwon (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it when they take my name in vain. If you think it's a bad-faith or one-sided RfC, it's seems reasonable to go to ANI to broaden the audience. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unforetunately my responses didn't look quite as good as they were in response to the same editor. (but then he didn't exactly speak in a civil manner either) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ppl contacted and request made to close the RfC and either start a new one, or try other methods. What's new with you? Soxwon (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So it ultimately went nowhere, eh? It didn't seem like a very coherent RfC. They're mad at Collect, but they can't quite prove why he should be blocked or whatever. I've had some words with him in the past, but nothing we couldn't overcome, and in fact he was right, in the case I'm thinking of; and he was also supportive in other ways, so I personally had no issues with him. Everyone's different, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it went nowhere, three parties actively engaged in discussion, still flaming on the RfC, and there's still general ill will all around. Soxwon (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly me. I thought nothing had been accomplished. :\ Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, there was a ban: [14]. Soxwon (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not actually a ban, but a 48 hour block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ban, block, what's the difference. Are you going to comment on the hilarious idea that you are among Collect's consorts? Soxwon (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are they saying I'm a consort? Where are they saying that? I don't want to risk damage to my computer by wading through that swamp. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is what is said:

Collect's traditional allies

User:Baseball Bugs

Unless you've got other examples, I don't think anyone's trying to annoy you[15]

What's hilarious is the last one is THF (he lumped you two together) and Gwen Gale is also mentioned. It's idiocy like this that makes the whole thing seem out of bounds if you know what I mean. Soxwon (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is making not much sense. I'll have to go over there and see what's going on. And it was an IP that was blocked, not Collect, right? It's late and I'm totally whacked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired as well so I can sympathize. Yeah, an anon was blocked. This came from Ikip's summary, the one full of incident's he has no knowledge of and also he's the one who accused me of being Collect's Meat puppet or of us doing tag team. What's ironic is that we were on opposite sides of the dispute in this instance. Soxwon (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get why they're quoting me at all in there. That was about the banned User:Ron liebman impersonating Collect. How does that situation end up in an RfC? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, the same reason I was accused, and the same reason I put this up on AN/I, they dont fact check, they just put up whatever they think might stick and hope they have enough. Soxwon (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've posted a question at the end of their "endorse" statements asking what my out-of-context quote has got to do with this RfC. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to be giving me orders? Baseball Bugs 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cease your lectures about formatting, and answer my question. Baseball Bugs 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So Bugs, who are you to be giving him orders? One rule for Baseball Bugs and another for everyone else? Please. The brow-beating, shouting and stamping of the virtual foot (paw?) just aren't helpful. Things are difficult enough there already, surely you can see that. It needs cool heads and wise counsel. Your presence is most welcome, but we less experienced (and reformed, in some cases) Wikipedians trust our more experienced colleagues to post in a temperate manner when they suddenly, er, hop into a page that has a history of intemperate dialogue and frayed nerves. Not enough action at your favorite drama board?  :~) Writegeist (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, lightning response at my talk! Thanks. The idea of him "dragging" you into the RfC seems a little far-fetched to me but hey, WTF, if that's how it feels to you then who am I to argue. As to your questioning him about his motive(s), that's a little more complicated than it appears on the surface because I think the question is driving at a base motive. I mean, although the question looks fair, the context (the general atmosphere of conflict; your evident irritation and air of being wronged etc.) implies that you're not going to be satisfied with any answer that doesn't reveal a base motive. Also, give the guy his due. He felt he had answered the question to his satisfaction and told you that that was all you'd get - and you went on beating him up. Personally, I have no dog in that particular hunt. My concern is that there's been a lot of bad faith flying around on that talk page. It escalates a situation that, even handled in a temperate way, is bound to be sensitive and difficult. I just want to see cool-headedness prevail. You're capable of it, so it would be great if you'd dispense some! Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Wasn't there a template message that you couple put on an article to get more editors involved?

I've been watching and editing at times the article: Tea Party protests and have been finding all sorts of problems with it including it uses labels to label everything in either conservative and liberal, relies heavily on opinions of people, seems like a promotional piece to me, and the images seems to be promoting a point than illustrating the article to name a few issues. I am thinking if there were more eyes on the article it could be rewritten in a better and more neutral manner. Brothejr (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. There are templates for things like "no references" or "reference improve" or "neutrality questioned". I just don't know that there's anything about those templates that alerts someone - unless it assigns a special category. Unfortunately, I don't know if that's the case or not, nor how effective it is. If there is a serious issue, you could always take it to WP:ANI and ask for advice. That alone would broaden the audience. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Brothejr (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe some of the tags (I know stub is one) you can add using Friendly also add a category and there are people that monitor those categories. This is no guarantee that someone will come running but it may get more eyes on it in the long run and is a lot more specific than an RfC. You could ask for a third opinion if the circumstances are right (if it's just you and some other editor and you've got a conflict you can't get past), or you could always post an RfC to attract some real attention. Padillah (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My main issue is I want to get more eyes on on the article mainly due to the way it is written. The three main issues I am worried about is that the majority of the article is devoted to people's opinions of the event, there is a conservative vs liberal tilt, and the images seem to be trying to push a point, just to name a few problems. Even if just one person chimes in, would be helpful. Brothejr (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion might be worth a try unless there are already many editors. RFC might be good. It might be worthwhile to see how the Palin and Obama articles have been handled. Things got so bad on those articles at various points that they were semi-protected or fully protected, and then put on 1R probabtion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well before I try a third opinion, could ya spare a moment and take a look at the article. It has the makings of becoming another brouhaha. Brothejr (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read through it. It doesn't seem overly one-sided to me at the moment. However, I have not looked at the talk page to see what the burning issues are. That will have to wait until I have a larger block of time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the {{POV check}} tag? Grsz¹¹ 00:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If I wanted to really stir something up, I could nominate for deletion, on the grounds that this protest is just an ephemeral news story and "wikipedia is not news". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium photo

Terrific shot of the new ballpark playing field! Little did you know that would turn into one of the more infamous days in Yankees history. I wonder if you have a shot of the scoreboard with that football score number up there. More importantly, do you think the outfield is really the same shape as in the old stadium? From that photo, it looks to me like the 399 sign is closer to center than it was in the old park. But that might be an illusion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It was rough. Made rougher since I had two days earlier been at the thumping they got at opening day. At least I witnessed a victory tonight against the A's. Hopefully they'll win at my next game, a May 5th game against Boston. Nevertheless, I did get a good shot there. That's where the tickets for the game were, and I wanted a good shot overall to replace the batting practice shot, given the fact that the tarp and cage were on the field, and that there had been many changes since then. I actually got better angles later in the game, but the stands were too scarce, and there was that score, so yeah, I do have pics of them up 22-4. And yes, the outfield is actually very different. The cardinal dimensions are the same, but the route the fence takes in between is very different. In fact, I am starting to believe that the RF and LF dimensions are different, but the markings were moved to where the fence is those dimensions. For a good reference, go to http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/YankeeStadium_II.html. If you hover over "Yankee Stadium I" it will switch. I love that site, and visit it frequently. The study of the ballparks interests me greatly. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You know...

Something might come out of Collect's RfC after all. I think that it might be good to mention what I said on the RfC page: "An RfC is not a Grand Jury hearing." Soxwon (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Sox Update

It's hard to say anything unkind about Tim Wakefield. He just cranks out innings, being very good or very bad depending on whether the God knuckleballers pray to is paying attention that day.

Doesn't exactly hurt when the boys give him ten runs.

PhGustaf (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and another sterling outing by Scott Baker, who's become a household word. As in Scott's lawn-and-garden products. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip

Read my edit summary; the validity of his behavior wasn't something I was questioning, more the location at which you chose to air the dirty laundry. "Outside views" are views on the user/situation described in the RfC; Ikip is not one of them. His behavior is questionable, but that isn't the right place to bring it up. Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

..Excuse me? I've opposed Ikip and his supporters at that RfC since day one. Stop assuming Bad Faith and follow the general principles of the RfC. An outside view is, according to the standard RfC template, "a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute". That doesn't cover you. I'm not trying to hide anything; I have no interest in your squabble with him whatsoever. You were completely going against the purpose of the outside view section despite a clearly worded message at the top telling you that this was the wrong place to put such things. That is why I removed it. I'd ask you to stay away from my talkpage until you have calmed down and can understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is in cahoots with some kind of Ikip Cabal. And I'll expect the first message back to be a bloody apology as well.Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You obviously do need some kind of lecture, since you don't seem to be understanding basic rules about communication with other editors. Let me break it down for you: asking me why I'd done something, good thing. Gave me a chance to explain. Following this up by accusing me of "[wanting] it brought up someplace where it won't be noticed, while he's allowed to continue his misleading activities", bad thing. Bad Faith. Essentially accused me of attempting to continue posting his material. My interactions with Ikip and his league are notably without agreement, which I would've thought would make most people think that maybe, just maybe, an action not directly in your favour might not be done just to please him and his buddies either. If you want to bring the posting of material up at AN/I, fine, but it is likely to be ignored. As suggested, discuss it on the talkpage. If the talkpage people have already rejected your point of view (which they appear to have done) then consider walking away. If you want to bring our interactions and my refusal to let you post material in a clearly inappropriate place, fine, but you'll get shat on by the regulars just as much as me. Ironholds (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I've already raised concerns about this on AN/I. Nothing, no one wants to go near it. I suggest that instead we simply let it run its course. If they truly think that it's going to help them they're sadly mistaken. I think that if they try to take the next step this is going to hurt them and so we just need to back off for now. Soxwon (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, fine. I'll back off from this. For now. But I've got an ANI posting ready to go if it proves necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've honestly got no problem with any ANI posting about Ikip's behavior; how much attention it gets, of course, is unknown (but then it always is. I developed a jokey formula for working it out, but that's irrelevant). I hope any ill-feeling towards me won't go further than this discussion; the same is true from my end. Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem there is that I've already filed one and they'll just claim it's double dipping. Soxwon (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I must have overlooked that amidst the flood of comments about the Collect situation. If it's about Ikip's "evidence", then you're probably right that my comment wouldn't add anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip's evidence was the centerpiece but really the whole thing is not how an RfC is supposed to be. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, and since you didn't specifically mention my name in ANI (that I saw, anyway), should I add my specific complaint to it? Or should I leave it be? I defer to your judgment. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's fine for now. Soxwon (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter

Great minds, and all that. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Train Wreck

The photograph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg is absurdly splendid. PhGustaf (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. Like a real-life version of the ending of Silver Streak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

tilde test

One ~

Two ~~

Three Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Four Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Five 14:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Six 14:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)~

— cualquier cosa que usted puede hacer, yo puedo hacer mejor :-)

uno ~

dos ~~

tres —— Shakescene (talk)

cuatro —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

cinco 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

seis 21:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)~

• Yo pienso que usted tiene razón. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've wanted to use this template for ages

Welcome!

Hello, Baseball Bugs, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Spanish; did you know there is a Spanish Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! If you need help, please feel free to notify me on [[User talk:|my talk page]].

¡Bienvenido!

Hola, Baseball Bugs, y bienvenido a Wikipedia. Aunque es bueno que usted trata de mejorar Wikipedia, tus contribuciones en inglés no están escritas bastante bien para ser útil. Parece que usted está más familiar con español; ¿sabe que hay una Wikipedia en Español? Es posible que prefiera contribuir allí. ¡Bienvenido a Wikipedia, y muchas gracias por tus esfuerzos! Si necesita ayuda, puede notificarme en [[User talk:|mi página de discusión]].

---

Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Gracias. I should point out that the only Spanish I know, I learned from reading the signs at places like fast food restaurants, Lowe's, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My Spanish is limited to "¿Dónde está el retrete?" and "Dos cervezas por favor, y mi amigo pagará" ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The one kind of goes with the other, especially in light of the old saying, "You don't buy beer, you only rent it." Another important one to remember is "Yo no hablo español." I would also recommend not asking, "¿Habla usted inglés?" but rather to say it as, "Do you speak English?" If they give you a blank look after the latter, that's where the "Yo no hablo..." comes in handy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Sox Update

So, is it a good thing or a bad thing to have Jacoby Ellsbury rather than Johnny Damon in center field? PhGustaf (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't say; I don't follow the Red Sox that closely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

However, Ellsbury stole home tonight, putting egg on the Yanks' faces. Did Damon ever steal home for the Bosox? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And Damon made the final out tonight. Things are looking good for the Red Stockings so far this year. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Stealing home is a baseball equivalent of an extended middle finger. But it's hard to not like Ellsbury: He gets on base fairly often, and when he gets there he either steals a base or worries and distracts the defense by threatening to steal a base. The Red Sox offense is traditionally not scampery; he's a refreshing exception. And he gets paid a lot less than Damon. PhGustaf (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Those $2,600 box seats should help cover the Damon expense. That steal of home was inexcusable; by that I mean the Yankees were caught totally napping. Ellsbury was leading off like 40 feet down the line, and the third baseman was nearly that far off the bag the other direction. There was a lefty on the mound, so he couldn't see what was going on. The batter was a lefty, so Posada had a clear look at the runner. Obviously, in that situation you call for a pitchout and nail the runner - assuming the third baseman can get over in time. Things are not breaking well for the Bombers so far this year. Of course, the Bosox have also been on a roll. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, here's a chance to share a memory. Back around 1980, I had a friend who had an accountant who had San Francisco Seals season tickets from whenever. This meant he had really good seats when the Giants moved to SF. But, he was a workaholic, who would rather account than watch the Super Bowl, and gave away his tickets to his clients. So I got to watch a few games from front row, first-base line. I forget who won or lost, but Frank Robinson's glower was memorable. PhGustaf (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. The Seals? That goes back a ways. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Seals tickets got him Giants tickets. The Giants tickets were in Candlestick Park, and it was often better to use them to get into the upstairs bar rather than the chilly foggy seats. But Robinson's frown, from ten yards away, was a splendid moment. PhGustaf (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. That just seems long ago. Although in 1980 it hadn't been so long ago. Actually F.Robby was manager there during 1981-1984. He definitely seemed like a guy you didn't want to mess with. I saw him at Comiskey when he was player-manager of the Indians, so that had to be about 1976. He was on the bench that day, but was on the field arguing with the umpire over a call. He went back to the bench, got a bat, and put himself in to pinch-hit, for the sole purpose of continuing the argument. Quite a character. In fact, here's the box for that game (8th inning): [16] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Powers of foresight

How does that old saying go? .. be careful what you wish for? .. >:-) — Ched :  ?  07:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So far Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight is going as expected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It got buried by a blizzard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Regarding User:Centpacrr and World Series, it should be noted you were participating in the edit-warring as well on that article. The other user's block has expired and I hope you two will discuss issues at the article's talk page and if necessary seek out dispute resolution. Please take care to avoid WP:3RR. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue with that user was editorializing and violation of consensus. Neither of us broke the 3 revert rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You were both edit-warring multiple times within a 24-hour period. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. Just try to discuss this stuff a bit more proactively, first, next time. WP:3O and/or WP:RFC can be quite helpful. :) Cirt (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay noted. You could have noted that initially also in the ANI thread, consulting a related WikiProject for additional input was certainly a positive step you took. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I should not have been so hasty to apologize...

cf. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#Prodding spree → User, along with several others, all indefed for socking. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You assumed good faith, a.k.a. erred on the side of caution. No harm in that. That type of user eventually gets nailed, be it sooner or be it later. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

I just noticed your edit at User talk:24.57.75.186, and while in that case it doesn't really matter as the IP is serving a lengthy block, but you should be aware that IPs are permitted to remove warnings from their talk page. No need to revert them, it's taken as an indication they read the warning. –xeno ^talk 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, reverting a user on their talk page really typically only serves to antagonize. –xeno ^talk 02:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your discussion with Centpacrr

Please take further discussion with Centpacrr (talk · contribs) off of my talk page, to some other more appropriate venue. I suggest the talk page of WP:BASEBALL, and/or WP:Dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Spreading the Happiness

Ever have one of those moments where you think you're about to get screwed and then everything turns out ok? Soxwon (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Several times a week. Are you talking about anything in particular? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Si si, found out that instead of researching 150 gods and goddesses we only needed 50 :). Soxwon (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, even if it rings no bells with me just now. :) I wonder who the god of stealing home base is? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Robinson definitely should have been called out, according to films, replays, and eywitnesses. Many galleries have removed the photo. False or distorted phototgraphy was used at times to justify the "steal.". Robinson himself said that he made it "according to the umpire". Sincerely, Fred Fishkin --Fred Fishkin (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC) --Fred Fishkin (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually not. Replays from the other side show that Robby got his toe in there before Berra could get the glove down - which is what Phil Rizzuto himself told Yogi directly, on Tim Russert's interview program once: "He was safe! You didn't get the glove down! And Phil was in position to see it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Robby did not legitimately make it, and it is not racist or detracting to say it. Case closed. --Fred Fishkin (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil Rizzuto was there, at shortstop, in perfect position to see the play, and he agreed with the umpire's call, even though the call went against his Yankees team. Case closed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, if it goes against the Yanks, I'm sure it's correct ;). Soxwon (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely at this photo, it is by no means certain, even from this angle, that Yogi got the tag down in time: [17] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lou Brock, maybe? Dayewalker (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson Soxwon (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Jackie Robinson is the god of stealing home? Could be. By the way, in that controversial steal in 1955, the umpire in fact made the right call. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On my answer? I just remember him taking that one against the Yankess :D. As for the reason for this, you'll notice the time I originally posted (7:23 AM my time), I'd been up for about 36 hours straight at that point and was really looking forward to sleep :). Soxwon (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! So you were counting gods instead of sheep? Maybe try counting retired numbers. But that reminds me of a scene from a W.C. Fields movie. A fellow passenger on a plane complains of insomnia. Fields remarks, "I know a good cure for it. Get plenty of sleep!" Bill Fields, like Groucho Marx, always ready with a helpful hint. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like my mythology prof (who I owed the assignment): "What is this symbolic of?" "The object that it symbolizes" "Gee thanks" Soxwon (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! A redundant redundancy. Along those same lines, the beginning of Groucho's address upon taking over the Presidency of Huxley College in Horse Feathers: "Members of the faculty... faculty members... students of Huxley... and Huxley students. I guess that covers everything!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article that includes a photo of Jackie stealing home in the 1955 Series: [18] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ty Cobb holds both the single-season (8) and lifetime (54) records for steals of home. I'm reluctant to call the old grouch a "God", though. Ellsbury's steal was the first at Fenway in 15 years. PhGustaf (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion and abortion

If you agree that the principle of double effect constitutes an exception to the RCC's blanket anti-abortion policy, then I ask that you edit the article to reflect this fact. I'm really not interested in appearing to be edit warring, and I don't think that further discussion with Shrandit is productive. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You two appear to be in the midst of a food fight, and I'm afraid of being hit by one of the pies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm unarmed, by choice. Whenever Shrandit gets weird and insulting, I figure that's just his way of saying he's run out of intellectual ammo and is down to pies, so I walk away and leave him to stew in his own juices. That boy's got a lot of hate in him. Anywho, if that article's wrong, all that blather on the talk page doesn't matter. You should just fix it. TruthIIPower (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement over the validity of the source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, have you looked at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/? Do you really think the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an unreliable source? TruthIIPower (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I haven't studied the matter in depth. Is your antagonist on the page convinced that it is not a reliable source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. At this point, I suspect he's just being contrary, but I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, so I'll let you decide. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The source seems to be reliable but (having only read it once) I am not convinced that it supports the text proposed by TIIP. I could be wrong. - Schrandit (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How would you summarize it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there are a few things being discussed, how would I summarize what? - Schrandit (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The situation where taking life is justified by circumstances. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've just posted a bit about that on the page Talk:Religion and abortion. I'd like to see what someone who knows more about philosophy that I do has to say about it but it seems to me that the way the Church self-describes is the way we should state their position. - Schrandit (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Wellstone_marker1_080713.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Wellstone_marker1_080713.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris 01:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Chris 01:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Forbes

That's an awesome shot, I never knew that the Dreyfuss statue was on the field as well. blackngold29 04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Whitman page - Tumor

Hello Baseball Bugs - the tumor has been proven within the article. Please note this as your contrib was reversed. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as a contributing factor, it has been proven through the Connally Report of 1966 which was released to the public in 2002. It is referenced in the article.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It says "...the highly cancerous tumor conceiveably could have contributed to his actions on August 1, 1966".--Victor9876 (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yah

Reply here please, easier for me to see, and i;'ve seen it done in 27 minutes, i don't remember who or when exactly.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen belligerent new users gone in less than 5 minutes, if things break right. It all depends on who's watching AIV, if anyone, and how obvious the vandalism is. This one caught everyone at the supper hour, I think. Kind of entertaining, actually - just out there, a lunatic from the get-go. Funny stuff. Funny unless you're the one being attacked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If he does go through with his threat ot find and kill me (perhaps he will realize my userpage?), and tries it, well, that's why knifes and the police are around,.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And on the plus side, you might get a nice memorial page: Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Man i'mma get a article for me.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, you could write it yourself, ahead of time, as the rich and famous sometimes do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pah. Call those threats? That's what I call a threat. You young people today, you don't have threats like we did in our day (etc, etc). Cheers, Sackful of swallows (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a creative threat. That should be nominated for an award. He sounds like the French guard atop the castle, yelling at King Arthur. Speaking of which, are those African or European swallows? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Their award was my naming an alternate account after the threat. As for swallows - I don't –––– huuarghhhh… Tonywalton ^Talk 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've just won my "TMI" award for the day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hohum. That was meant to be an impression of a chap saying "I don't know" but flying off a bridge before he could complete the sentence. Tonywalton ^Talk 09:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger. Following up on my own joke reference. I have a good memory, it's just short. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel proud: i feel that by being threatended by a banned vandal i have joined the offical ranks of the anti vandal users.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was an award available for these types of things! See these: foo/bar tedder (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you know why I post some of the better insults on my page here. These things are just too good to keep to oneself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm starting to collect them too. tedder (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spot

Ahh, indeed I do remember that. It was here on GTBacchus's talk page when TruthIIPower/Spotfixer said some mildly inflammatory things about me and I felt the need to respond. I was rather suspicious of this user since he/she started shadowing and reverting my edits the same way he/she had under the user name Spotfixer. After that comment on GTBacchus's talk page I took a glance at TruthIIPower's edits and saw that he/she was also monitoring and making reverts on the page Plagues of Egypt, just like Spotfixer had done. After that I was very confident that TIIP was a sock and would have said so on ANI if I didn't have a paper to write this morning, but now that that is out of the way... After reading Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts toward the beginning of this flair up I figured that TIIP was not yet violating the letter of the law so I declined to opt for a Request for Checkuser. per the P.S. I agree with you about the mentions of Catholicism in the lead. As much as I love my Church it is probably undo weight to mention them exclusively in the lead when we have so much information about how other religions feel about the topic. I'll work to move that information back down into the body of the article and I certainly wouldn't have any objections if someone beats me to it. Per the articulation of the Catholic Church's position, I think what I wrote does a pretty good job of explaining the particulars of the situation but then again I'm a little biased toward that opinion and I'll abide by whatever folks on the talk page think is good. User:Schrandit 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, if this ever happens again that will be my first move. This whole thing was pretty weird and while I wish it could have ended better, I'm so glad that it is over.

As per why we say the appearance of TruthIIPower - over the course of the user's interactions with admins spot became convinced that anyone who had ever received a block was going to be targeted by admins for blocking. I suppose that made more sense to spot than the possibility that he/she could have been wrong. Spot wrote at length about it, the user believed that blocks were a punishment for challenging authority and that they marked a user forever. I suppose in spot's mind it made sense that the only way he/she could ever fight for his/her version of the truth was if he/she shed his/her skin and started again. (I say he/she because while TruthIIPower claimed to be a man, Spotfixer claimed to be a woman). - Schrandit (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking

Hi, Bugs! That particular individual has a real predilection for blanking pages. I should have revoked his talk page privileges when I blocked him, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Not so next time. BTW, I'm actvely on the lookout for more idiocy from that Ron Liebman dingaling since blocking yet another of his socks the other day. Got yer back, bro. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I sure do: User:Bugs (talk page). Between his use of "Bugs" and that silly bracketed addition, he was fairly obvious. Got him before he could do any damage. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have been a sleeper, or I just got lucky and caught it before he could do any damage. I'd found it near the top of the new user log since I patrol that page quite a bit. If he comes on when I'm around, he's toast. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I dunno, but it sure sounds like one.  :) The original account as near as I can tell is User:Dr. Tariq Nayfeh. He's likely as much a doctor as I am (which I'm not). I honestly can't see a real professional acting this way. This original account got on an edit war/page blanking spree and has subsequently created a few socks which have done the same thing. Our good doctor has been fairly easy to spot, but I'm hoping he'll grow tired of the game. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, you bet. Glad to help. You know you're doing a good job when the vandals start naming their precious little socks after you. "Grawp" and "PWeeHurman" are particularly fond of me; thankfully, they don't come around much anymore other than via copycats. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In Regards to user 87.69.176.81

You might want to summarize these complaints in the section in WP:ANI. But where did he claim to be an administrator? Anyone can warn another user for inappropriate behavior, that's not limited to admins, although it probably carries more weight if it comes from an admin. I recommend you go to ANI with your views, except try to cut down the quantity of words. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This was the warning that this user 87.69.176.81 (talk), gave to me yesterday in regards to the issue regarding the Katie Couric article.

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Katie Couric. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because didn’t think highly of this particular warning based on the fact that an IP address was used rather than a user name. But as you know, nothing really ever gets deleted. So if you were go to back to my “history” tab under my “talk page” and click on the “08:43, 30 April 2009” link, you will see this editor in fact violated wikipedia policy be pretending to be an administrator. And it’s not just me that he did this to. If you go to the talk pages of Alastairward (talk) & --Captain Infinity (talk), and scroll down to the very bottom of each one, you will see and understand where I’m getting at. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said...

...I got yer back.  :) Not much we can do about this little scourge other than to keep on reverting him. If he acts up, give a yell. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If he decides to come after me, so much the better. He'll be easier to spot and to block. One of these days, I may request CU privileges for the sole purpose of blocking a chronic pain in the ass like this guy is. Pardon the indelicacy, but I think wikilove goes only just so far.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Looks like I sould start in on some more recent changes patrolling. I need to log off, but I'll be back soon. Besides his obvious names and attacks against you, what else should I look for in this monkey? Let me know...? Thanks again, bro. Later. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Today is Bugs Bunny's 71st birthday, that is, if you count Happy Rabbit as being the same character. Thought you should know.

Looks like he got clobbered. I tagged him as a sock. Heck, what you need are admin privileges. At the very least, you need rollback privileges. That I can do if you don't already have them. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

...which it seems you do. I still think you need admin rights. Let me know if you'd like to be nominated. You're more than deserving. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn, that's a sin. All the good work you do, too. An admin needs to be aggressive, IMO. You let me know if you change your mind. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, I wish I'd have known. I'd have wholeheartely supported you. Too much sanctimony on this site and not enough good admins. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

All true. Keep up the stellar work and don't let bastards like "Liebman" grind you down. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. --How may I serve you? (Marshall Williams2) 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan

Hi, I just wanted to notify you that I have filed a Wikiquette complaint against this user and would like you to take a look at what I've got there. Apparently, this user has a long history of unconstructiveness and aggression towards other editors, especially those who choose to remain anonymous. I would like your honest input on this matter. Thank you very much in advance and I do apologize that your time gets wasted with this kind of bullshit. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Playing the devil's advocate is a rather ungrateful job. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't I know it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Shags

Hey Bugs, how you doin' today? If you have a second, could you look at User_talk:Ched_Davis#Shags a second for me. I'm not familiar with Shags Horan since I'm not the baseball guru you are. His article here doesn't seem to make him out to be particularly remarkable, but again, not my really my bag either. (pun intended). If you have any thoughts on it, your input would be appreciated. Thx buddy. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

yea, I know in cases of MLB, NFL, NHL, etc. that making it to the "bigs" is a situation that denotes notability as far as inclusion in Wikipedia. Is Shags Horan a well known player among baseball fans is probably a better way to ask I guess. Shags (the redirect) was originally a redirect to Shag, but had become an advertisement page. I thought User:Neelix might have a point about a redirect to him, but I'm not a huge follower of that kind of thing. (gasp - string me up and cover me in tar and feathers ... lol). I know Babe is a dab, but there is no "Maz" dab, in fact, it's a redirect to something other than Bill Mazeroski. (a Russian auto manufacturing company). — Ched :  ?  17:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Violation

You realize you're violating child labor laws right? I mean, considering your just 13 1/2. Soxwon (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Which specific child labor laws? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, about co-workers. Hey, don't you remember Doogie Howser? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh, so that's why you're always telling jokes. Considering the reactions of your coworkers I'd say your on NBC :). Soxwon (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I work at a store called Liberals R Us. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So is it strange that we're on opposite sides of the spectrum and yet are on friendly terms? Soxwon (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And you're not alone on that one Soxwon ;) I figure that either Bugs is really a closet conservative, or he adheres to the belief: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". ;) — Ched :  ?  19:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That or a twisted sense of humor trascends political boundaries. Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're onto me! First, you were supposed to ask what we sell at "Liberals R Us", and I was supposed to say, "Very little, but we work for free, so we break even." That's a twist on an old "Dilbert" joke. Second, I'm not as liberal as I like to think I am. It's situational. I got accused the other day of being part of an "anti-choice cabal". Yeh, I fit the liberal agenda real well. Third, I'm not as political as some might think I am. Fourth, it's time to go forth and get some work done. Customers are stampeding the doors. Or maybe they left the gate open again, at the nearby Bison Ranch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Warmest May Day Greetings to a Stalwart Champion of the Struggling Classes! And child labor laws are only the least of your reactionary bosses' worries; the minimum wage and eight-hour day applies to 71-year-olds as well as 13½-year-olds. Look forward to seeing you and the your oppressed but militant Looney Tunes union brothers & sisters ( Warner Brothers Players' Ass'n, [ SAG, AFL-CIO, CLC-CTC, IWW ] ), with their blood-red banners, in the Wikiproletarians' Haymarket Memorial May Day March!! Fraternally Yours —— Shakescene (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexicomida SPI

For your information... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mexicomida.

Either they and the IP are one (in which case, squish), or not. I'm tired of trying to figure out which way to go on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

After trying to follow the actions of 87.69.176.81, I have the same suspicions as you indicated. This is a very sophisticated user willing to use tenditious editing in order to insert a commentary on the article Katie Couric that smacks of cruft and has no verification as to relevance or import. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

AN/I

Is it always that crazy and was I making things worse by trying to reach out the IP? I hoped he might calm down if it was made clear it wasn't all to get him (though it's not that crazy a claim to say he was creating quite a bit of the drama on purpose). Soxwon (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't make things any worse. He was looking for stuff. He stomped on everyone, even the friendly ones. I've seen this kind of thing happen before. His lengthy diatribe toward the end made it clear that he simply did not agree with the consensus that the South Park thing did not belong in the Couric article, and it seems to me that he filed the ANI just to try to get even by screaming and yelling as long as he could. One clue about that is when I asked him specifically what admin action he wanted, he couldn't come up with an answer. What he actually wanted was a forum, which is what he got. And as often happens, it backfired on him. "Plaxico" strikes again! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Silly rabbit

This is way off the mark. I'm not sure what got into you, but telling people what they are supposed to believe doesn't seem to be your style. And it's wrong, too. Have you been nipping at the carrot juice again? I can't really speak for GTBacchus, but I can tell you what I've observed. He's probably put off by your aggressive, loud and obnoxious style, whereas in my opinion, GTBacchus is softly spoken, but carries a big stick just in case he needs it. So, as far as I can tell, your interpersonal conflict isn't over your different beliefs about Wikipedia, but rather your personalities and temperament. I'm guessing here, but he seems like more of an introvert and you're somewhat of an extrovert. It might help if you try to see things in this light, rather than limiting this to some kind of philosophical approach to Wikipedia, which IMO, has nothing to do with the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He accuses me of being negative, yet he's 10 times as negative. With any luck, I'll never have an encounter with that guy again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see him as negative at all. What exactly did he say you were being negative about? I can see how you might appear to be that way from his POV, but I'm not sure that is the most accurate word to use about you. I think my observation about temperament is the issue here. In any case, your comment about his belief system wasn't accurate either. For what it is worth, from my perspective, I consider GTBacchus a purist. Is that negative? Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we have different styles. But read this [19] where I tried to get him to see the humor in a situation and he turned on me just like Badagnani turned on him (and on most everyone else he meets, judging by the frequent ANI complaints, but that's another story). And later in that lengthy section, he came at me with some of the most vile, obscene comments I've ever been subjected to. So he's got no business lecturing me about being negative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way... if you think that most people I meet turn on me, look through my talk page, and the archives. Most people I meet, I get along with very well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I read that in full when you first posted it. Like I said, he's a purist. There's a lot of people here like that. Understand that Wikipedia attracts all kinds, but more of some kind than most. I think GTBacchus has done a lot of great work here. I think if you really wanted to bury the hatchet you could always try expanding an article in Category:Baseball statistics and ask him for specific help with a particular problem. Otherwise, you already know that the extrovert approach doesn't work. You seem to think that this is criticism of you, but it really isn't. You just are communicating on two different levels, so don't take offense. I actually agree with most of what GTBacchus says in that discussion, and I don't think it was explicitly meant as a criticism of you. My take on it, is that he was trying to establish some common ground where you could both communicate together and share ideas, rather than talk past each other. I really wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care that much about the vile and obscene stuff, although it's inherently offensive and unbecoming of an admin. What I'm offended by is an admin who tells someone not to talk to him. This, from an admin who claims to be a negotiator. I'm sure he's done good work. I'm just hoping that it doesn't cross boundaries with anything I work on, and then we'll be fine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins are just editors with extra tools. I don't see anything wrong with establishing boundaries when they are needed; I see it as something healthy and necessary. I understand than you took offense, but keep in mind, this isn't just about you. It's good to establish boundaries when the discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. There's nothing wrong with an admin asking a user to stop posting on their talk page. Everyone needs their space at times. You seem to be saying that admins are different than normal people, and should open their talk pages to anyone and everyone 24/7 for any kind of discourse and should never establish boundaries. I don't agree with that POV. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I expect a higher standard of behavior from admins - a standard that I myself failed to meet when the RfA came up - nor would he if the vote were held again. His comments to me convey the message, "F.U. - My way or the highway." Now, if he wants to talk to me ever again, he's welcome to, as I don't tell editors not to post on my page. I would rather communicate than slam the door. But he's slammed the door on me, so with any luck I won't run into him again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm pretty tired of the "I expect a higher standard of behavior from x" argument. I expect the same high standard of behavior from everyone, administrator or editor, and IMO, GTBacchus has held to this high standard from the beginning. That he is able to set boundaries is a standard I look for in an admin. Obviously, you feel differently. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If telling users "F.U. - Get off my page" is an appropriate "boundary", then it's just as well if he and I stay in opposite corners. When I try to defend wikipedia content against marauders, and I'm told by the likes of CoM and GTB that I'm being too "negative", then I understand why others who have tried to defend wikipedia have left in disgust at the misplaced priorities here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The best way to "defend" Wikipedia is to take the swords out of the hands of vigilantes and start empowering bots to revert vandals and start building tools like WikiScanner. I've often thought we could even use bots to put a stop to edit wars simply by monitoring the reversion diffs. We can do a great many things, but after looking into this for a while you will at once realize that many people are not here to solve problems but to cause them, and the vast majority survive through some kind of symbiosis with drama, vandalism, POV pushing, and edit warring, forgetting that we are actually here to write an encyclopedia. Most administrators are just as biased and illogical as their editorial counterparts, and the extra tools do not, contrary to religious belief, suddenly augment their intelligence to the point where they can just think a block or reversion into existence. (but it's coming soon enough) So, if you really want to "defend" Wikipedia, first start looking at all the loopholes and timesinks. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There are some bots that revert obvious vandalism, by some mysterious means. I'll take a look at WikiScanner and see what that's about. There's the Flagged revisions concept, which is controversial for various reasons. What keeps me going here and not quitting in disgust is when I hear someone say, "According to the wikipedia article..." That tells me wikipedia has high visibility, and content is what's important - not coddling troublesome users, which seems to be the tipping point between me and GTB. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been told before that I'm "coddling troublesome users," but I find that this allegation only comes from people who otherwise make it clear that they don't know what I'm doing. I've never coddled anyone, nor do I have any desire to coddle anyone. I continue to work to find a way to express what I'm actually trying to do, but so far, it's been difficult. People sure are willing to jump to conclusions without ever asking me what I'm up to, which bothers me a little. Bugs, we would get along a lot better if you asked me what I was doing, rather than assuming you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My main issue with you, Bugs, came up because I perceived that you were on my page, saying things that were very likely to upset people that I was trying to make less upset. Do you understand why that might rub a "negotiator" the wrong way? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one more comment: I'm sorry that you think my priorities are misplaced. I guess that means you don't know what my priorities are. I've never placed any kind of treatment of anyone as a higher priority than the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is all I care about here, and everything I do here is directed to that one, sole priority. The only disagreement we have is over how to get there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Negativity

Maybe I used the wrong word, or didn't explain myself very well. If you just think of "negativity" in a vacuum, then it will be very easy for you to call me a hypocrite. (I'm not saying you've called me that, nor do I care if you have.) What I was referring to was a very specific kind of negativity, where you tell me that the peace-making work I'm trying to do is pointless. That is a specific type of negativity that I am extremely unlikely to respond to well, especially if you do it in front of the people I'm trying to help. Does that make sense to you?

I would much rather be your friend than try to avoid you. Can you see at all where I'm coming from? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to tell me that the work I'm trying to do is pointless, or that I should "drop AGF" (which I will never do, to the grave), then email me. Seriously. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

At no point did I intend to convey that your work was not useful, and I do not tell users not to assume good faith. I will sometimes praise someone for assuming good faith above and beyond the call of duty (for example, my response to Soxwon, farther up the page). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe that you didn't mean to convey that, but it came across that way to me. I'm sorry to have misunderstood you. It might have had to do with my state of mind - my particularly angry post was made from the house of the dead, while I was there helping his children feel better. I (foolishly) logged onto Wikipedia, and saw a message that I understood (wrongly, I now see) as telling my that my ideals are worthless. I hope that you can understand how I might have thought that.

I mostly hope that you understand and believe that my only priority here is the encyclopedia, and that if I seem to be "coddling" someone, I'm not. I respond very well to honest questions, and very poorly to jumped conclusions. This is a weakness of mine, and I strive to be better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept your comments and will try to understand your approach better as time goes on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see you're in a dispute with someone. I don't know what that's about or who's right or wrong. Just be aware that you or anyone is free to post on my talk page at any time, with little fear of reversion as long as it's not too far over the edge, i.e. not vile or obscene or destructive, and not flat-out insulting, like "you're an idiot" and stuff like that there. The former gets deleted on sight and the latter becomes fodder for mockery. Anything else is welcome. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just the president of my fan club, dropping off this week's member dues. Actually, you mind find the situation interesting.

That editor deals with a lot of trolling, in helping watch such pages as Talk:Barack Obama. We crossed paths at Talk:Black people when I noticed that an anon was repeatedly posting a question. There were two or three editors repeatedly deleting it, and it upset them when I cut in and answered it, instead. I was accused of troll-feeding, coddling, trying to educate the ineducable, daring to try and change a racist's mind, etc. Needless to say, none of that was what I was trying to do. The racist can get stuffed, for all I care; he wasn't my audience.

So... I stated my case that trolls are looking for a fight, not for serious conversation, and then I was told that I'm a "high-minded" fool. I disagreed, somewhat heavy-handedly, I would say in retrospect. However, I was left alone with the troll to do it my way.

We had about three rounds of dialogue, and then he went away, apparently bored because I wouldn't fight. I just took his suggestion, and put it in a context that showed it to be ignorant racism, but I never accused him of anything or called him anything. I gave the troll no reason to cry "censorship" or "liberal fascist cabal", which the other page regulars had been feeding him. Mr. X assured me that I had just fed him and sent him away "full and happy," and that he would soon be back for more.

Fast-forward two weeks, the troll never returned, and there is now a section at Talk:Black people in which the troll's argument is debunked, in small words, so dealing with the next similar troll will be easier. I made a stupid mistake, yesterday, or earlier today, or whenever. I posted to Thuran's page, telling him that the boring approach worked, and that his prediction had been wrong. I was pretty sure he wouldn't thank me, but I truly believed he might hear the message. He yelled at me, and I yelled back a little, which was dumb. After very few rounds, he determined that I was just trolling him, and started deleting my comments. This actually happened just after I pointed out a year-old prediction of his about trolls, that had also been 180° from accurate.

My last post on his page was a null edit, because I knew he would just remove any post I made. All I said in the edit summary was "I apologize for upsetting you, or whatever that was. I'm unwatchlisting your talk page now. Best of luck in whatever you do." I guess he really didn't like my apologizing in a null edit, because he came to my talk page screaming and threatening to take me to ANI. I wish he would.

I tell you all this, not to bore you, but because you might find it interesting, the question of how to identify and deal with trolls. I just wrote User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem, which you might also find interesting. There's also a question I posted at WT:DENY. I'm quite interested in the fact that we have no overall strategy to deal with trolling, and therefore it falls to the most brash and tactless to handle the job. That can't be good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the above and your hypothetical story, and it certainly is interesting. The basic problem, as I see it, is that it is sometimes difficult to really tell if someone is "trolling" or whether they're sincere. The dilemma is that it can be a little of both, and thus hard to recognize. Someone can come here with what they think are sincere intentions, like that IP address and the Katie Couric / South Park thing. But when they are told over and over why it's a violation of policy, and they keep doing it, then they migrate into troll territory. And the dirty little secret is that there's a little bit of troll in many of us. The last time I was blocked (December of 2007), the details are fuzzy now, but I think it's because I insisted on the same point over and over, even though it was clear that consensus was against me. I still think I'm right. But there's no defeating consensus. If you make your point and they still say NO, then it's over, unless the "consensus" version is a policy violation that you can escalate (which that wasn't). But it can really be hard to tell. A year or so ago, we had some guy who insisted that the Braves had not won 14 straight division titles. But rather than citing sources, he was using a "logical argument" - kind of like the World Series debate that's going on right now, only probably worse, because it was totally an endless loop that one guy was having with several of us. Finally we decided among ourselves, and rather openly as I recall, to simply stop answering the same question over and over. He had edit-warred it initially, which stopped after some modifications to try to address his question, and after an RfC was filed. It never concluded, because we had stopped answering him, and he simply went away. So it sometimes works, especially when it really is a troll as we assumed it was. However, many times the "passive" approach does not work. The Pioneer Courthouse Square troll has been trying to push a single short, uncited paragraph about the homeless in PCHS for 2 1/2 years now, resulting in the permanent protection of that article, because no amount of reasoning, ignoring or blocking would work. The Obama pages have been subjected to a constant POV-pushing siege since at least November 4th, maybe before but I wasn't watching it then. In defense of Thuranx, who has been gallantly defending that article the whole time, you get to a point where you're fed up with answering the same stupid questions over and over, like "Can you prove he was born in Hawaii?" and "He's really only half black!" and you get to the point where you just clobber one of those stupid questions the next time it comes up. I don't know if that's specifically the case in your argument with him, I'm just saying in general. Bottom line: Straight vandals are usually easy to identify. Trolls can be much harder. AGF is inadequate to deal with them, because you can't read their minds and see if they really believe what they're saying and just won't listen, or if they've just found something to latch onto and make a fight out of it. The only way to find out is to try to expose them, some way or another. Basically your approach to exposing them is quite different from mine, but we're both kind of doing the same thing. Once you get them out in the open, sometimes (not always) you can discern where they're really coming from. Sometimes the "passive" approach works better. Sometimes the "aggressive" approach works better. If you read that megillah from that IP yesterday, it becomes clear that no matter what anyone said to him, he was convinced that the South Park stuff should be in the Katie Couric article. I am fairly sure that he is totally sure that he's right, and that he will not listen to anyone about it. That puts him on the fence between good faith and trolling. I'm still not sure which side of that fence he's leaning more towards, but I think we'll find out. After all that, the question remains, How to deal with suspected trolls? I think the answer is to get them to reveal enough about where they're coming from so that you can make a fair judgment. And sometimes even then you can't tell, so all you can do is block them for disruption. Sadly, that's kind of an "I give up" approach that really doesn't leave anyone happy. OK, on to my next book. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting. You've helped me understand much more clearly where we're coming from different places. I whole-heartedly agree that it can be difficult to tell sincerity from trolling. My contention however, and this is very central to my approach, is that we shouldn't be trying to identify them. I think that trying to identify and expose trolls is a very bad idea.

At the black people page, I wasn't try to identify and expose anyone. The fact that he exposed himself as not being interested in serious discussion made my work easier, but I would have kept going with him, in full sincerity. I can work with a racist, without somehow allowing them to dictate content.

I think that the way to deal with trolls is in terms of something else. As soon as we sniff the air and ask "troll?", they start scoring points, IMO. In defense of MO, I have hung out with trolls, and know a bit about them. They're humans, it turns out, and I really believe I know how to stop them. Badagnani, the editor on whom I most closely based the "hypotetical" situation, is very clearly not a troll. Lots of people get called trolls who are very clearly not trolls. False positives are terrible in this department.

This is the case that really gets me; check it out: We know it to be true that a lot of fathers teach their sons racist values. As their sons grow up, they hears n-word this, and jew-that, and whatever. They hear rationalizations for those views, when their fathers are holding forth at the dinner table. We know this is true.

We also know it to be true that a whole lot of adolescents in our culture rebel against their parents' values to some extent. Even those who don't overtly rebel might ask some questions, maybe go to the library and try to figure out whether Dad or Teacher is right, about blacks. Maybe they get on Wikipedia.

Now, follow this kid with me to the article on Black people. He might type something else in the search box first, but he finds his way to that article. He reads it, chews on it, asks Dad a question that night at dinner. "Why doesn't the encyclopedia say about blacks being stupid?" Fair question. Dad patiently explains that liberal fascist communists who control the media don't want the truth about colored folks to get out, but that if little Johnny goes back to the library and looks up "The Bell Curve," he can find out the truth.

Little Johnny is a 21st century kid, so he goes back to the Internet, back to that article, and clicks where it says "discussion", and then where it says "new section". He asks, "why doesn't this article talk about black people being stupid? They've done studies, you know." This question is reverted as trolling. Johnny thinks, "well, I'll be. Dad was right. They won't even let me ask the question, they're so afraid of it." He posts back, proclaiming that he's being censored. ThuranX keeps reverting him, convincing him that Dad's right.

My suggestion is that we just answer the question, boringly. Don't get upset, anyone. Just treat it as dryly as if you're a robot. People looking for a fight, want a fight. Identifying them as a troll, and shooting to kill accordingly, gives them the fight they want. I truly believe, and I think I can cite evidence, that the stick-to-the-facts approach works, better than the identify-and-take-out approach. Whichever one is true, let's not argue about it. Let's find out, empirically.

The real value, however, in what I suggest, is this: Imagine little Johnny posts his question, and receives the reply, "That topic is addressed at race and intelligence, which is linked in the navbox near the top of the article." If he persists, the information is added to the article. ...in context. There's a section in the article on so-called "scientific racism," which shows The Bell Curve to be another manifestation of the same train of thought that brought us the KKK and the Nazis. The kid leans something, and all readers benefit.

If the kid was actually looking for a fight, he took off when he realized all he was going to get was an intelligent conversation. I have yet to see the troll (and I hope that you, or someone, will point him out to me) who actually sticks around to work on an article once he realizes that he'll be taken seriously, and boringly.

What's really important here isn't whether I'm right or wrong. I think it's a problem for Wikipedia that we have no answers in all our guidelines and policies for how to handle these situations. I think we should be interested, as a community, in learning and being better at this. Do you think that's a worthwhile goal to pursue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I'm remiss if I don't mention something about how to control articles such as Obama. I think there is a wide variety of tools to be explored and implemented. They did a lot of good work at Talk:Evolution generating a FAQ that is, apparently, helpful. I haven't looked there recently. Done typing now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say something about the FAQ and you beat me to it. It was done at the Obama article, to answer the constant same-old-questions, as I mentioned earlier. That or something like it was also done at the Mohammad article, as a way to head off the constant complaints about depictions of Mohammad being in the article. It could be worth a try at articles like PCHS. Your specific case describes a situation where it could be helpful. It can get tricky. You have some users who just won't accept the FAQ no matter what. To cite an outrageous comparison, supposedly Gandhi admitted that passive resistence wouldn't have worked against Hitler. It's a case-by-case thing. We could put an FAQ on PCHS that would explain why the homeless stuff is not appropriate, but that wouldn't stop the troll, as no amount of patiently explaining has done any good. I should point out that I don't use the term troll very often any more, as it doesn't really serve much of a purpose. "Disruptive" is what catches admins' attention, not a label like "trolling". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. What really bothers me is a "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude, where Thuran didn't even try to answer the question, leaping straight to the revert-and-block-while-labeling-him-a-"troll" strategy. Besides that, I think the question of "how to best deal with this sort of problem?" is one that we ought to pay more conscious attention to, as a community. Any strategy shown to be harmful should be discouraged, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't read much of it, so I can't judge. In this particular case, it may well be that your method worked. But if the FAQ was there in articles about controversial subjects, that could pre-empt a lot of debate. As with Obama, the answer is simply, "See the FAQ." Then if they get belligerent, take some action. The tricky part then is to get consensus on the FAQ itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi's stance on Hitler was actually a bit more nuanced than that, and interesting to look into. Did you know that he and Leo Tolstoy were pen-pals?

Maybe it's a religious thing (I'm not particularly religious), that I believe that calling someone names and yelling at them is never the correct solution to any problem. That's really what this argument comes down to for me. Are we going to treat each other as fellow species-members, or are we going to decide to draw the line somewhere short of that? I know my answer. Maybe that makes me a fanatic. On a project where the goal is supposedly to share all knowledge with every human... I don't think I'm too out of line. (Viriditas calls me a "purist"! ;))

I'm at least going to believe it can work until someone actually tries it and it doesn't. When that happens, I hope I see it, or that someone shows me, so I can get with the program. If there really is someone I should be yelling at, I'd better get to work! -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are worse things to be called than a "purist". "Troll" or "vandal", to name two. :) To me, a "purist" is someone who opposes the Designated Hitter. I'm somewhat of a "traditionalist", but not a "purist", in that I've been in favor of the DH from day one. That doesn't mean that I'm "right" or that the purists are "wrong", or vice versa. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Consider this your first and last warning. Take me off your watchlist. Understood? I don't care man that you have powerful admin buddies. Bullies like you don't scare me. Get lost. Caden ^{is cool} 13:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint has been noted and logged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping me understand a little bit more about Truman ;) - Nite Owl II 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Please see further editorial comments in the Truman article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

IP

I have to agree that the behavior is interesting. However, is it possible for everyone to just drop it and move on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear I'm doing this wrong. Going to think about this in the morning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I apologize for the "drop it" demands everywhere. There's no reason for you guys to if he clearly won't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not doing this wrong. Some folks just won't listen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Took me awhile to find this again: Where the IP is subtly asking how checkuser works, on George's page [20] seems a little fishy to me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the more I look at the IP's vs. Smedpull/Chingadiculous, the more commonality begins to emerge. It's subtle, but it's there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Handy reference

87.69.176.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.131.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.177.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.130.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.57.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.14.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.57.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.177.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.177.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.69.176.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Smedpull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chingadiculous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This is for your efforts in the epic, 5 month long struggle against sockpuppeting-vandal Spotfixer/TruthIIPower. Schrandit (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your plans are for the future, but if you ever figure adminiship would be for the best you can count on my vote. - Schrandit (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

N'yuk! N'yuk! I appreciate your support. Now all you have to do is convince the 80-plus opposers in my previous RfA! :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw what went down last time, you weren't too far off the mark. Make a few changes and throw your hat in the ring again in a few month. I'd bet on a positive outcome. - Schrandit (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. I've got a growing suspicion that I can be more effective right where I am. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vice president rankings

I was wondering, do you think wikipedia should have a page on the VP rankings in addition to the presidential rankings? I think it could serve as its own page (I'm sure there are plenty of polls like this one from CNN, though I'm not sure which one would be appropriate). Message me when you can, it seems like it could be a worthwhile project (though most VP's did not accomplish much until the 20th century). - Nite Owl II 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All of them are from 1950 onward, and they're based strictly on opinion polls. Cheney being on both the best and worst lists raises questions about the validity of the information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bug

There's some kind of bug on this talk page. At the top, it says in red, "Error: image is invalid or non-existent", and the "edit" links on each section aren't appearing properly. I think your talk page has Swine Flu. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC) *cough*

Oh, and now it's suddenly fixed. What th'? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Plaxico

Thought I'd let you know, I'm trying to put together an article on the term Plaxico (see User:MuZemike/Plaxico). If you find anything verifiable besides what I have, let me know. I don't want to Plaxico myself by bringing it into the mainspace too early and have everyone scream for deletion or whatnot ;) MuZemike 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As a dedicated stalker of this talk page, I've added a tag to the article. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you cannot shoot another person and claim that you Plaxicoed someone else! There is already a term for that, and it's called (attempted) murder ;) MuZemike 19:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Aw, gee whiz!, does that mean I can't suicide someone else, either? What a bummer! ;-( —— Shakescene (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Suicide is punishable by death so I think that would save you the trouble of having to kill them Shakes. Soxwon (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you are a U.S. Marine and you die, then you would be banished to a world of shit, because Marines are not allowed to die without permission (with the exception of Gomer Pyle, who was already in a world of shit). MuZemike 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Soldiers never die; they merely fade away. [forgotten song quoted by General Douglas MacArthur in his farewell speech to Congress] —— Shakescene (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And as the libertarians in Berkeley, Calif., used to say "you're not allowed to commit suicide; it's illegal to destroy government property." —— Shakescene (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes you hanker for jolly old England's Waltham Black Act, which made attempted suicide a capital offense. (wow, this is sad, we're carrying on a BaseballBugs-style convo without BB here) Soxwon (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Now THAT's a law worth dying over. I suppose that was a very grave act on the part of the British. *slap* MuZemike 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe they had over 100 capital offenses at that point (or something close to that). Soxwon (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So it was true about that case about the guy who committed suicide by shooting himself with a BB gun? MuZemike 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't know, heard about a guy who killed himself with a rook rifle. Soxwon (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No. What happened was that, since the deceased cannot obviously show up for the trial against him for a capital crime, the magistrate declared the case a mistrial. However, the plaintiff took the case to a pellet court *slap* Owwwwww!!! MuZemike 07:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Waltham Black Act actually made it punishable by death to go about in woodland areas with a blackened face. When suicide was illegal (until 1961) the verdict of suicide was usually given as "suicide while the balance of the mind was disturbed", thus exonerating the perpetrator/victim from having committed a crime. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A felon's goods, chattels and property were usually forfeit to the King, so there were material consequences, especially to the unfortunate family and dependents who could be not only devastated by the shameful loss of a loved one who'd be buried at a crossroads and could never go to Heaven, but thrust into poverty for good measure. The same reasoning applied to the peine forte et dure (usually accomplished by slowly pressing a mute defendant under heavy weights, although originally by simply denying him food), which was intended to force a defendant to plead guilty or not guilty: you couldn't try and convict someone who hadn't pled, but a convicted felon's property, etc., was forfeit to the State. In Arthur Miller's play The Crucible, someone in Salem accused of witchcraft stands mute and is pressed to death off stage. With those cheerful thoughts for a sunny afternoon, Happy Soviet VE Day! —— Shakescene (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - I was thinking more of the 1940s than the 1640s ☺ As for "afternoon", been there, done it. It's evening here. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, even in earlier centuries, the severe spiritual, ecclesiastical and material consequences of a finding of suicide, as well as solicitude for the family, would provide an incentive (as opposed to the Crown's interest in taking the property) for the local magistrates or coroner's jury, who probably knew the deceased, to find some other cause of death , e.g. misadventure. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia itself is the source of the term, I doubt that it would qualify as "notable", unless it can be shown to have widespread usage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of THIS article?

Christ School (North Carolina) I think it needs some work, --Jakezing (Your King (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

High schools

I have no idea why, but I think they are considered notable just for being high schools. There may be a bias against elementary/primary schools there, which you could argue are more important as they develop the foundation upon which high schools work. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That article needs ot be trimmed: i always worry about edits to schools because they are ussualy adding idiots to notable members/alumni, or adding tourist info.--Jakezing (Your King (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A related problem crops up in Education in New York City, New York City, and the borough articles, where everyone naturally and commendably believes that his or her own junior or senior high school is one of New York's most important, and adds it to the appropriate-looking article or section.—— Shakescene (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Redact this. You know better, and if you can't be a neutral editor on articles involving those on the other end of the political spectrum than you, perhaps you shouldn't edit these types of articles. AniMate^draw 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, 8 minutes before you posted this. And I come from the branch of Christianity that believes flaunting one's body is inappropriate, so don't make assumptions about my politics, ya dig? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking closer, my watchlist hasn't updated in about 20 minutes or so. Sorry that this was a pile on in addition to the talk page comment. AniMate^draw 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Jakezing and Adminship

Please see this page I created last summer regarding User:Jakezing; User:Ijanderson977/Insult. I created this page last summer to record his inappropriate and aggressive behaviour. Also you might want to keep in mind that he is a 16 year old kid who thinks he can speak German. I think this all shows how immature he is and that is not suitable to even consider Adminship. Ijanderson (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Does he even have Rollback rights? I'm not sure if hes even suitable for that yet. He should try requesting that first. Small steps at a time. Have you seen some of the edit summaries on his user page? Lots of swearing. Ijanderson (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

As an aside to this,[21] actually the dynamic could yield opposite results for two reasons:

1. An editor who is sufficiently insulated (in terms of wiki-dynamics) may be widely hated for good reason, but few speak up because the others fear retaliation and/or anticipate that the attempt would be futile.
2. An editor who does good work across a range of difficult subjects, and blows the whistle effectively and correctly, will eventually accumulate a large number of enemies who form a political alliance to take him or her down.

Just sayin'. Durova^Charge! 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Talk:Maize.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Talk:Maize.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

Wow! IP 173.88.160.231 was blocked @ 15:45, May 14, 2009; thanks, it's nice to know someone is paying attention.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you watch

Recent changes? Just wondering?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering. I watch edits by new account,s much easier to manage, leave the bots to recent changes, --Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Revert

Consensus says no on what?68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the previous edit summary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand you took off a template for outside opinion? What are you trying to do? I am clearly trying to get contribution from outside of the subcommunity. Why did you take off the tag? Do you know what you did? I am readding the tag, because I think you might have reverted the REQUEST for COMMENT (yes, that is literally what I am trying to get) by mistake.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lulz at da troll. Hey Bugs, did you notice they've taken Looney Tunes of the air completely? :(. Any idea where they can be found? Soxwon (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't act like a child.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Chill, bro. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What?! This is an outrage. It's sab-oh-TAY-gee, I tell ya! Oh, well, at least we have our DVD's to fall back on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to get me some, they've taken'em off Boomerang. Soxwon (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they were on Boomerang, they ought to come back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but who wants Bugs with an Aussie accent, I much prefer the Brooklyn one. Soxwon (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair dinkum, Doc. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah say, ah say, that's a very poor quality pun you got there boy, very poor quality. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jokes are guaranteed. Good jokes are not. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

LMAO

Romper Room? Romper Room? Still picking myself off the floor. :) You didn't mention the mirror, "I see Janey and I see Charlie and I see Annie...". LOL I grew up in Canada, Romper Room was always a let-down after The Friendly Giant and Mr. Dressup. Thanks for the laugh, I spotted the "Do-Bee" reference even without the link. :) Franamax (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I made somebody laugh, anyway. I think the original target audience was too young to know the reference. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest Buzz: The Do-Bee brothers hung out with the Don't-Bees in Bugs' Ark-Hives (until Bugs "borrowed" Elmer Fudd's shotgun for cleanup and troll abatement. They had apparently run a-fowl of some bugsy associates, such as Foghorn Leghorn and a c-c-c-c-certain duck, who proceeded to commence a noisy, disruptive edit war. Miss [insert first name of your local TV station's children's announcer] was not pleased.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I used to catch Romper Room now and then, I was more for Captain Kangaroo and Garfield Goose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Errgghhh

Does this passage suggest media bias to you?:

In 2008 George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan published a book in which he confessed to regularly and routinely lying to the media, and describes the contempt he felt for reporters who reported his lies instead of telling the truth, because they were cowed by the fear of an accusation of "liberal bias".

Soxwon (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the article you're citing it for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I said it was not an example of conservative bias in the media: here.

Rick Norwood has argued:

If a politician lies, that is evidence that a politician lied. If a politician lies to the media in an attempt to bias their reporting, and the media prints those lies, then that is media bias. I trust you see the difference. Similarly, if person who controls several major media outlets contributes large sums of money to the Republican party, that certainly tends to support claims that his media outlets have Republican bias. It isn't evidence in itself, but when combined with many examples in which those media outlets distort the news to support Republican candidates, it is corroborating evidence. Your paragraph above seems to suggest that the only source of media bias is reporters supporting their own worldview, but the article already lists several other sources of media bias, including the profit motive.

[22]

To which I replied:

So does Ms. Pelosi's ill-fated remarks about Waterboarding constitute liberal bias (i.e. she was lying to the media in attempt to biased the reporting). Or do any other politician's lies to the media in attempt bias what information is reported constitute media bias? Media bias is a conscious effort on the part of the media to bias the information, NOT an attempt by politicians to control information by reporting misleading information. You're not drawing a distinction between a media reporting facts in a slanted manner, and politicians or other outside groups controlling the information being offered.

[23]

All this is taking place at Media bias in the United States. Soxwon (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got it right. If a politician says something and the papers report it, that's not media bias by itself. It could suggest a lack of due diligence, but I don't think that's the same thing as outright bias. That quote from McLellan implies that his distortions were reported by the media in an effort to make themselves look good. I wonder what evidence he has of that claim? Maybe they just reported what he said because he's the White House spokesman. He sounds like a line from Animal House: "Hey, you F'd up - you trusted us!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for a second I was wondering if I was turning into a right-wing blowhard, lol. Soxwon (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Trolling

Waah! You big baby. You can't take care of problems yourself so you report me on ANI. I have nothing against you, I am a patroller of vandalism and I revert all stupid edits I see. It's nothing personal and it will include others too. So don't be such a baby and next time treat a new user with a little respect. Have a good one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fondesep (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd. Thanks for giving me some new material for my troll-phy case. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if somewhere, there's a secret organization of shitheads who compare notes and wear their enshrinement on your page as a crown. They email each other saying things like "I survived a whole twelve minutes before I was banned for life." Dayewalker (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Although it could be a club with just one member. This guy actually lasted 36 minutes (total 1:05 before having his talk page blocked), although it seemed longer. This is another advantage in not being an admin. "Hey, Dude, I harassed that BB guy for 36 minutes before I got blocked!" "Awesome, Dude! You harassed an admin for 36 minutes!" "Well, uh, he's not actually an admin. He's just some guy. I don't want to harass an actual admin. I might get in trouble!" And check out this edit following FisherQueen's inspired comment: [24] Ain't it just great? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Transients welcome". Seriously? Perhaps if you focused more on articles, and less on the drama at the noticeboards and on taunting would be harassers, you wouldn't have these problems. AniMate^draw 01:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That line is taken from the signboard of the cheap hotel in downtown Chicago that the Blues Brothers were staying at before Carrie Fisher blew up the building. An obscure reference, to be sure. But it is also another way to say what I have said elsewhere, that anyone is welcome to post here as long as it's a fair and pretty much G-rated post (or PG-13.5 at worst). I don't tell users not to post on my page. Regarding ANI, I have scaled back my activities there, but I continue to defend articles on my watch list. But you're right, I should focus more on project work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that by the time I made the "redlink" comment [25] at 23:59, he had already reverted 6 of my recent edits, 3 of which he had labeled as "vandalism", so it was he who started this brouhaha. Occasional harassment is just a cost of doing business here. Belligerent users don't like getting blocked, and they blame whoever it was that turned them in, rather than looking inward and realizing that they did it to themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lone Haranguer (continued from above)

Hey Baseball Bugs. I just want you to know that I fully support you in your quest. I'm behind you 100 percent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horneldinkrag (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Abusive Actions (more of the same - a visit to the User:Pioneercourthouse sock farm)

You're a really rude and abusive user baseball bugs. You should be ashamed User:Corpiestre 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My last edit was WRONGFULLY REMOVED. I am distressed by your abuse, especially how you treat new editors. And your abuse of User: Caden has been the most egregious of all. You have treated Caden poorly and should be irrevocably ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpiestre (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you may have missed this

I attempted to close the discussion, and was reverted. Xeno promptly marked it resolved, same reason as my attempt to close. It is the wrong venue for either complaint, so I will not be responding there further, and suggest you do the same. Hope this clears up any confusion! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw Baseball Bugs, just to clarify, it was I who unarchived it. ;) Just to recap, I tried to point out that there was no attacks to the filing party, but seeing there was still a possible issue regarding a more minor aspect on standard of commentary based on a couple of the diffs he provided on my request, I suggested both sides resolve their differences personally. This was so that the content issues could be addressed and we could all move on. But as I noted there, that didn't quite work out as planned. Still, given that the incivility in the thread by Drew Smith was directed at (and imo, in some ways brought on by) KillerChihuahua, I didn't think it was right for him to close the thread, particularly when the filing party had an issue with it. So I unarchived with a request that an uninvolved party close it, after which Xeno did just that and moved their short discourse to the bottom of the thread. The end. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I had missed the archiving/unarchiving part. The complainant is apparently still not getting the point. Sometimes, even when you hit a smart mule with a 2 by 4, it does not get his attention. (And I don't disagree that I am that mule, sometimes - see below.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI, Cubs, etc.

This is my second urging of you to spend far less time at ANI. –xeno ^talk 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If your complaint about my ANI activities is that it will hurt my chances for adminship, it doesn't matter, as I am even less interested in adminship now than I was before I was nominated for it. I stick with wikipedia because I think it has value, and that's why I defend it. If that seems like "drama" sometimes, it can't be helped. There are a lot bigger drama queens than I on this site. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with a potential RFA (though you have effectively torpedoed your chance at that venue). My urging is because you often make off-the-cuff comments that are unhelpful and seem to come from a less-than-complete understanding of the situation at hand. –xeno ^talk 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I spend more time here, I've learned that the talk pages (of which ANI is effectively one) are the places to get things done, rather than edit warring. Would you prefer I go back to edit warring? I think not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

No, not at all. Perhaps consider taking ANI off your watchlist when there are no incidents that involve you. That is what I do. –xeno ^talk 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I keep hearing from various editors, "Tut-tut, you'll hurt your chances for adminship!" as if that mattered to me. The more I see of how admins become targets, both internally and externally, the less interested I become in the job. So that kind of chiding is like water off a duck's back. I am a much more effective vandal-hunter by staying a plain old non-admin user. If an admin blocks a user, he might be chided for being "involved". If I simply turn a vandal in, then an admin makes the block or no-block decision, and that's how it should be. The opposers didn't realize they were actually doing me a favor, as adminship puts too many restrictions on. Regarding "drama", my approach is to raise questions that I think need to be considered - and sometimes to nudge editors into revealing themselves more fully. You call that "drama", I call it "bringing them out". As far as the Noah's Ark thing, maybe you're unaware that I was in on that discussion some months back, so it is not unfamiliar ground (or water). I happen to agree that "mythology" is total POV-pushing on the part of the editors. But as I tried to get the complainant to see, there is no winning this particular battle. He can take it to WQA and get plaxicoed, or he can take it to RFC, where it will go nowhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, none of my business, and I sympathise with your reasoning about Adminship, but sometimes less is more, as the cliche goes. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says it's none of your business? And do I push too hard sometimes? Apparently so. It's my nature in general. But if I push hard enough, I usually, eventually, get an honest response. If that's "drama", so be it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that adminship would hurt your career as a gadabout. That career seems useful to me; there's value in annoying some people, it's fun to watch, and you're impervious to the resultant slings and arrows. Keep it up. PhGustaf (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the adminship issue is really peripheral here. My primary concern is that it seems you tend to spread yourself too thin over the various ANI threads such that your input may at times generates more heat than light. –xeno ^talk 16:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't always get it right. But I often do. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if one feels one has valid input, one ought to present it "without fear or favor." Collect (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And although I can't cite data to back it up, since the RfA I think I have scaled back my overall activity at ANI, in the sense that I used to get involved in more of the discussions than I do now. And it may surprise y'all to know that my main activity is not ANI, but in watching quite a few pages that I think are worth defending. That, unfortunately, is a consequence of an encyclopedia that any idiot (me included) can edit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP is going through its annual seasonal slump right now ... if you look at all the stats available. Collect (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a corrolation could be drawn between wikipedia's annual slump and the Chicago Cubs' annual slump. Although that might be a cruel comparison. :( However, I have noticed that it's taking the admins a tad longer to respond in recent times, than earlier. Maybe they have other things to do; like, maybe, going outdoors. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly right to call a hundred-year drought an "annual slump". Do we break out the Steve Goodman music yet? PhGustaf (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey - As George Will pointed out about the Cubs, anyone can have a bad century. I have a concern, though, that the Cubs will continue to fail as long as Stevie remains dead. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Some things are just doomed to not change. Today the NYT covered this [26] remarkable Cubs loss of thirty years ago. PhGustaf (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That was one amazing game. Here are retrosheet box scores for three high-scoring Cubs-Phillies games at Wrigley. Schmidt was a killer in the two from the 70s. The 1976 game featured 4 HR's by Schmidt, and tied the record for largest comeback. Had the Phils come back and won in 1922, which they came close to doing, that would have been the record:

Aug 25, 1922

Apr 17, 1976

May 17, 1979

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the ANI brouhaha that Xeno brought on by his ill-advised block of Giano II, he's a fine one to be lecturing others about causing drama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a block, just a fight. [27] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Oren0's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiLove, kind of like the "good game" butt-slap in baseball.

Our Cheerios exchange, while founded on a basic content disagreement, has been entertaining and cordial. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

It's hard to get into a heated argument when the subject is "Cheerio!" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Plaxico alert

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie - in the works. Man, I wish that term had any notability to it ;) MuZemike 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Hey, I wanna tell ya, I am the king of all things non-notable. Otherwise called "trivia". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How old is Bugs?

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Ages? for discussion ;-) LeadSongDog come howl 20:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have on good authority Bugs was the kid Babe Ruth visited in the hospital. Dayewalker (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hush. Confidentiality, ya know? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And all this time, I'd thought Bugs was the original Jimmy of the Jimmy Fund, adopted by the Boston Braves and visited by Ted Williams. (juvenile medical confidentiality, ya' know) Guess I'll have to find the Scoop of the Century somewhere else (and please don't call hospital security). —— Shakescene (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Doctor Howard! Doctor Fine! Doctor Howard!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am both of those guys. I was a professional midget, hired to act the part of a child (which I'm still pretty good at, as you've seen). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"A dragon lives forever, but not so little boys..." —— Shakescene (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"If I had a hammer, I'd... (What would you do, Daddy?) I'd... Cover that girl in chocolate syrup, and boogie till the cows come home." How's that for a mixed metaphor? It's amazing what can seem to make sense this time of night. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The last example in the MoS discussion quoted John Stuart Mill's memory of learning Greek at 3 years old, or two-ninths of Bugs' present age (and one-thirteenth of Jack Benny's). —— Shakescene (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And roughly one-thirty-fourth of Irving Berlin's. I'm guessing Berlin wrote more songs than Mill did, even by the age of three. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

All I know about John Stuart Mill is that, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy he was particularly ill. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My Future Plans (today's Liebman socks)

I have some news for my friends (and enemies?). I am leaving Wikipedia (this time for real) at the end of June 2009. I have gotten tired of the daily grind, and of the other combative editors. I will use the remaining time to catch up on projects that I wish to complete at Wikipedia. Now you can all get out the crying towels!! (User talk: Baseball Bugs 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Courtesy of Sports Desks --Sports Desks (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have some news for my friends (and enemies?). I am leaving Wikipedia (this time for real) at the end of June 2009. I have gotten tired of the daily grind, and of the other combative editors. I will use the remaining time to catch up on projects that I wish to complete at Wikipedia. Now you can all get out the crying towels!! (User talk: Baseball Bugs 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Courtesy of Sports Desks --Sports Desks (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Courtesy of Soccer News --Soccer News (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As a note to the above, of anyone reading this, BB did not say that he is leaving. The above is forging a comment to make it look like it was by him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

There was since, from the last day or so, a post here from one of your possible stalkers(everyone who has been here for awhile has at least one). The post stated you were leaving wikipedia. Is this true?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That was posted by the banned User:Ron liebman and one of his endless socks. He's been a minor mosquito here since early in 2007. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, he's not very convincing or skilled at forgery (yet). —— Shakescene (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

He's now working on the baseball wikia, where he can add his unsourced trivia anywhere he wants, because nobody reads it anyway. He shows up here when he gets bored, apparently. With baseball season on, you'd think he'd be focused on the Yankees or Mets, but I guess not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm Back

What was initially a 24-hour block turned out to be just 4. Apparently the administrators were convinced from my written statement that I was not disruptive enough in the first place to be deemed at 24-hour block, but rather a victim of foul play. I do want to thank you nevertheless for being at my defense of all this. As for Caden, well...you have been following the matter very closely I notice. So I’ll just leave it at that. I guess the old saying is true, cooler heads prevail. I did not anticipate being unblocked as soon as I was. Thanks again. By the way, what’s your favorite baseball team? KeltieMartinFan (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Cubs. I sometimes wonder if I'll live to see them win the National League pennant, never mind the World Series. And as for business, just be sure not to edit war again. Be calm and peaceful. Like the Cubs are most every October. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm and peaceful is good. My one block was for six hours, for edit warring on a topic I've since forgotten. By telling the admin it was a fair cop and being generally agreeable and contrite, I got it cut to four hours. (The admin was likely used to the usual response to a block: anger and repetition of what caused the block in the first place, which rarely works.) PhGustaf (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been blocked several times in the past (none since 2007) and in each case I simply waited out the blocking period and owned up to the fact it was justified. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cubs as calm and peaceful every October? I question that a little. Why? Two words, Steve Bartman. Would he concur with you on that? I guess you and I are going to get into more of a nice heated frenzy than what we already have considering my favorite is your N.L. Central rival Houston Astros. It could be worst though. I could have been a Cardinals fan. Damn you, Pujols. LOL. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Most every October. 2003 was one of those exceptions. I really thought they were going to make it, and I thought they could have beaten the Yankees. The Cubs at least took the Marlins to 7 games. The Yankees were stymied in 6. However, it's plainly evident that the Cubs pitching staff in 2003, particularly the bullpen, just wasn't strong enough, else they wouldn't have given up 8 runs in that inning. And by the way, the real scapegoat should have been Gonzo, for booting that double play ball. Regardless, it's obvious the Marlins were the team of destiny that year. So, does it hurt worse to lose that way, or to be swept the way the 'Stros were in the Series a couple of years later? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

And how ironic is that Geoff Blum, who delivered the killing blow in Game 3, is now back with Houston? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot resist: [28]. MuZemike 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Yet more salt in the wound. They should sell the club to Morton and go straight to the source. I wonder if you know that the Cubs don't have any World Series trophies? That's because the last time they won was before metal was invented. >:( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, even though they were swept, it wasn’t like the White Sox put a huge beating on the Astros. They lost all four games by a total margin of six runs, and the largest for a single game was only two. So really, it could have gone either way in any of the four, especially game three. So I do take consolation in that. Truthfully speaking, after a very rocky beginning of the season, nobody in Houston thought the ‘stros would even make it to the post season, let alone the World Series. I didn’t think what Geoff Blum did was really all that damaging, not as much what Scott Podsednik did, hitting that home run considering he had not hit one all season long. As for Blum coming back to Houston, that was way after the fact, and it didn’t bother me all that much. Ironic, sure. Not as much though as what Pat Burrell did, signing with the team that he killed two months earlier to win the World Series. I was trying wrapped my head around that news for a few days when I heard about it. Here’s one thing I trying to figure out though. What’s will the talk about the Southerners. I thought the Northerners are your team. In New York, Yankees hate the Mets, and all Mets hate the Yankees. Isn’t that the case in Chicago too. I could have sworn it was. So to answer your question from earlier...in my opinion considering everything, I thought the 03 saga hurt more and the 05 series. Anyway, have your read Caden’s confessional yet. To be honest, I don’t know what to make of that. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Might as well, because Tribune, who had their hands halfway up Blago's you-know-what, couldn't do anything. Well, look on the bright side, maybe Thomas S. Ricketts will demonstrate a more humane side of watching someone choke to death ;) MuZemike 23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

...or was that the other way around? MuZemike 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

← KeltieMartinFan: Yes, absolutely. There is a fine line down in Chicago between admirable and ignorable...called Madison Street, which separate the North Side (Cubs) and the South Side (White Sox). My friends always hated the North Side because their streets are never numbered; on the South Side, they very conveniently are. Besides, now at least the White Sox managed to win a World Series, but they weren't that far off from the Cubs. Their last World Series championship before 2005 was 1917. However, the White Sox deserved not to win anything after the 1919 Black Sox Scandal. MuZemike 23:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Southerners" I assume refers to "South Siders". I'm not a native, and I'll root for any Chicago team when they're winning, but if the Sox are losing I don't care about them the way I do about the Cubs. I know natives of the city absolutely hate the "other team" in the city, whichever one it happens to be. I recall the author of "Stuck on the Cubs" (1977) said that Cubs fans are found all over the world, and even occasionally on the south side of Chicago. Maybe if they took a wrong turn somewhere. The victory parade in 2005 was strictly on the south side and it stopped in the downtown. No Clark Street drive-bys, or they might have been pelted with various groceries. Cubs and Sox have been at each other from the beginning, but the Cubs-Cardinals rivalry goes back to the 1880s, off and on. However, I would say that us Cubs fans with long memories probably despise the Mets more than any other team, due to 1969. Hack Wilson, Babe Ruth, Billy Goats, 1969, the Padres, the Marlins and Bartman - yeh, we have a lot of grudges in our past. Not like the Red Sox did, though. They were the king of baseball angst until they finally won in 2004. And I still can't believe they came back from 3-0 against the Yanks. Sometimes I have to watch my DVD to be sure I didn't just dream it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: East End Park (Cincinnati) vs. Pendleton Park

If the consensus is to keep East End and merge Pendleton into it, I'm fine with that, but fair warning: I've used the SCSR site for some research myself, so I tend to believe what the webmaster (which, I assume, is the same fellow with whom we're having the discussion) has, but I'd really like to see the original source material on which he based the info on his web site before making a final judgment. Otherwise it's borderline OR and certainly, as was pointed out, COI. -Dewelar (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Annoying vandals,

Check my contribs, I filed an SPI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PCH

I've proposed a ban, see ANI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Socked user

Ok. I wasn't commenting just to make trouble, just questioning the provided reason.Drew Smith What I've done 04:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of attacking an editor, even though you might have some merit. —EncMstr (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's we who are the idiots, for tolerating this kind of thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

S-s-so you wanted to be an adminiss-sstrator?

See the quiz on User:Garion96. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. All I had before were random thoughts. Now I have a written list of reasons not to be an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What quiz? I don't see any quiz.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some sort of "flash" thing. It might be that your PC can't recognize it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that GIF thing. I though it was an actual quiz that you were meant to take.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's more of an ad than a quiz. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Or the prose equivalent of "If—". —— Shakescene (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

pch

Did you see the meaty reply on ANI? Huh. Can't quite wrap my head around it, but it's a hell of a lot of energy spent on one TE. tedder (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He's been obsessed with this one thing since at least October of 2006. This is just another twist on it.[29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Aaaand... gone.[30] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

good times. tedder (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Holden

I don't care if he does stuff like move the coordinates to the infobox, but making the same changes on every article contrary to MOS with no explination is making me question his motivation. I'll take a look through all the Pittsburgh ones, but he's making changes to most of the ballpark articles. blackngold29 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

All I'm doing is cleaning up the stadium infoboxes. HoldenV8 (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair point there about the rounding. Duley noted. HoldenV8 (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. 4 tidles after all comments will be done :) HoldenV8 (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that change was actually done before I said about the tidles. Won't happen again. HoldenV8 (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I get your point. HoldenV8 (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

For fuck sake I'm not refusing to do anything. HoldenV8 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so rude in my last post to you.HoldenV8 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Irritation

Regarding this edit, yes, I agree with you. I have experienced a similar scenario/situation with this editor at least twice.
i.e.: someone has pointed out the contrary behaviour to V8; V8 has acknowledged it and seemed to promised to refrain from doing it; But nevertheless, V8 continues to behave in the same manner.
It is starting to irritate me. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He's been skating below the radar for 2 1/2 years, but his approach is going to catch up to him eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome Baseball Bugs, and again, apologies for being rude. HoldenV8 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting to use tildes. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Baseball?

Hello baseball Bugs. Why the name Baseball? Isn't that the most mind numbingly boring game in the world? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You must be no relation to Forbes Field. And it's quite the contrary. Baseball is a thoughtful game. Soccer is mind numbingly boring. I like to say that soccer often has lots of apparent action with almost nothing going on. Baseball often has little apparent action with almost always something going on. I would also add that American football is a huge improvement on soccer. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Helluva lot better than cricket :). Soxwon (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want a bat-and-ball game with lots of scoring, cricket would be your cup of tea. Cricket is kind of like the bat-and-ball equivalent of basketball - lots of scores, and each individual score doesn't mean much, but they add up. Baseball and cricket both have their good points. And they're both better than soccer. As is hockey, which has relatively little scoring, but is fast-paced, and players beat up on each other and stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't you score six points in cricket? I've only the vaguest idea of how it is played. Soxwon (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, I just know enough to almost be dangerous. Cricket is played with two "bases" (wickets), with a batsman at each wicket. The bowler (like a pitcher) delivers to a batsman with the purpose of trying to hit the wicket. If he does, the batsman is out. So the batsman tries to defend the wicket by hitting the ball. If he "hits it where they ain't", he and the other batsman exchange places and it's one run for each time they trade places. After 6 balls are delivered, the entire fielding team rotates 180 degrees (an "over") and the next bowler delivers toward the batsman at the other wicket. Once 10 wickets fall, the innings (note singular + plural usage) is done. Single runs can also be awarded for various penalties, and batsmen can be called out (equivalent to a wicket falling) for certain illegal actions. A batsman who hits the ball between the outfielders will be awarded 4 runs if the ball reaches the boundary, which is usually a rope a few feet in front of the seating area. That's kind of like a ground-rule double. If the batsman hits it over the boundary on the fly, he's awarded "a six", i.e. 6 runs, cricket's equivalent of a home run. The team with the most runs at the end of the innings obviously wins the game. There are several versions of the game, which are pretty much the same except for the number of innings and the number of overs. The batsman uses an oar-shaped bat, and the fielders (except for the wicket keeper) play without gloves. That summarizes the game as best I can do. There's an article called Comparison between cricket and baseball which might be helpful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, the two worst games in the world, Baseball and Cricket. C'mon guys, get away from the dark side and join me in the most popular sport in the world, fooftball. In particular, Glasgow Celtic . Jack forbes (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a youtube [31] from a couple of years ago, of an Indian batsman named Yuvraj Singh hitting "an over's worth" of sixes, which is a rare feat. And they're not allowed to take the bowler out until the over is over, unless he's injured. I think after 3 or 4 of these, I would have been yelling, "My arm! My arm!". But that just wouldn't be "cricket". This all presumably happened within a matter of minutes, and just in one over. You could condense the action from an entire soccer game down to a clip of this length. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that was impressive. Apologies to all English people looking on, but have a look at this. Jack forbes (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Go on, tell me that wasn't impressive. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, quite an amazing play by the famous Diego Maradona. Thanks for sharing that game's entire highlight reel. :) There are many millions around the world who appreciate soccer, and it probably helps to have grown up with it. I work with a lot of Indians, and they like soccer OK but are nuts about cricket. It's all in what you're used to. Soccer is growing in popularity in America, and there are enough American kids playing it that in a generation or two I'm sure it will be much more popular than it is even now. One advantage to it, for kids, is that you don't need much equipment - just a field, a ball, and something to use for goals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Psst, don't tell anyone, but apart from every goal that Scotland has scored here's my best ever, its from the same game. [32]. I'll go and keep a low profile now. Jack forbes (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so this is the famous goal where he supposedly put his hand on it and it wasn't called? Those things happen. Kind of like the "Immaculate Reception" by Franco Harris in 1972. Curt Gowdy TV version NFL Films version Or the Don Denkinger mis-call in the 1985 World Series. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your second version certainly gives it strong with the dramatic music doesn't it. Oh, and Bugs, I was only kidding about Baseball being boring, I actually quite like it, though it's not a patch on the football. Cheers, and may your baseball team always win. Jack forbes (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

King Kelly edit: Um...what?

I...*splutters*...yeah, OK, then. No response to this that I can give here that won't make me sound like a ass, I guess. -Dewelar (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not express how I really feel about this edit :) , other than to say that I don't believe we should be making compromises to suit the tastes of one specific editor. Allow me to instead posit the following:

If we're going to call the 1891 AA Cincinnati team the Reds, let's just go ahead and start calling them the Reds everywhere rather than starting a sea change. When I first started working on things, the team article was at Cincinnati Porkers, while most of the related articles referred to the team as Kelly's Killers. "Reds" was not even on the radar. Now, you've made an edit that is steering us back to a multi-name situation, which is decidedly Not Good.

Anyway, the Cincinnati Kelly's Killers article can easily be moved to Cincinnati Reds (American Association) (or Cincinnati Reds (AA), if you prefer). I personally have nearly always seen them referred to as the Killers in present media (while granting that Reds may, in fact, be the closest thing they had to an "official" nickname), but starting to call them "Reds A.K.A Kelly's Killers" is just going to lead to badness. -Dewelar (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I already knew a fair amount of that. Not all, though, so thanks for that :) .

Really, though, I'd say leave that sort of thing to a mention in the article text. It doesn't belong in the infobox. It reads like editorializing, even though it really isn't. Plus, you still didn't respond to whether you think the Kelly's Killers article should be moved :) . -Dewelar (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the Killers article reads "(t)hey were more formally known as the Cincinnati Reds", which makes it sound as though we do know definitively. If that's not the case, then that passage needs to be weakened.

As for the infobox, by wiki standards it needs to be as clean as possible, right? Putting two names there muddies it, even if it's technically more accurate. If we change this one, we need to change all the other infoboxes for the team's players, and then maybe all the infoboxes for all the players on all the teams with similar nickname situations, and so on. Not something I fancy. As long as there's enough info in the body of the article, I think we should just leave it with the one name in the infobox. -Dewelar (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Very true. I have edited both the park and the King Kelly article to hopefully better reflect the situation. -Dewelar (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your feedback at AN/I. I kinda knew I was in the wrong place, but that editor was tearing pages up left and right. I see someone's been rollin' 'em back...I didn't have the guts to do that. I honestly couldn't figure out what the heck they were doing. One IP messing with several others didn't seem kosher, though. And when they started they had a redlinked user talk. It was all combining to make me dizzy. I think I need a nap. See ya 'round Tiderolls 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK...now the IP's are showing up and blanking the pages. Tiderolls 19:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

New user

Hey Baseball Bugs! I'm a new user and it was suggested that you are really helpful for new users!! Can you give me some ideas of how I should best contribute to the encyclopedia if I'm just starting out. thanks man and I look forward to working with all of yoU!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siospeedec (talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The "welcome" template that User:Abce2 put on your talk page is probably better than anything I can tell you. Good editing! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you call my greeting "spam?" Seems slightly rude, does it not? It appears what I heard of you may have been mistaken... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siospeedec (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

in your edit summary. How rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siospeedec (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But no harm done dude. I just wish you had been a little nicer to me. No big deal tho. Peace out. I'm off to find places to start editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siospeedec (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The above turned out to be a sock of Fondesep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Life

Steve is upset because I deleted terms he introduced in the article used in science fiction ("sentinence" and "biological machines".) I will keep ignoring Steve's attempt to debate the meaning of "meaning" and miscelaneous words in the talk page. I am sure there are forums to do that. If the administrators want to preserve in there Steve's personal beliefs on the worthiness of biological sciences, and other semantics, that will be fine. He can have the talk page and write a novel if you wish. However, no drama Steve can make in the talk page will change scientific methods, scientific terms, international conventions or biological facts. As a molecular biologist I will keep to labor for the article's scientific accuracy, so his inclusion of pseudo-scientific terms and original research in the article will be deleted again. BatteryIncluded (talk)

Brooklyn Daily Eagle Almanac for 1921

Hi, Bugs, I thought you might be interested in another nonspecialist authority I've got my paws on: The Brooklyn Daily Eagle Almanac for 1921, which I got through a Google search leading to Google Books (this copy was scanned from the Harvard Library). Under "Champions of 1920" in "Sporting Records" on page 412 of the original (= p. 448 of the PDF), Cleveland (no doubt to the deep shame and chagrin of the editors) are listed as "World's Champions" of baseball (and Brooklyn as champions of the National League). Similarly on page 426 (= 462), the baseball narrative declares, "Moving to Cleveland, the American League champions won four straight games and the championship of the world." Two pages later begin the "World Series" statistics, which on subsequent pages come under the running head: "Baseball — World's Series". Unfortunately I didn't see a list of past Series winners for comparison. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrating once again how the media routinely considered the "World's Series" to be the baseball world championship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that you are not taking into account the historical nature and role of sports media in the United States -- especially in print media in the era from the late 19th Century on. Its practices and "traditions" have always been far different than in non-sports journalism in that accuracy, objectivity, and neutrality were far less important (and often even rejected) characteristics of commercially successful sports coverage then were literary hyperbole, and the developing and maintaining of close symbiotic "partnerships" with the sports, games, leagues, teams, management, and players being written about. I invite your attention to the Handbook of Sports and Media edited by Arthur A. Raney & Jennings Bryant (633 p. Routledge, 2006), and the chapters therein entitled A Historical Overview of Sports and Media in the United States and The Coverage of Sports in Print Media which discuss this detail. You may also find the timeline A brief history of the name World Series enlightening as well as it shows that the terms "World's Championship Series" and "World's Series" had been completely abandoned by baseball in favor of "World Series" by the mid 1930's. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Yet there it is on the Phillies' page. So when they stop abandoning it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a straw man which was fully addressed earlier here and here. Also the promotional website of an interested party is not an independent source within the parameters of WP:IS. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Basically any argument you don't agree with is a "straw man". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, a straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of another's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Despite your logic-based arguments, the media continue to refer to the World Series winners as "world champions". Maybe you need to talk to them instead of to me about it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See Handbook of Sports and Media edited by Arthur A. Raney & Jennings Bryant (633 p. Routledge, 2006), and the chapters therein entitled A Historical Overview of Sports and Media in the United States and The Coverage of Sports in Print Media for the reasons therefore. The "media" and "long standing media tradition" are not the arbiters in the matter of determining the winners of "world's" championships in team sports as these are competed for and awarded exclusively in internationally sanctioned tournaments by national teams sponsored by their sports' respective national federations, and on which all the players are required to be of the same nationality or national origin in order to be eligible to participate. Privately owned professional teams are therefore not eligible to win such titles. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

(1) I'll just note in passing that, though indispensable to, and relied upon by, sports enthusiasts, the World and Eagle Almanacs were aimed at the general reader (especially around New York), on the lines of today's New York Times Almanac, and would use a less informal or colloquial tone (or a more pompous one) than the daily newspapers that published them — partly to promote themselves. (The Providence Journal-Bulletin Almanac published for 110 years, but stopped a decade ago when the losses were too great and ownership changed hands.)

(2) If you'd like a copy of the 1921 Eagle Almanac, I can send you the 39 MB PDF. Just write to the "e-mail user" link on my User Page. (I might be able to send just selected pages or sections, but, as with almost everything Adobe, that looks like much more of a chore.) I also have the 1868 World Almanac on PDF; I haven't looked for any baseball sections there. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer, but I already have original copies of a good many "World" Almanacs from the 1920's through 1950's. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC))

Well, then, you might be able to help me (who only has the 1929, 1943, 1957 and 1966 World Almanacs, and then one for every year or two since 1972) in a couple of ways. One is narrowing down the question that struck both me and Bugs: what's the latest World Almanac you have that begins its list of baseball champions (as does the 1929 edition) before 1903 and/or what's the earliest one that begins its list (like the 1943 one) in 1903? The other area is getting more details for the minor candidates by borough for New York City mayoral elections, especially in the 1940's and 1950's. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That would indeed be an interesting item to add to the growing list of when the 19th century Series began to be ignored by the media. If you want to find out more about those games, there is an early-1990s book called Glory Fades Away that's probably by far the most in-depth coverage of those Series that's been published, at least in modern times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find full online PDFs of many of both the early World Almanacs and many other Almanacs you are looking for here (Centpacrr (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

like a duckling?

Are you following me like a duckling? :p I posted at AIV and then you pop up at Jim Nabors, somewhere you've never been. You do show up at AIV, though. User F203 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nabors has been on my watch list for a long time, though I don't specifically recall why. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

couple comments

A couple comments and questions: I offer my humble head to the chopping block for not being a baseball fan, but I humbly ask you, is it my imagination, or do the Pirates look like a real team this year? Second question: this wasn't something I expected .. any comment? — Ched :  ?  19:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of that comment by CoM. He's a fine one to criticize. As for the Buccos, they're not terrible this year, which is a nice change. But let's see how they do in the Cubs series. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

List of WS champs

Bugs, just wanted to let you know that Scorpion0422 and I were discussing this (see my talk); he and I are going to try to make this list a little more uniform. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, first message to me, and you're accusing me of ownership. This is going to be a fun discussion. I'm simply trying to improve the article (using List of Stanley Cup champions as a model) and merging the score columns and removing the MVPs made sense (since there is a seperate page for MVPs), and I also wanted to add managers, so room was needed. That's not ownership. Ownership is immediately blanket reverting improvements to a page because you didn't approve them first. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the page to help out another editor. I admit I'm not an expert on baseball. I'm familiar with the sport and pay attention to it, but I'm not as big of a fan as I once was (I haven't been to a game since 1994). As such, I will need help from baseball editors with the page. If you would like to help, then your assistance would be more than welcome and we can work together to improve it. But if you're just going to quickly revert my changes, why should I bother trying? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy. I thought you were making major changes on your own. You weren't. I'll take a look at the page when you think you've got it pretty well done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not that attitude that scares editors away from editing outside their normal areas? Boldness is encouraged, so if I see a random page that I think I can improve, why shouldn't I just be bold and try to improve it? And why is that taking ownership of the page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(It's cute when they're all angry, innit?) HalfShadow 22:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what use is that comment? I'm trying to have a discussion, and your idiocy is not needed. Are you trying to be clever or funny or something? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Boldness is encouraged, but that doesn't mean it gets to win automatically. Maybe you don't know about the cycle called Bold-Revert-Discuss. As for HalfShadow, he's just funnin' ya. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In order: 1)I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the rabbit and 2)I'm being all three. HalfShadow 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And who says our idiocy is not needed? On the contrary, there's a shortage of idiocy on wikipedia, and some of us are doing our best to fill that gap. His question did kind of remind me of the old joke, the version I heard being a coach talking to an underperforming player on his team: "Son, what's your problem? Is it ignorance? Or apathy?" "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if the list is made, Bugs will be able to see "Cubs" and "World Series Champion" in a context that doesn't also include "everyone who saw it is dead" and spells the game "base ball". PhGustaf (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And calls it the "World's Championship Series". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything would be simpler if a different paper had been involved and we had played the "Gazette's Series". PhGustaf (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We already have the Post-game show. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When did they stop printing The National Pastime? After The Daily Double folded?(Are they now just non-union web-sites, owned by anonymous out-of-state corporations?) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean when did they stop calling baseball "the national pastime"? I'm not sure they have, at least not totally. However, it's in competition now with football, NASCAR, celebrity poker, and such stuff as that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oops! my mistake: obviously the National Pastime should be The National pastime, since it was obviously named after The National (a short-lived daily sports paper in the U.S. that wanted to take the same place that L'Équipe does in France). I'm just following Christopher Hitchens' method. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine was a huge NASCAR fan, but he had a problem with the official NASCAR lubricant and wound up joining AA. No idea what he does for fun now; I can't imagine enjoying NASCAR sober. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably runs around in wide left-hand circles... HalfShadow 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to SPI archive

Regarding this; just so you know, edits to archives are not usually responded to. — Jake Wartenberg 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To expand, they aren't needed really. This one doesn't need to be removed, but for future knowledge, if a case is closed, don't worry about getting something right. :) Syn 22:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Syrupy ridiculousness

With regard to your comment here: If you're referring to this Rescue Squad, I wouldn't worry about it, as they dinna know how to ridicule to save their lives. Deor (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not them, the real ones. Although, ironically, the ARS is also involved in trying to minimize syrupiness in articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a matter of opinion. (I've "rescued" articles myself on occasion, but I disagree profoundly with many of their tactics.) Deor (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they need rescuing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Do they have Trader Joe's stores where you live? TJ has grade "B" maple syrup, which is darker, tastier, and cheaper than the usual grade "A". PhGustaf (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We got Trader Joe's, we got Joe's Crab Shack, Joe the Plumber, Joe the Bartender, Hardrock, Coco and Joe, and I don't know what all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget grade F "maple" syrup, which is made by boiling down the sticky residue washed from beneath Wrigley Field and movie theater seats. Mmm, syruplicious. Deor (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wash that down with Old Style. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Those of us who, unlike Bugs, are old enough, will remember "Joe the Bartender" as a Jackie Gleason role. Joe explained life to an offcamera Mr. Hennity. PhGustaf (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read about that in the history books. I should also have mentioned G.I. Joe and Sgt. Joe Friday, and who could forget Joltin' Joe? I'd want him on my side. You could have Vince for your team, though. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We had Dom, who hit in 34 straight games way back when. Jacoby Ellsbury is now at 20. Jake is an oddity in a team historically dominated by slow sluggards. PhGustaf (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You had Smart Dom, and we had Dim Dom. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

On looking him up, I see he was really called "Dim Dom". My, Chicagoans are cruel. Even the smallest-brained Red Sox player never earned such a moniker. PhGustaf (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That was before the days of political correctness. However, "Cerebrally Challenged Dom" just don't quite have the same poetic quality. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Sox fans weren't exactly always kind either — Dick Stuart got his fair share of abuse. First base is generally considered an easy position, but he made it seem hard. PhGustaf (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible single-purpose account that might bear watching

No point in jumping the gun, but since User:Empire 1472's first 4 edits relate to raising the Empire State Building's structural height from 1,250 to 1,472 feet in tables that don't count the radio mast (and should thus count only the first 1,250 feet), I have my suspicions. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are enough legitimate issues about "tallest buildings" that it's a good idea to tread lightly here. The ESB is certainly the prettiest of the very tall buildings, and should certainly be at the top of the list of "tallest structures clumb by carpetted apes and defended by biplanes{. PhGustaf (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I kind of like the classic Chrysler Building myself. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Having just read Robert Slayton's biography of Al Smith, I should add the insignificant coincidence that the Happy Warrior not only threw out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium, he was President of the Empire State Building corporation (which never made money; as the King of Siam twitted the unhappy Smith on visiting the ESB, the U.S. had its own white elephants to match Asia's.) —— Shakescene (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Chrysler building is an extraordinary structure. I really hope it doesn't get renamed the Fiat building. But if it takes crafty Italian management to keep the PT Cruisers coming, so be it. PhGustaf (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem recurred today. See User talk:Empire1472 and his contributions as well Talk:List of tallest buildings in New York City#Empire State Building heights and its edit history. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's on my watch list now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FA Nomination; Ryan Braun

Hi. I've nominated Ryan Braun to be a Featured Article. As you are a significant baseball editor, you may wish to contribute your view as to whether it should be a FA. The discussion of the FA comment process can be found at [33], and the page that you can go in through to leave comments is the article's talk page at [34]. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles Whitman

I probably shouldn't have said anything about the new user and the old familiarity, except this poor article has a long history of users who are related to different people mentioned in the article (police officers) who come in with various usernames and stir the waters. This one that posted last night just gave too many vibes of the same. Thanks for your comment though, I'm glad someone took a look. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium (2009) controversy

(From my own talk page):

While sock puppets and personal abuse often call for sharp action, I've so far (so far as I can recall) succeeded in avoiding the disciplinary process for 3RR, because an edit war of this kind usually incriminates both sides. In this case, both I and the IP were doing slightly different things each time. (1) He blanked just the Opposition subsection without balancing it with the equally-uncited Support section (resulting in tangible damage to NPOV), which I reverted, (2) then he blanked both of them, but also took the adequately-cited Opening & Home Run Launchpad subsections with them, so I reverted again. (3) Then the penny finally dropped, and he blanked just the Opposition & Support subsections alone, which you reverted. Since the first reversion was mine, not his, he could in theory claim that that we're tag-teaming him (although we had no common conscious purpose or communication before our edits), with the third revert being in fact yours.

But there are already at least two sections dealing with this very question (poor sourcing and the need for such sections) on the Talk page so far, where he could make a credible case, instead of in the edit summaries. Some of the language about Opposition is poorly phrased, but there should be reasonably good sources about much of the substance (e.g. ESPN's long feature story and the NY Times story about the Bronx at New YS's opening), so the task is to produce something balanced with at least minimum sources for both sides. (As a New England Democrat, neither the Yankees organization nor Rudolph Giuliani are my personal favorites, and I happen to think that what happened to 30 acres of park in the part of the Bronx that doesn't have enough public open space is scandalous, but Wikipedia should be providing enough objective information on both sides so that readers can think the question through to their own conclusions.) —— Shakescene (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it might be best to wait a day or two to see what happens. Sometimes the action just stops*;

• (see for example, a budding edit war at The Bronx where in addition to some perfectly good edits, and others which were at least reasonably arguable, the new editor's massive bot-assisted batch-edit kept wiping out all the formatting I'd carefully put into several tables, so I & User:Bellagio99 kept reverting. Just on the cusp of 3RR, I walked away from that page for a week to calm down, while the experienced editor on the other side also stopped, perhaps realizing he too was on the edge of an edit war and 3RR.)

sometimes it does go to the talk page. Sometimes a completely-different third party does something else that makes the original edit war moot. So perhaps we can wait for this to either ripen or die off a little, by either withdrawing or (if that's possible) suspending the complaint for a day or two. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)