Thank you for your comments at the Reference Desk Talk Page. In my opinion it was productive and fairly drama free. I would prefer to concentrate on anagrams, not arguments.Erector Euphonious (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on those recent edits (and oh how I hate edit conflicts, 'specially when I'm trying to explain what I just did ;) - yeah, I belatedly realized that we can just use the initials and get the meaning across without using searchable terms for certain people seeking gratification. If you go back beyond the SPI archives, oh yeah, lots of cows on that farm. Long long-term problem there. If you were LC, I would have no choice but to shake your hand and send you chocolates. ;) Franamax (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well honest, I was editing as fast as I could to get it all explanified - but someone else kept editing over top of me and my way of dealing with e/c's is to copy my text and call back the page rather than try an in situ resolution on the conflict page, plus I'm a really slow typer. And "LC the cow"? There's another problem of yours Bugs, you have wayyy too subtle of a sense of humour rotfl! And that's a pretty broad example too. You just need to remember that not everyone shares your level of insight and commentary. God knows that I've made major adjustments in my own approach to this come-one-come-all forum - but for my own part, as between our own communication, you're pretty funny and insightful at the same time. Just pull back the prickles a bit with dissenters is all I ask. Regards! Franamax (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly Confines
Oh, well. No Cubbies in October, again. Tell, you what, though: If the dream Red Sox-Cubs series ever happens, I'll roshambo you for box seats, and I won't really care who wins. PhGustaf (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, they'll be playing in October. Just not very far into it. Like the 4th. They were supposed to do it last year, but they messed up. Now they have to wait another hundred. In honor of this situation, I was thinking we need to come up with the Cubs all-malcontent team. Names that come to mind immediately are Milton Bradley, Dave Kingman, Adolfo Phillips, and maybe Joe Pepitone. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Pepitone start with the Yankees? I remember someone making a Tom Swiftie out of it: "'We need more players like that'", said the coach in a peppy tone." Anyway, he eventually moved to Japan, where "Pepitone" came to mean "useless overpaid arrogant fuckup". PhGustaf (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Yes, he was a Yankee. He was one of the last of the Old Yankees to come up through their system. Maybe "flake" would be a better term for Pepi. In fact, it may be that "flake" was coined in reference to him, I don't recall. "Malcontent" is a special category. Even Cubs all-time greats Ron Santo and Fergie Jenkins had their rough times with the public, but now they're icons. Malcontents and flakes don't usually have their numbers retired. Which raises the question of who the all-time great malcontent would be. I'm sure it's a long list, but Richie Allen jumps right up near the top of it. He was one of the most impressive sluggers that ever came along, a modern-day Jimmie Foxx, but I'm more likely to be elected to the Hall of Fame than he is. I'm surprised the Cubs never picked him up. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Montville's book about Teddy Ballgame, I became convinced that his wars with certain members of the press said more about the press than about him. There was one guy in particular, whose name escapes me now, who was all over Ted from day one, and when he finally kicked the bucket in the 1950s it was a day worth celebrating. Meanwhile, what they've done with Ted's body is horrific. I always figured Alcor was a scam anyway, and if the revelations in that article are true, this could blow the lid off the place. But luckily Ted himself is in baseball heaven. The best comment I heard was from John Glenn, when earlier revelations about this place came out: "That carcass has nothing to do with the Ted Williams I knew." It's just a body, and that so-called "contract" was likely also a scam. But we'll see. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots16:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much doubt that Teddy's lack of charm cost him an MVP or two. But there was nobody ever better at hitting baseballs. And, yes, Alcor is a scam. PhGustaf (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there's a periodic fee for keeping the body there. If so, it would be like the pilot episode of The Andy Griffith Show, in which a widow had buried her husband in a rented tuxedo, and the formal wear shop had her paying a perpetual monthly fee. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I'm just glad that the Sox are going into the playoffs with four guys who can crank out quality starts without breathing hard, and a bunch of others who are good at getting three outs. On the offensive side, even Varitek managed to cobble up a run today. PhGustaf (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's set now except the AL Central. A couple of weeks ago, it looked like the Tigers had a lock on it, but they're trying to give it away now, while the Twins are hoping for some "extra innings" in the Metrodome this year. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of WP:ORE and the article has been on my watchlist for years. I know what the state is, but I also know that this isn't up to the level of vandalism that George W. Bush and the other type of article that consensus says merit indefinite semi-protection. Steven Walling23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not interested in wheel warring. I just didn't see any discussion that pointed at a consensus for indefinite protection, so changed it to a more normative level and explained why on the talk page. Steven Walling23:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you should be able to create it yourself. Just go to your talk page, go to the URL line, and add "/sandbox" or whatever you want to call the subpage, then hit enter. Then it should indicate how to create it. There's a "create page" tab or some such. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots03:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:67.180.161.183.
To start a page called User:67.180.161.183, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.
So just type what (within the usual rules) pleases you. There's no law against the User himself or herself putting something humo[u]rous on that page, as you can see from Bugs' own user page, as compared to my nearly-empty one. (My personal advice is that if your page has several sections, make sure to put a ==section headline== above your first section, so it doesn't float around randomly.) If you're asking for something slightly more elaborate, such as creating a subpage of your User Talk or Discussion page, then follow some of the advice above.—— Shakescene (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
Bugs, a user page is only valid when that user registers with Wikipedia, whereas an Anonymous IP editor gets mainly a discussion page, which are filled with warning templates about vandalism edit ninety percent of the time. Strongly suggest that IP editor should go speak to Jimbo Wales instead, his policy had made this so. And if I were you, I'd stop talking to him per WP:HOUND. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was of course long before the current 100-pitches-once-a-week treatment of pitchers. Radbourn was nothing if not sturdy. Love the guy in the tall hat.
Got my Medicare card in today's mail, and my first Social Security check is on the way. Beats being dead, broke, and uninsured. PhGustaf (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just living long enough to get Social Security is a Good Thing. Radbourn was 42 when he died. He led a carousing lifestyle, fairly typical for his day, and ultimately you might say he gave the finger to himself. Ah, the top hat. They don't make managers like they used to. I'm trying to form a mental picture of Lou Piniella in a top hat. I don't think that look would work for him - although he might be able to kick it pretty far. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots02:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the guys from that era checked out early. Ed Delahanty was perhaps the most dramatic one. As long as I can avoid getting drunk and falling off a bridge, I'll be up for that Cubs-Sox series. PhGustaf (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going over Niagara Falls is certainly a more colorful way to kick the bucket than dying from syphillis or dying from pneumonia. Notice that Hoss and King Kelly both played on that late-1880s Boston club. What a colorful bunch they were. At that point they weren't winning many games, but they had fun doing it. Probably spent many "happy hours" at nearby South End pubs. Delahanty was stuck on the Phillies in his early career, which would be enough to drive most anyone to drink. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots02:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old Hoss Radbourn was the linchpin of the first world champions of professional baseball, who were of course not in stiff-necked Yankee Boston but in Providence, Roger Williams' city and my own. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Providence had a short but successful on-field run winning 2 National League pennants in their 8 seasons. The city had a pretty good run in the minors also, including one term served by Babe Ruth on his way to the big show. Here's a photo of the 1884 club: File:1884grays.jpg. Can't tell if Hoss is flipping the bird in this one. But look at that old stand at the Providence ballpark.File:Messer.jpg. Looks like they stole a section out of a racetrack. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots03:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, current baseball is still fun, and a 12-inning playoff game can in no way be bad. I had no particular dog in that fight, but it's fine that a player as good as Joe Mauer gets to play a little longer. PhGustaf (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel kind of badly for Jim Leyland and his Tigers. They did a Mets-style flopperoo. The Sports Illustrated cover jinx bit them big time. The Twins might have a chance against the Yankees. If they could wangle a deal to have all the games at the Metrodome. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots05:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know who the editor is, and have strong corroborating evidence. The best thing would be for him to have a chance to log in and address the issue or deny it. If the latter, I will email Arbcom. I have no interest in outing this user.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I do recall Robin Williams doing Elmer singing about "dwiving in my cah... a man comes on the wadio..... and when we kiiiiss... fi-uh!" Things could be worse. I could have had Elmer doing "The Major-General's Song". Or still worse, having Porky do it, as it would take him an hour to get through it. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A great cartoon, and a bizarre mangling of Wagnerian operas. We serious fans like dear old Anna Russell's "The Ring of the Nibelungs (An Analysis)" better than almost anything. It's weird to be sitting in a $200 seat and remembering that the well-rested Brunnhilde engaged in competitive singing with Siegfried, who has spent two acts forging a sword and killing a dragon, all at top voice, is in fact his aunt. And she's usually bigger than he is, too. PhGustaf (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the Elmer / Denver version. And I apologize if you like the song, but let's put it this way: I had enjoyed Denver, up to the point where he started producing syrupy songs like "You Fill Up My Senses", an ode to the woman he later divorced; and "Sunshine on My Shoulders", which seemed to run about 27 minutes. At that point, as a relevant singer, I figured he had pretty much packed it in. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... Well then a little bird tells him, and he finds Brünnhilde on the fire-surrounded rock. Well now he’s never seen a woman before, so he doesn’t know what she is…but he soon finds out…and they go in for some very competitive singing—the type of thing “anything you can sing I can sing louder.” And… “Sie ist mir ewig ist mir immer Erb’ und Eigen, Ein;” “Er ist mir ewig, ist mir immer, Erb’ und—” Oh, it’s terrific. I think probably she wins."
In April, 1989, I actually went to the first complete Ring Cycle that the Met had mounted in half a century and could tell that Jimmy Levine was really serious when I looked in the pit during the intermission of Walküre and saw that he had no less than six harps there ready for the Magic Fire music! What an experience. Centpacrr (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fat-girl stereotype is pretty old. Current singers are more likely to look like Waltraud Meier[5], whom I consider rather hot. Her performance as Kundry some years ago at the SF Opera was probably the best six hours I've ever spent sitting on my ass. (Kundry mostly just wanders around in the last act of Parsifal, and her only line is an "aaaguah" when she's freed from her curse and dies. Most mezzos just bow out and go home after the second act. But she plays the whole act out.) PhGustaf (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to five performances of Parsifal at the Met over the years including one with Meier and one with Domingo as Parsifal. (Kundry actually does get to "say" something in Act III, however, when she mumbles "Dienen... dienen. -" early in the act.) What a glorious opera. I always feel like Ernie Banks when the final chord dies out after five-and-a-half delicious hours and say "Let's play two." If the orchestra and cast were willing, I would gladly sit there for a second performance right then. Centpacrr (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flagstad's best years were in the 1930s and 1940s. She made a few fine recordings, often with Melchior, but no whole operas. The technical challenge of getting a six-hour opera onto 78-RPM discs was too great. In 1958, John Culshaw cast her as Fricka in Decca's Rheingold, the first opera in the first (and still one of the best) studio recordings of the whole Ring. By then she had lost the top notes of her range, and had never sung, or even read, Fricka's part. But Culshaw lauds her: at the beginning of Scene II, the sweet old lady looked up from her knitting, sang Wotan, gemahl, erwache, and everyone knew the opera was working. PhGustaf (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opera stars and other celebrity singers are kind of like athletes, in that there is a "golden time" for them, after which they have to find something else to do. If you ever heard Bing Crosby in his time, vs. later in life, you know what I mean. And don't even get me started on Tony Bennett. Although the single worst performance I might have heard from a professional singer would be a time when a very old Ethel Merman sang "Gentle on My Mind" on some variety show. Ugh! →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots03:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be "Captain of the Supers" (in charge of the "extras") for the two opera companies in Philadelphia (I am "Cochise" in L'Elisir d'Amore the picture at the left) and so got to appear on stage with many of the greats of the 60s, 70s, and 80s such as Domingo, Tucker, Merrill, Tebaldi. Vickers, Sills, Sutherland, the Pav, and many, many more. You really get an idea of how difficult what they do is (and what athletes they are) when standing next to them during a performance. I have that London/Decca Ring recording with Flagstad as Fricka as well as many of her other Wagner 78s from the 1930s (when my father was a recording engineer for RCA) which are glorious. (She also did a complete Tristan with Furtwängler in 1951.) Her 1936 Liebestod on 78 still gives me goosebumps. Centpacrr (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding! A live performance yet. And an excellent recording. I sometimes wonder, if they had recording capabilities a hundred years ago that they have now, how the earlier icons (like Caruso) would have sounded. They have ways to clean up the records, but that only goes so far. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots05:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are scratchy old records of Caruso around, and perhaps as notably a few of Alessandro Moreschi, one of the last, as it were, surgically enhanced countertenors. But there's only so much information under the scratch, and there's only a hint left of what they could do. (A while ago an early-music fan took me to an SF Opera presentation of Monteverdi's Poppea. Most disconcerting to hear Nero singing in that register. Ottavia had a really good song, but Monteverdi's pacing was a problem.) PhGustaf (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think very strongly about it. Although the sentence is unsourced. But the IP provided a good explanation which warrants more than a simple revert with only "rv" as an edit summary. Garion96(talk)14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a problem getting attention with my latest invention.
I've invented a device that vacuums up sealant and reliquifies it for later use. I'm calling it a caulk-sucker and now nobody will return my calls. What am I doing wrong? HalfShadow (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As long as the part about Mall of America buying the naming rights to....whatever....is in there (I think that's significant), you can call it controversies or oddities or a cheese sandwich for all I care. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's no worries even if the Twins do well against the Yanks (fingers crossed here), but in the meantime it's good to stick it in there somewhere even if the Vikings are waiting until they're the last remaining tenant. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... I thought you were referring to the playoffs when you said "qualifiers" (i.e: like the time trial qualifiers before an auto race), not the teams. Yeah, it was that steal that turned it around. Everything before that was just adding to that miserable feeling of the same old disappointments and everything after that was almost as if karma had somehow changed. The Red Sox historically weren't a stealing team, yet here they got a steal in this critical moment.
Thank god for Epstein, Henry and Co. I can't imagine someone stealing 70 bases under the old regime. Tommie Harper stopped playing before I was born I believe. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard not to like the Navajo. He hits .300, scampers around the bases at will, catches a lot of balls in center field, and best of all stole home against the MFY. It would be nice if he hit the ball harder sometimes or walked a little more, but he can lead off for my team any time. PhGustaf (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You undertook to keep your stupid comments in check. Yet here you are again, acting like a complete knob and biting a newbie. Here's the deal: just because you do not know something does not mean that it ain't so. IN a situation in which you do not have a clue, silcence is the best policy. Please keep trying to keep our fly comments under control, eh? --Tagishsimon(talk)21:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It goes back to January or so, and I would rather not say anything more about who he is specifically, due to WP:DENY. If you want to watch me (which would be very boring), you'll see him turn up from time to time. As the SPI noted, he's on a broad IP range, so he can't be pinned down. Not without the help of someone who's "connected", anyway. But I don't know anyone like that. 0:) →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When John Culshaw was recording Das Rheingold in 1958, he noted that the score called for eighteen tuned anvils. Most performances of the opera just use drums, but he wanted to get it right, so he found an "anvil school" somewhere near Vienna that lent him the, so to speak, instruments. Sounded great. I'm still not sure what the utility of a diploma from an anvil school is. PhGustaf (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There are only so many job openings at Acme, and I would think that by 1958 the number of village smithies had declined significantly. Maybe one could minor in button shoes and buggy whips. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel obliged to point out that slide rules are a promising field. I have examples of linear, circular and cylindrical rules and anytime I show them to the young folk, they have no idea what they are. Clearly fertile ground if accompanied by an effective marketing campaign, after all, that's how the US put men on the moon. ;) Franamax (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC) cmt[reply]
I astounded a younger cow orker when I whipped out my K&E and came up with a useful result more quickly than he could using our VAX. That was in 1983. PhGustaf (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's remarkable how often companies with good ideas crap out. I have here an SGI t-shirt, the kind employees with numbers under 100 got, SUN garb aplenty, and a B611 pulse driver from a KA-10. Wish I had been smarter about selling stock. PhGustaf (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite can also happen. Like the clerks at the McDonald's office who accepted stock in lieu of pay, and retired as millionaires. Or a drive-by character in a Doonesbury strip who said something about how he could have bought IBM stock cheap and decided computers were just a fad: "That's probably why I'm still living in a mobil home." →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots04:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent dag eh? Dags, clumps of dung stuck to the wool of a sheep, also used in Australia as a term of friendly abuse. Well each to his own, says I. :) Crafty (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good one. I've sometimes thought an interesting situation would be to have two bots trying to revert each other, accelerating faster and faster until the system crashes. Kind of like in WarGames where the computer plays tic-tac-toe against itself. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots23:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... but you might have forgotten all about the "Emergency STOP" button that those bots are equipped with on their frontpage. If that fails, we'd have to send you in to pull the plug but Mr Wales might not be too happy then. Then again, maybe not. =P --Dave1185 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm sorry for the undo, I misread what what was going on. I put it back when I realized what was happening. On an unrelated matter, I hate Disney corp, but I love bunnies, so Bugs is a paradox for me. I'm leaning in the like category because of his impact on my childhood. He eh... _Nezzadar_☎_17:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I'm sure of that. (...) Okay dude. Everyone knows that Walt was a horrible person. Let's not force this. Try and not get blocked. _Nezzadar_☎_18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball opinion needed
Hi Bugs, I wanted to get an opinion from you, just in case this isn't seen by a large audience. (I've also noticed that User:SNIyer12 was changing old Busch to give it a nickname of "The Field where the Curse of the Bambino Died", which in, oh, call it 25+ years as a Cards fan, I've never heard of, and wasn't sourced. I've reverted those changes for now, asking for a source... have you heard of any such nickname?) Thanks, umrguy4203:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made a little mistake. I am not worried about privacy. I am only thinking of following policy. Either hide their names to follow policy or declare that they are notable. Or try to change policy. PresChicago (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that most of the anti-merger editors were Expos fans, they should have been as enthusiatic when the franchise was in Montreal (i.e attend the games), as they're at the merger discussions. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Walt Disney & malicious stories
(Since the thread in WP:AN/I is closed, I'm responding to your comment here.)
The problem with this article is that lots of stories are going to attach to this person, because (1) he's famous, (2) it's "common knowledge" that all famous people have embarrassing secrets, & (3) the more outrageous the better. Disney professed a lot of beliefs that were common in the 1930s, 1940s & 1950s would be considered racist now -- so ill-informed types will call him a Nazi. He made a lot of cartoons & movies for kids -- so some are going to believe he had unhealthy interests in kids. I don't know how to talk to people who think this way any more than I know how to handle those people who hold outrageous beliefs like Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, so the only way I know to handle them on Wikipedia is to enforce the rules again & again -- which was my point. If I knew of a magic, one-step solution for this chronic problem, I'd be happy to share it. -- llywrch (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I probably would have got the information from baseball-reference.com. That also says September 28, so it is likely an error on my part - although it is not impossible that I reported an error that has since been corrected. Sorry I cannot be of more help - it was a long time ago. Let me know if you have any other questions. Rje (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Treblinka
I wasn't going to respond to the baiting on the Treblinka talk page but just to leave it there unanswered seemed worse, as if they had some valid point that couldn't be answered. But I suppose it falls into the category of feeding the trolls, they weren't looking for answers. I will try and avoid being drawn in again. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
My contribution has several sources. I believe I have a valid point, and should not be censored. H1N1 is a serious viral infection, and should not be taken lightly. Just because you think that the news is a hoax, does not changed the fact that there is serious public concern over the spread of this virus. The child vomiting is indicative of the H1N1 virus. My edits are not vandalism. There are several possible explanations for the child vomiting, he may have been upset, or seriously ill. I believe all opinions should be fairly expressed. Just because you disagree, does not mean my contribution is vandalism. Sadman64 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note, what does it take to be an administrator? I've heard 6,000 edits/6 months/Getting an article featured. I have no clue on #3, but the first two I can manage I assume if that's what it takes Doc Quintana (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Bugs. I'm a big time Yankees fan, but wowsers, I'm starting to suspect they're putting something in the Angels & the umpires drinks. Have ya ever seen so many mental errors? PS: The Twins running bloopers are also suspicious. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sports Illustrated commented on the rash of bad calls also. The Yankees do tend to get those calls. There are a couple of famous ones that come to mind. Although the one they called in 2004 ALCS against A-Rod basically quashed the Yanks' comeback attempt in that game. (Painful memories, I'm sure). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Warm feelings for the 2004 ALCS—just so long as you don't mention the 2003 one (yes, there can be too much of a good thing, like Pedro's pitching or Grady Little's management). (2) The Angels somehow didn't survive Fenway temperatures in 1986 or 2007. Long if fuzzy and unreliable memories are a fundamental citizenship requirement in RS Nation, just as knowing the location of long-vanished "landmarks" is essential to giving and receiving traffic directions in Rhode Island. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That 2003 game was just awful. How hard could it have been to say, "Great seven innings, Pedro. Nice job humbling Roger. Now take a seat and let our generously-paid bullpen crank out six outs." [PhGustaf] 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean where he charged Pedro and Pedro threw him to the ground? Yeh, that was not one of ol' Popeye's better ideas. Although I recall an ESPN commentator, possibly Harold Reynolds, pointing out that Zim was "old school" and would defend his players at all costs. I wonder if they'll have Zim and Pedro re-enact that moment for the Stadium crowd during the World Series introductions? Possibly NOT. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2003 was a tad painful for Cubs fans also. Steve Bartman didn't cost them the LCS, it was just a bad omen. Alex Gonzalez cost them the LCS when he booted that double-play ball. But the Marlins were the team of destiny. After beating the Cubs, they spanked the Yankees pretty hard. Maybe the Yanks had used up all their karma defeating the Red Sox, and were ripe for the pickin'. I dunno. I just recall Josh Beckett mowing the Yanks down like they were Little Leaguers, in that Game 6. This year, assuming they get past them Angels (which is likely), you'll have two teams with significant attitude. It'll go seven, or die trying. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A-Gon seems to be back with the Red Sox now, as the team struggles to find a shortstop who doesn't totally suck. Julio Lugo was the worst investment anytime, anywhere. PhGustaf (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They called him "Gonzo" when he was on the Cubs. Regarding Phils-Yanks, it looks like they match up well. If there's any of the four NL clubs that might have a chance against the Bombers, it would be the Phillies. They are also in the rare spot not just of winning back-to-back pennants, but of that second consecutive World Series coming against the Yankees. I'm not sure that exact situation has occurred before. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bugs, you may recall my previous comment to you... I could use an extra opinion on baseball on this whole idea of User:SNIyer12 trying to push "the Curse of the Bambino" stuff into prominence on Cardinals-related pages, for example, lately the Old Busch article. There is a discussion going on here if you'd care to join. Long story short, lately, SNIyer12 has been re-adding the Red Sox and Yanks-Sox rivalry navboxes to the stadium article, and I don't feel they're necessary. A third opinion would be appreciated. Thanks, umrguy4215:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to "re-open" my previous comment to you, on {{Template:Red Sox-Yankees rivalry}}, as he repeated the addition of Old Busch to that template (I have reverted for now, but I'm not keen to edit war on it). Thanks, umrguy4222:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism warnings
Thanks for reverting the vandalism at alien abduction insurance! Please give a warning next time to the offending party, then we can keep track of how much vandalism someone is doing in case they need to get blocked for continuous vandalism. You can find the warnings at WP:UTM. Royalbroil00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made me laugh out loud. I hadn't even thought of that. Feel free to take a look through that post ... makes for fascinating reading for someone like you who has been around a while. Ever see King of Kong?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to speak to you through my two-way radio
Resolved
– Mamma Mia~! Zee i-troll-ian was shown the door once again and he's comesa and go!
I am Italian. Please don't be racist I will try to speak to you from Italian to English through the use of my two-way radio.
Italian: Come si fa a fare oggi? Ho notato che una versione di baseball di Bugs Bunny fa molto bene.
English: How do you do today? I noticed that a baseball version of Bugs Bunny is very good.
Beats me~! But you could borrow the Italian's 2-way radio (that is most likely not encrypted) to speak to Bugs, he mentioned something about going to dive and tickle some great whites... I wonder if he's alright. --Dave1185talk06:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a pretty good guess. Though, just to be different, I'll say the Yanks in 7. With Arod getting a walkoff RBI in the 7th game.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want the Yankees to take it, but my crystal ball is hazy. PS: My goodness, how did the 2009 season scheduling get so out of wack? 2008 WS ends on October 29 (due to bad weather), yet the 2009 WS is starting October 28. Is it gonna be 'November baseball' every year from now on? GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, GoodDay and Soxwon -- we need your predictions as to winner, and which game, so we know whose crystal ball is best. The winner gets a week of edits without reverts by the rest of us ....--Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dealing with this in on-and-off doses for nearly two years now, and every time it pops back up on my radar I shake my head in disbelief that he hasn't been booted out. Looks like an arb is giving him his eighteen billionth warning about disruption, I'm sure that will do the trick... For some reason I'm really tickled by his apparent inability to understand which part of your sig is your user name. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's worked so far. Yup. And, yes, a guy who claims to be an expert on the speed of light, who can't figure out how wikipedia signatures work. Well, like Will Rogers said, everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed know that; it's one of the fun facts I planned to include in the forthcoming article on the Whiz Kids. I would like a doubleheader, it would be fun. For the record, Amtrak offers tickets direct from 30th St Station to Penn Station, and the Acela trains can get you there faster as well. It was all over the news yesterday. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fun. We were both wrong earlier, though; it wasn't to be five consecutive Yankees-Dodgers World Series. It would have been five consecutive all-NYC World Series (the Giants played in one of those five seasons). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bugs .. if it's an article you're interested in building, I wouldn't mind working on it with you. We could work in a sandbox for a bit, and dig up some references and such. I know from experience that you work from a very NPOV angle ... so I'd have no problem at all helping out with it. Want me to start bookmarking some wp:rs? I could check with Shanks and see if he'd mind first too. — Ched : ? 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously discussed Rjanag's conduct at the underlying referenced Simon Dodd AN/I.
Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:
(a) posting their own view; and/or
(b) endorsing one or more views of others.
You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.
Hi, just a friendly caution here. You may want to stay clear of the Malleus Fatuorum discussion, as I am doing, to give a wide berth vis-a-vis our respective interaction restrictions. I don't feel comfortable being any more specific than that, but if you trace the back-and-forth a few volleys back in the thread you'll see what I mean. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. If you read what I'm saying, I'm actually sort-of defending M.F., despite the fact he told me a few weeks ago he wished I was blocked (I can't find that diff, though). But I don't know what else to say about it, so I'll leave it be. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you'd both be wise not to nibble at any edges. Maybe your virtue will build up karma for later. Damn. Pedro could have used some karma just now. PhGustaf (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not over yet, but it's all about pitching, and the Yankees' pitching generally was better than the Phillies' pitching. It's too bad Cliff Lee wasn't able to start Games 4 and 7. But on the other hand, he seems to be about all they've got in this Series, and it's pretty hard to win with just one solid starter. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that in an "Arab Food!" "Israeli Food", etc., thread about it you mention Luigi Alfonzo Garbanzo. You may not know of Marco Polo's chef, Alfonso Guiseppe Dente. Marco Polo, as you know, brought pasta to Europe, and to this day perfectly cooked pasta is called... PhGustaf (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It tells you something about the level of British cuisine that they considered spaghetti an "exotic delicacy". In fact it's making me hungry, reading about it. I think I'll go open a can of Franco-American's version of that exotic delicacy. You've got me singing, "Uh-Oh! SpaghettiOs!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to tell me Baseball, that spaghetti isn't an an exotic delicacy? And there I was thinking myself sophisticated every time I ate the stuff. What a disillusion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting bit of info regarding Alfonso Dente, I always thought that al dente was a reference to it being slightly 'chewy' as opposed to waterlogged, hence dente being a reference to teeth. Unomi (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, "al dente" means "to the tooth", meaning slightly chewy... Velveeta in the gourmet section at Redding, eh? Sounds like a branch of Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery. Melt that Velveeta over your macaroni, and you've got a hot dish that you can hardly put down before it's all gone. Yum-yum! :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was this edit intended as a joke? This article (along with other articles relating to Camden) has been the target of frequent, apparently coordinated, multi-user vandalism, so some editors may be touchy about same. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the FTC prosecution, there was no space in the legal transcript, and the Tribune did not use a space at the time of the verdict. [16] I just looked at that article, which is a hot mess! I don't recall the particulars, but I think there was an attempt to distinguish the Louisiana school from the Chicago school. We had similar problems with other schools, like Pacific Western University and a similarly-named Hawaiian organization that was a separate entity for legal purposes. Hope that helps! Jokestress (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had the same idea! Papers at the time of its founding had "La Salle." [17] See also the founder's obit: [18] The main thing is to split out the two schools and stick to good sourcing. Articles on schools like that tend to attract supporters and detractors in equal measure on Wikipedia. Jokestress (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1996, minister Thomas J. Kirk II was indicted on charges of defrauding La Salle University (Louisiana) students and others.
Staff report (September 25, 1996). Across the USA: News from every state. USA Today
Francescani, Christopher (August 4, 1999). Net Scammers offer cheapskins - 'Cormell' diploma for $525; Net con men offer 'grads' cheapskins. New York Post
I wonder if ol' Fiorello had the same problem as LaSalle E.U. did, of not being sure whether the space belonged or not. Then there's the Chicago Blackhawks, who for many years had their nickname as both one and two words, before finally settling on one word. Maybe they just didn't think it was important, or that it could lead to edit skirmishes. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he retracts, attention is long overdue. I've warned him a number of times about his unsourced additions to historical articles, and he continues to refuse to accept what constitutes original research. Tiresome job, but I think everything he's ever contributed to needs review. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is a sock of User:Rock5410, who changes IPs about twice a day so the only way to stop him is through multiple rangeblocks. He's been adding flags in a number of articles, many of which have been removed (usually by someone citing WP:ICONDECORATION). I've tried for months to engage him in conversation with very little progress. Please, if you have a way to explain to him that his behavior is disruptive that will get through, I encourage you to try. I've given up trying to talk to him and am just doing damage control at this point. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, now that some of them have been removed, he seems to be reversing course and removing flags which hepreviouslyadded himself. One way or the other, he wants every company page on all of Wikipedia to be identical. Personally, I don't care which way it is. Why don't you and User:Gr1st figure out which way you want to handle it across the board for all companies, since you're clearly on opposite sides of this issue? It's likely that would be a more productive use of your time than trying to engage someone who's been disruptive since July with no sign of stopping. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fort Hood
Hey, I don't think it's reached the point where we've personally attacked each other and that's good. Let's keep it that way for the long term because we have some real differences on the way wikipedia should operate. I respect your opinion and I hope we can remain amiable on here. Agreed? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please disengage from William S. Saturn
Regarding this edit:[19], Bugs, I know you are accustomed to being humorous with a sarcastic edge, but that's not how I read the consequences of this situation. I see you deliberately taunting and baiting a good faith editor who feels strongly about improving Wikipedia and a particular point of principle, in the hopes of provoking an outburst. Such an outburst would undoubtedly provide more fodder for your wit, but it would also provide reason for administrative sanctions against Mr. Saturn, making this a cruel act. You're better than this. Please stop. RayTalk05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fundraising Banner Gone Forever
If I read your comment correctly on the Help Desk, you said that the "Wikipedia Forever" didn't go away entirely "like the other ones". I am not sure to what "other ones" you refer, but you can get the banner to go away completely. It is My preferences", "Gadgets" and then tick the third box under "Browsing Gadgets" which says something like "suppress fundraising banner". It works. (If this is not what you meant, feel free to delete this.) Bielle (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your mother was an elderberry and your father smelled of hamsters!
Why did you just delete them on sight, without even leaving a note on the user's talk page? You should have left them there and put underneath that the user needs to rephrase his question. --Richardrjtalk email07:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth did you get that idea from? It says on the homepage of each desk, "If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you." --Richardrjtalk email09:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really my place to put it back, seeing as you were the one who deleted it in the first place. If you don't want to put it back, then that's up to you. --Richardrjtalk email13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just came from TG dinner at a friend's house. He has a wall of original cartoons and prints, many of them autographed. One showed Bugs standing on a rock outcrop, with Yosemite Sam apparently suspended in midair over the adjacent abyss. Bugs was helpfully passing Sam an anvil. Sam is obviously going to accept the anvil, suddenly realize that he's over an abyss carrying an anvil, and plummet.
Beautiful. :) There were many great cartoon voices from that era, and Blanc is the king. I think the last survivor of the cadre of classic voices would be the somewhat-younger June Foray, who is now 92 years old. Mel Blanc, had he lived, would now be age 101. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just fun to pick on Wisconsin. Like this one: What do you have when Lambeau Field is filled to capacity? One full set of teeth. However, I was trying to point out to the IP in question that we know where he is. That fact didn't seem to matter to him, though. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In one of my linguistics courses, we studied the usage of the proper /ing/ ([ŋ]) pronunciation on present participles (ex- running, hopping etc) versus the substandard /In/ pronunciation (runnin', hoppin') among various social classes in the US. It was found that in working class families that the /In/ was much more common, even in formal interviews, with it being less often used when reading a text or passage. In middle class and even lower middle class families, the /ing/ was used much more frequently. I guess the point is, who's right? (you could argue the same with African American vernacular English)- is it wrong or a dialect? Anyway, thought I'd share that tid bit with you. Peace, Tom A8UDI20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please do something about the odd subsection-breakup usage of Redheylin (talk·contribs) at ANI? This is a strange usage of subsection headers, and not necessary. I changed it once, and he seems to have re-added it a second time. Best if someone else takes a look. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that Sift&Winnow has not been back to Wikipedia since the morning of November 28. Would one consider that ducking the question on why he didn't disclose that he had made the IP edits that led to a sock case against me? He's rarely missed editing since he began editing full time in September. I find that curious, troubling and a bit frustrating. I was made to answer for something I didn't do, but he just doesn't bother to reply to something he did do. LaVidaLoca (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bugs, I noticed this and read your summary. There being "nothing wrong" with something isn't in itself enough reason to keep it there, as you well know. I was also less than chuffed that you blind reverted my edit, thus also removing other edits I had made. What exactly would you say having this pretend flag adds to the article? Where exactly was the wide consensus to use that logo to represent "worldwide"? How does it fit in with WP:MOSICON? Take your time. --John (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing answers in there to the three questions I asked. Reverting multiple of my edits as you have been doing is very much not "harmless" nor ok. I have explained my reasons for removing this logo; if you persist in restoring it without giving your reasons, it is likely to have a consequence for you. Please do reconsider what you are doing and discuss. --John (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. ALL of those icons are meaningless decorations. Either delete all of them, or keep all of them. Don't pick on the ones you don't personally like. P.S. Your "likely to have a consequence for you" threat is "emptier than the streets of Miami during Oktoberfest." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a threat, as I don't deal in those. A promise rather, and I always keep my promises. Please do be careful, and I look forward to reading your policy- and user-based responses to my questions at the guideline's talk page, shall we say some time in the next 24 hours?. Rather than some off-topic rant about IPs. See you. --John (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I missed out on that quickly swept-away ANI last week, but my thoughts on the issue are here. [23] I'm unaware what the procedural rules are for anonymous IPs bringing issues to ANI, but I don't think your contributions to that thread were particularly helpful in examining or resolving the issue. If someone doesn't like being called by a term, they have every right to request not to be called it, and to persist in using an objected-to term for a person in spite of their objections, even gleefully so, is not civil behavior and does not represent the standards of conduct to which administrators should be held. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a chummer was a fisherperson who tossed bloody raw meat overboard in the hope of attracting sharks. [PhGustaf] 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. And the discussion about the term "chummer", as I recall, was a serious tempest in a small teapot, or much ado about nothing; and hence, whose details I quickly dismissed from my memory. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?
Some of us, especially Red Sox fans, remember when a proper teapot helt 227 GALLONS, 2 QUARTS, 1 PINT, 3 GILLS[24]. Let that lapsang your souchong, you ivy-covered relic. PhGustaf (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedestrian: Excuse me, officer, which way to Mulberry Street?
Policeman: That-a-way, my nigga.
Pedestrian: Thank you, but I'd appreciate if you don't call me that.
Policeman: Why not, my nigga?
Pedestrian: Even though you probably mean it to be friendly, it has offensive meanings and its familiarity suggests condescension.
Policeman: It's a slang term of affection and endearment between two African-American males on the street, and that's the sense I'm using it in, my nigga.
Pedestrian: All the same, and especially given your station of authority, it's disrespectful and inappropriate, and all the more so since you continue to use it even after I've asked you not to.
Policeman: My nigga, no one can be offended at, and no one deserves to be indignant over, my use of the term since I mean it cordially. I've already explained this to you, my nigga.
A tempest in a teapot, indeed. It's this simple: if an admin is using a term to call other editors by, and other editors tell him they'd like him to stop, he ought to stop. The meanings of the terms are irrelevant. The fact that one of the editors might be using an IP is irrelevant. It's pure WP:CIVIL. We don't call people names they don't want to be called. Robert K S (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that "buddy" has no alternate meaning which may be considered offensive while, as previously pointed out, "chummer" does. But, as I think you intuitively sense, whatever word you replace it with, it's still patronizing to bludgeon others with inappropriately familiar designations. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not "looking for insults" is part and parcel of assuming good faith; letting that presumption dominate in the face of repeated taunting is suspension of disbelief. If I don't want to be called "chummer", no matter what it means or doesn't mean, I think I deserve that courtesy. Robert K S (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting off-topic on the checkmate page. A couple more interesting situations:
1. this happened to another director but I witnessed it. The director put a clock on two players, giving them each 5 minutes. The rule is that if a player makes an illegal move, 2 minutes is added to the opponents time. They made so many illegal moves that they kept getting more and more time left on the clock! Finally one checkmated the other.
2. Some don't seem to realize that although running out of time ends the game, the other ways still apply. With me one time, one player had only his king left and it was confined to two squares. The other player had several pieces and was one move away from checkmating. The clock went on them. Both players just started moving as fast as they could. The player with several pieces just kept moving his king around the board, not trying to checkmate. The other just kept moving kis king back and forth between the two squares. This went on for HUNDREDS of moves. The superior side could have simply checkmate but seemed to think that he had to run out the clock instead. Bubba73(the argument clinic), 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty funny. It's kind of the chess equivalent to receiving a kick with no time left on the clock, and doing lateral after lateral trying to keep the game going - while down by more than 8 points. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be more like what soccer would be like if they played overtimes continuously until someone scored, rather than doing a shootout. The game would get longer and longer and longer. OK, that's kind of a stretch of a comparison. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ich Bin Ein Berliner
That's what I'm trying to say! We know the President didn't refer to himself as a doughnut, therefore it isn't an urban legend... just a speculation or piece of trivia. But all this urban legend stuff is making me sick! Don't you agree? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to upload the picture to, but you might be able to find the words in the "previous 100" if it's still there. I did a somewhat-pun play on the "do-re-mi" song from The Sound of Music, just as a test, since it has 8 lines. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have to register. I also had the privilege of watching Horse Feathers. I must say, I never realized how much of the Bugs Bunny/Looney Tunes/Modern humor came from those movies. Next on the list: Duck Soup. Soxwon (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing about that film is the famous letter Groucho wrote (or claimed he wrote) to Warner Bros., who were inquiring about copyright issues, since they had released the classic Casablanca; and Groucho retorted that the Marxes were called "Brothers" before Warners was, and maybe he should look into some legal issues. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually autoblock the IPs of the user (default block setting), thus they are probably on a floating IP or open proxy, which is always a tricky case. We can block IP range when we know where the vandalism is coming from, but the range and time are limited by collateral damage. Perhaps the user knows that and is playing teasing games (lonely soul). I say to myself that reverting and blocking is still quick enough to forget about those individuals. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful how much of that stuff you take. Overdoses can cause hardening of ejaculate. They're calling it 'Donut Syndrome'. You know: Crispy cream and all that. HalfShadow23:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The twelve Marx Bros films are: Horse Feathers, Duck Soup, A Night at the Opera, A Day at the Races, A Night in Casablanca, Room Service, At the Circus, Go West, The Big Store, Monkey Business, The Cocoanuts, and Animal Crackers. Soxwon (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. You will get Marxed out for sure. :) To get the full effect, it might be best to watch them in chronological order, as I tried to do with the W.C. Fields collection. The Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers are kind of primitive, but they have some of the Marxes famous early routines. At the Circus is probably best known for Groucho's song, "Lydia the Tattooed Lady". It was also the subject of a lengthy story by Groucho as supposedly they had to switch a supposed gorilla into an orangutan when the owner of the gorilla suit took it home in a huff. Groucho might have stretched that story a bit. I have a copy of Copacabana, which is just Groucho (including his final performance wearing the greasepaint), with Gloria Jean in a lesser role, and Carmen Miranda in a dual role. That's like a 14 dollar DVD. If you like old stuff in general, you might enjoy A Night at the Opera, which features some excellent singing by Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle. Jones lived until 1992 and was the father of pop / easy-listening singer Jack Jones. Jack is still around. Kitty was about 24 when she did that movie. She died in 2007, at the age of 96. As far as I know, she was sharp as a tack to the very end. I have special fondness for Kitty as she was a regular panelist on the 1960s game show To Tell the Truth, hosted by radio's Superman, Bud Collyer. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of older game shows, have you seen Groucho on You Bet Your Life? My favorite joke Grouhco: "You say you've had 11 kids??" Man: "Well, I love my wife." Groucho: "Well I love my cigar but I take it out every once in awhile." Soxwon (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, the plot of each was probably the thinnest I've ever seen :). Still, Animal Crackers was good for some laughs and Cocoanuts was actually quite amusing. I still think HorseFeathers the funniest of the bunch. Soxwon (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You watched all 12 of them? In one sitting? You're definitely "Marxed out". You might have noticed that missing line in Animal Crackers. Dumont: "He was the only white man / To cover every acre." [Groucho: "I think I'll try and 'make' her." (As in "seduce" her)] Crowd: "Hurray, hurray, hurray!" Horse Feathers is wrapped around their stage sketches called "Fun in Hi Skule". One joke you might have caught is when a player gets injured and Groucho asks if there's a doctor in the stands. When a doctor stands up, Groucho asks him if he's enjoying the game. That lame joke was actually done better by Bugs Bunny, i.e. it fit perfectly, in Hair-Raising Hare. Look for it at about 3:20:[26] (And note Bugsy effecting Groucho's famous stoop in several places.) The song Chico plays for Thelma Todd is called "Collegiate". She's sitting there bouncing along with the music, and they both look they're having a great time.[27] She would die a mysterious death a few years later. Duck Soup didn't do that well at the box office, so Groucho didn't have much good to say about it. Teens in the 60s saw a strong anti-war theme in it. Groucho always said there was no great meaning to any of their work, "We were just 4 Jews trying to get a laugh." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've only watched three: Animal Crackers, Horse Feathers, and Cocoanuts :). Soxwon (talk)
Oh, OK, so Horse Feathers is the funniest of those three. Yep. It's been said that The Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers have kind of a "cramped" look, as they were basically filming a stage show and hadn't quite figured out how to do a movie set. Sound recording was primitive. You may have noticed that the blueprints Groucho was looking at in one scene in Cocoanuts appeared to be pretty limp. That's because they were soaked in water so they wouldn't crinkle in the microphone and overwhelm the take. Cocoanuts is supposedly also the only Irving Berlin musical that didn't produce a hit song, which is ironic considering that Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby created some pretty memorable songs for Groucho in some of the other films. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The story ended up being true -- the old complete recordings thankfully were not destroyed when they were edited. Even made the book by his son. Only found a couple years ago, though. Collect (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes watch O'Reilly to see who he's pillorying that day. He was a perfect fit for Inside Edition, and that's still pretty much his style - basically, the "scandal sheet" approach. Kind of a right-leaning version of Geraldo. And since you can't always predict which side of an issue he'll land on, that adds to the entertainment value. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The public media were rife with racial and ethnic stereotyping. The censored 11 were only the "worst cases" of the WB's. There were lots of images and ideas that are considered unacceptable nowadays, and sometimes they're cut. And not just stereotyping. There was a recurring theme of characters committing suicide, for example. What was considered funny then is not always considered funny now. And despite what that article says about Disney, his cartoons were loaded with stereotypes also. Two that come to mind are the guy in Song of the South, and a song in Peter Pan called "What Made the Red Man Red?" Classic comedians like the Three Stooges and the Marx Brothers also used stereotypes. Chico's ever-present Italian accent was as phony as Groucho's greasepaint mustache and eyebrows, and was a leftover from their stage act where each of them did ethnic accents - Groucho did a German accent on-stage, for example. And if the 1940s stuff is uncomfortable, it was actually somewhat toned down from the early 1900s, when phonograph records included all manner of blatant stereotypes and racisms, including the N-word and "coon" and other such stuff in the lyrics. What you can get away with depends to some extent on who your enemy is and who lacks political clout. WB and Disney and the Stooges and Popeye and a host of others were in the war propaganda business, and both Japanese and German stereotypes abounded. Nowadays, the target is terrorists. I'm reminded of the film, Back to the Future, which contains a line that may someday get censored if the world climate changes: "Libyan Terrorists". Not just terrorists, but specifically Libyan terrorists. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide was still considered funny in the 1950s. In this segment [28] from Jack Benny's Christmas show, this is the climax of Benny having the sales clerk (Mel Blanc) unwrap and rewrap a gift about half a dozen times, with each time Blanc becoming more disheveled due to having to track down the gift to the mail room, the loading dock, etc., to the point where Benny has driven him off the deep end. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your view that it's not trivia is every bit as much "a matter of opinion" as my view that it is. As far as WP goes, though, these kinds of lists of references in popular culture have been taken out of a lot of the game show articles (particularly the ones Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy!), so you should be aware that most of the people who work on those pages disagree with you. JTRH (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my project." It's the view of the majority of us who contribute to the pages. And I'm well aware that LMAD (and other game shows) are parodied in popular culture. (I think the Cheech and Chong reference would be perfectly fine in the article on Cheech and Chong.) JTRH (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't spent time over the past few years at the places where these things are discussed. But I have to say, I'm a bit dismayed by the way many comported themselves in the process. Why don't we dispense with diffs and all the rest, and just have popularity contests?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Well, you're better off. Time-suck. Baseball articles would have suffered. And, of course, you would have been required to take a 180 position at the aforementioned RfC.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was so much happier here, when I limited myself to sports and non-controversial musicians. Happily, in baseball at least the "community" is more about what the editors think is right, than alliances. And problem editors can be dealt with (remember Tecmobowl?). Elsewhere, it seems things can be different. I just wandered into my first Palestinean/Israel controversy. Astonishing. They all seemed to know each other, and at an AfD we had at least three topic-banned gents and one or more socks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Israel/Palestinian would seem to be a mine field, both literally and figuratively. The largest arguments on the baseball pages are usually about how to construct the infoboxes. Oh, and there's the ever-contentious debate about whether to have the Expos and Nats being one article or two. I got my fill of bigger debates with the Obama stuff last spring. Before that, I was involved in about a 2-year epic having to do with the Apollo "hoax". Do I remember Tecmobowl? Yes. Like a kidney stone. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's claiming the CIA controls Wikipedia. As for the fruitcake, perhaps it's a bit too British. I was using it in the same sense as "nutty as a fruitcake" ;). Soxwon (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that I may have overdone the feeding of my Christmas cake: I can smell the booze from across the room, through the marzipan. Mmmm, brandy. I say this in the spirit of being a friendly anon, and because I like your answers when it comes to sport and cars, even if I mostly can't tell whether you're joking or not. 86.176.191.243 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Types of gestures , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Mexico
Hi Baseball Bugs thanks for adding your comment on ANI regarding those living in the US who don't know that New Mexico is part of the US. Among the 100's of stories about this one of my favorites goes back to when Atlanta hosted the Olympics. A family from Albuquerque called to get tickets to an event and was told by the seller that, since they were from a foreign country, they would have to contact their embassy to get the tickets that they wanted. :-D Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk23:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Car Talk, one of my few claims to fame is that I went to college with Ray Magliozzi. He sounded about the same then as now, if you ignore a certain Italian facility with unairable language. PhGustaf (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new low, among many
As one Ref Desk Regular to another, please take a moment to consider how this sort of thing is offensive. I might have read it as highly subtle irony of the type suited to Internet forums or website talkback channels, not the RD enterprise of offering information to answer queries. Then again, it might have been offered at face value, as are so many, many of your tangential remarks. May I suggest you read more and write less, and restrain yourself from any but bona fide content that answers (rather than comments on) the query at hand. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out on the Ref Desk talk page, that remark could be directed in more than one direction (e.g. what does Islamic culture have to hide?), so I don't know what's offending so many people. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find your comment particularly offensive myself, although it offends the hell out of my own notion of civil liberties - but I've argued that corner many times, in many places. I do agree the OP question was offensive, it looks to me like a disingenuous means to get text to show up in Google searches ("look, it's even on Wikipedia!") and a little bit trollish.
For me though the more pertinent question, beyond shades of offendability, is: Bugs, what was your purpose in making that comment? How were you advancing the discussion? What additional information were you conveying? If more people had an insight to your motivations in posting the things you do, perhaps we could have better mutual acceptance. Franamax (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A request for moderation
BB, further to my comments at the Ref Desk talk, I come to request that you moderate the frequency of your jokey comments. As I've posted there, I do not believe that you are disruptive. Nor do I believe that the desks should be po-faced (and how!). And I also do not believe that the 'regulars' own the Ref Desks. But I do believe (and I reckon you do too, as you seem a reasonable person) that one shouldn't provoke and it seems that the frequency of your jokey responses is provoking irritation. I'd gently request that you strongly consider posting your brand of satire and wit less frequently.
The complaint was in reference to a questionable question posed by the OP on the ref desk. I notice they didn't say anything about my serious comment, on another ref desk, to see a doctor. So apparently my serious responses are ignored and the less-than-serious are converted from a molehill to a mountain. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Serious responses are ignored because they're what's expected! :-) I get praise from my boss when I do well, stick when I do badly and no comment when I do my job. I'm not too fussed about the specifics of this particular complaint (note I make no reference to it - in fact, to make that clearer, I've made this a separate subsection). I'm more bothered by an overall climate of regulars moaning about your contributions.
Looking at this another way, your "serious comment" actually makes my point well - you have a lot to offer and the level of irritation at your lighthearted comments is concealing/undermining that. --Dweller (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my perception that people who irritate rarely do so deliberately. And rarely can comprehend how and why such irritation could be justified. Yet, it's also my perception that the best kinds of people try to minimise the irritation to others once they're aware of the issue, so long as it is in their power to do so. It's not in your power to change your sense of humour, which is why no-one can ask you to be funnier. It is in your power to make jokes less often. I happen to think that your contribs reveal you to be a kindly person, who cares about this Project and cares about other people. I'd hope your response to this request is in line with my perception. I have no power to force you, and would oppose moves by others to do so. I'm appealing to your better self, and I don't think I'm wasting my time. --Dweller (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I got complaints from everyone, and if no one ever responded that something was funny, and if I was the only one who made light of things occasionally, that would be one thing. But that's not the case. So I assume that the issue is the mindset of the complainant (not you, the other one). Meanwhile, on that one item, I see you took a paragraph to say what I said in one sentence. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I'll get in line to say that I often find you funny, and often very insightful, but I sure won't then dismiss all concerns as "the mindset of the complainant". The problem arises when the volume of your posts at the desks seems to tilt too far on the side of humourous or inconsequential or unreferenced or speculative or aimed-at-the-OP. Also, brevity is not always a virtue, when brief becomes cryptic it does not serve our general readership well. Some of us aren't the sharpest knives in the box, I'll get in that lineup too. We're not seeking total self-censorship, just asking you to be moderate. Franamax (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the part of your reply which is on the topic of your jokes. Why would you wait to get "complaints from everyone"? Is it insufficient that there is a large body of people who are unhappy with you, when it's so easily in your gift to stop upsetting them? --Dweller (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a rather pleasant surprise seeing you on my talk page just now! I'm glad that Little Ronnie and his Merry Sock Drawer hadn't chased you off. :)
LOL! Oh, now THAT is funny! I can't think of a better way to describe him. If the little nerd shows up again, you ought to taunt him a bit with that name. Lord knows "wikilove" doesn't apply to him. I've been feeling the pressure from a kid in Alabama who has been running roughshod over Disney-themed articles across multiple wikis for about three years. I finally filed a complaint with his IP and lo and behold, I think he's finally gone. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AWB and Words to avoid
There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the template needn't be there; would you mind watching the page and removing it if/when he replaces it? I'm now at 3RR and (more importantly!) dinner-time... Ta! ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 21:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sorta remember Boston Blackie vaulting into a roadster, because stopping to open the door would have given the perp time to get away. I think it was a modified Nash, but Googling yields no joy. In any case, it happened long before Broderick Crawford ever said, "10-4" or "gimme the map". Or for that matter before anyone knew what a "perp" was. PhGustaf (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if anybody has had the etiquette to inform you ...
Just showing my appreciation for your recent edits to the Ref Desks. Some of your answers have been really excellent and all of them have been valuable and, I'm sure, appreciated by the OPs. Thank you on behalf of the OPs who don't usually find the time to say thanks. --Dweller (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was following ANI and noticed BQ in a heated debate suggesting that a troll was responsible for some misunderstandings today. I followed one of his links to one User:Grandma Dottie and was supprised to find that: at here you started questioning her and almost simultaniously User:Hammersoft and User:ThreeE came to her defense, tagteaming User:BQZip01. Has anyone followed up on these 2(?) user(s)? I smell a rat, but I'm not logging in to file an SPI and have them focus on me. FYI1369 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deft touch there. :) I'm not sure self-reference is allowed on-wiki though. :)
And I'll echo the kudos on a now-rkvd thread, just 'cause I already knew you'd respond to reasonable feedback and I greatly suspect that you will be offended by any suggestion that you might be thanked for changing your approach in response to feedback, so really, I'm just trying to bother you by saying thanks. Devilish, inn't it? Franamax (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the DVD for his long-suppressed film, "Close Encounters in the Third Grade", is about to show up on eBay. Someone's trying to jack the price up. PhGustaf (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the people who complained about you at WT:RD last week, I just wanted to compliment you on your recent posts on the reference desk, they are a great improvement! — Sebastian04:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Plaxico link under VANDALISM has been changed.
I'm new here, when I initially commented I didn't realize there was another 'sub' talk page for your user page, so I had mirrored my comment there as well, feel free to delete or move whichever does not belong, and by the way, very funny stuff :-) Adam.T.Historian (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quote me about what? 'very funny stuff'? Of course, I found your user page hilarious, and I also think the picture of "Chuckles" is hilarious... What, do you have a shortage of visitors with senses of humor? I would expect nearly anything goes on a User's own page. Hrmmm... Like I said, I'm new here, if I'm missing something please help me out. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We all appreciate the efforts you have made in recent days to keep your posts to the Reference Desk informative and to the point. Please do not let the old ways slip back.
I am referring, as you might have guessed, to these posts: [33][34][35]
When you disappeared about 6 weeks ago, after being properly slapped down, I was hoping you were gone for good. I'm assuming you just went back to your IP address. Let me be very clear and specific: I have yet to see anything you've said to me that's of any relevance whatsoever. Until you do have something useful to say, don't come back here. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your constant disruptive posts have been the cause of an extremely lengthy discussion on the Reference Desk talk page. I did not contribute to that discussion because I rarely look at the Ref Desk these days, primarily because it more closely resembles a chatroom than anything useful. But if you read it, it might cause you to think a little more before posting combative or unreferenced edits.
You might care to have a quick browse of these opinions of your editing – all posted by different, respected Ref Desk editors:
I consider BB's behavior tediously self-centered and an abuse and detriment to the posting/response RD interactions. Deborahjay
The situation has gone on long enough and Bugs has been asked, told, begged, and suggested to change his behaviour nicely, tersely, flippantly, and obliquely. We've done those appropriate steps again and again because nobody wants to start something on RFC . . . consensus has already been reached - we've hashed this out on this very page before - and Bugs continues to operate in breach of that consensus. Matt Deres
I'm troubled by this apparent continuation of borderline-disruptive behaviour and by Bugs apparent complete refusal to contemplate the possibility that anything is wrong at all. Franamax
If I were an arbitrator overseeing this dispute, I would suggest this resolution: Recognizing that Bug's editing pattern on the Reference Desks has been disruptive [and there's really no argument about this, as the talk page record shows] and that change is needed, Bugs is directed that for a period of one month, he is to post only factual answers to questions on the Reference Desks. No jokes, no flip remarks, no attempts to spark debate, no participation in debates. Steve Summit
Personally I find BB's contributions to be failed witticisms at best, off-the-cuff trolls at worst. I really do wish he would find a better way to spend his time. Mr.98
this is not only about BB's making jokes, it is about his answering questions with statements that are based on guesswork, his quarrelsome editing pattern, and his desire to always have the last word. NorwegianBlue
Good point about Jonathan Kent's burial, given that Superman was invented by two Jewish teenagers, I would still be circumspect about specifically identifying the Kents as Christian.
Happy New Year--WickerGuy (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I myself extensively wrote about in the WP article on Clark Kent, the Christopher Reeve films mostly initiate the usage of a lot of quasi-Christian symbolism in the Superman story, which has raised a bit of mild ire on the part of some Jews because of Superman's (artistic/real-world) Jewish origins, a subject now of two books. (Either one of the books or an article by author of same is entitled "Up, Up, and Oh-Vey".) Yes, there is semi-Christian symbolism in the Reeve films, and yes, Jonathan Kent is buried in a church yard, but they could be simply nominal Christians. See especially final paragraph of Clark_Kent#Christopher_Reeve_movies
Hey Bugs, I just wanted to say thanks for your comments in the discussion regarding Clive James comments, you jolly dingbat! Very best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, try some extra carrots for that memory. Five days for idiot is a bit excessive, call them dingbats.. that can't be worth more than a few hours. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me I was taking your side on the issue. It's unfortunate that you got blocked, but at least they shortened it. One thing I've learned is that once you get past 2 reverts, it's pointless to go on, because two opponents could do 50 reverts and still be fighting. When an edit war is going on, and if both parties appear to be sincere, then some kind of dispute resolution is in order. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were on the side of common sense and honesty if you ask me. I am almost used to blocks now. I agree, dispute resolution was in order and I got taken out, you know how I feel. The last user to block me was Atias, I was one of his last actions here, a bit severe it was too, there are quite a few admin here that have lost the plot. Atias was doing nothing to benefit the wiki at all he had become only interested in the power that he thought his adminship gave him, and the moment his assumed power was removed he slunk off like a sad bully who had been exposed, he wasn't interested in editing the wiki at all, so off he went, finished and worthless, unable to assume the position of a simple honest editor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, are you from Minnesota? I lived there most of my life . . . just moved away last year :( . . . . happy editing . . . . how old are you, anyway? :) L☺g☺maniacchat?01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist on deleting my contributions from Talk:Banana
A while ago, I spotted vandalism on the page. I couldn't fix it myself since the page was locked, so I reported it on the talk page. Is that a proper use of the talk page?
Another editor agreed and removed it for me and replied that he had done so. Was that a proper use of the talk page?
Familiar with the Section 230 defense? Figured I'd point you to it just in case, although it seems like the sort of thing you usually know ;-) I doubt Mike will be worried in this case, and the issue of whether the assertions are reliably sourced is of only secondary importance. Nathan T 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the heck the lawyers must have been thinking. Surely their clients won't look good in court with all the indictments, resume padding, wikipedia sockpuppetry, and claiming they never said stuff despite a New York Times article (that they themselves mention in the suit) quoting them as saying it. Probably emboldened by that New York Skank case. Wikidemon (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it's just wikipedia named in the suit, it's probably everyone they can think of that could remotely be connected to it. Or it better be, else they should go back to Law 101, where the one thing I retained from (a la Father Sarducci's Five-Minute University), is the following axiom: "Always Sue Everybody". Name everyone you can think of, and let the court figure out who the real parties to the suit should be. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So am I supposed to lie and say that I have no feelings on politics at all?
I took a look at that article in question and was amazed it survived for 6 years with no references other than itself. On the other hand, its presence didn't seem to do itself much good, did it? So maybe the theory of generating artificial notability, by weaseling oneself into wikipedia, is overrated. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You want to hear the scary part, other than that actor's uncanny resemblance to Dubya? I was almost going to call their next site RingBushsDoorbellAndRun.com. I kid you not. Who says greatly warped minds don't work alike? Thanks to that video, I'm thinking the organization needs a more generic title, like GitErDone.com. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots21:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back to your hole, Bugs, I'm ashamed of you — confusing Dorothy Parker with Gertrude Stein ! ! Remember, Time Warner receives hundreds of highly-qualified applications for your burrow every day. Not for nothin' (as we say in Providence, RI), I lived in Oakland for four years when I could no longer afford Berkeley. There's much to be said for (as well as against) Oakland: you should have been around Lake Merritt with all shapes, sizes and colors of Oaklanders when the fireworks for the 1987 All-Star Game were set off. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway "Gitmoize" refers to a treatment, not a place. When interrogators at Abu Ghraib weren't getting the results demanded by Washington, Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller was imported to "Gitmoize" the facility with some enhancements probably not smiled upon by the Geneva Conventions. (At Guantánamo, Gen. Miller himself had replaced a camp commander from the Rhode Island National Guard who was considered too punctilious about such niceties.) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's so frustrating is letting Osama bin-Laden and his like jiu-jitsu through blind terror the likes of Dick Cheney into doing al-Qaeda's work for them. It was quite fashionable during the years of High Unilateralist Triumphalism to disdain world public opinion, but it will take a generation to undo the self-inflicted damage to America's moral reputation, with all the very real (if hard to measure) practical costs that loss incurs, both at home and abroad. The Spirit of Plaxico lives. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing, perhaps the most important one, the 9/11 attacks did was to give cheney et al license to do what they had wanted to do all along, at home and abroad. I don't know whether Osama had figured that out; in any case his investment of a half million dollars and two dozen crazy people reaped huge return. As far as Iraq goes, it couldn't have been better for him: he hated Saddam. PhGustaf (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Iraq goes, that effect of Osama's (and Zubaydah's et al.'s) work would have boomeranged in that the main result so far of Operation Iraqi Freedom has been to strengthen Iran's mullahs and Iraq's Shi'ites, both of whom are if anything more repugnant to the Sunni al-Qaeda than the Sunni (if secular) Ba'athists. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I heard what you said, but renaming it the Willis Tower doesn't mean it created a law that said that Willis had to replace Sears. Just because of the renaming didn't mean Willis Group Holdings said that Sears Tower article on Wikipedia had to use the new name. Anyways, Sears, Roebuck & Co. were foolish to move their offices out of the tower. Heck, they owned the entire 140,000 square feet of the property. Name changing on the Sears Tower should have been illegal. I hope that new name is a total failure. I'm sorry for my mean edits, though. Bob.--76.238.0.49 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that strongly about it, save your J.C. pennies and buy the naming rights from Willis, and then you can rename it to Sears Tower or Tower Records Tower or Towering Inferno Tower or anything else you want. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots22:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into this (hey, it's kind of boring in town right now). It looks like Baseball Bugs' removal of the poorly sourced material was mostly within reason and in accordance with the state of consensus on the talk page. However, the one plot summary Brandnewfanx just restored is well sourced, so restoring it was reasonable. The unregistered (IP) editor who just restored the information before Baseball Bugs deleted it was just blocked for one week for vandalism. I can't tell what you're talking about regarding "false information" but please assume good faith here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brandnewfanx, before you start running around chastising experienced editors, it might be best if you learned proper procedure yourself first. With 5 warnings in less than 100 edits, I'm not sure you're quite in a position to be lecturing others. Perhaps a first step might be to learn how to sign your signature. You simply type the 4 tilde characters " ~~~~ " at the end of your post. A full explanation can be found at WP:SIG. I wish you the best, and please do try to find a way to work in a collaborative manner in the future. Thank you — Ched : ? 07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppet much? Also I was correcting so chill and stop stalking my wiki loser. (honestly does anyone on this site have a life? they're constantly on it 24/7 erasing and reverting edits within seconds after they're edited) If I can't correct someone for my warnings, than he can't either considering he is a vandal himself. User talk:Brandnewfanx 08:15, 5 September 2009
Not really up for going through it all myself. I was simply attempting to offer some advice to our young friend in his approach. Unfortunately, he chose not to take it. I'm not sure if it was the "Sock puppet", the "wiki loser", the "vandal" comments, or the BB >> AIV report - but at this point he's on the outside looking in. Not by my hand mind you, but the force has many 'masters' who frown on such behavior. It's not really a subject that I'm all that familiar with, so I'll leave the article details to those more educated in such matters. Sorry for the disruption to your talk page Bugs, Cheers and best ;) — Ched : ? 11:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, we work on making articles better. I'm not going to lose sleep over folks that can't communicate in a respectful manner. You can look at my logs Bugs, you can see after 2 months of having the ability, I've only used the "block" thingie 6, maybe 10 times. I try to help folks, and when someone gets snotty with established editors, I try to redirect them in more positive directions. All we can do is lead by example, and try to show these kids the best way to approach things. We're not here to babysit, we just try to help those that are interested in learning. I don't always agree with you, but I know that I can always come to you and ask for advice. You've always been willing to help me, and to share your experience with me - and I appreciate that. Onward and upward buddy! ;) — Ched : ? 13:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments, as always. I might be off base concluding it's a sock, but the behavior is similar. I left a message on the blocking admin's page about this little fiasco. Some users come in with guns blazing, and they usually get shot down. A somewhat more sophisticated approach to interaction is required. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hello Baseball Bugs. I have a question to ask of you. According to Spring (season), Spring is September to November in the Southern Hemisphere, which is fine (I think), but then it says that it is March to June in the Northen Hemisphere. I disagree because that would make Spring four months and summer only two months. I am prepred to change the months from March to June to March to May, but I just thought I would get a second opinion first. Your thoughts? Thanks.--The LegendarySky Attacker09:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. Yes, I knew that all along. I knew that June was a summer month. I just wanted to be sure that I wasn't missing something before went ahead and fixed it. Thanks for your co-operation.--The LegendarySky Attacker09:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bugs, got another question you might enjoy. Staxringold and I are working on this old pic of the Boston Red Sox. By player trades it's been dated as 1915-1917. Any chance that uniform changes or other verifiable details could nail it down to a specific year? Durova31200:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To get all four of them in Sox uniforms requires that the photo be during 1915-1917. The uniforms are a plain (red) block "RED SOX" on a lightly pin-striped shirt with a wide (red) stripe on the socks. Unfortunately, that was the style of the Sox road uniforms for all three of those seasons, in fact for most of the 1910s, as per Okkonen's book, so I can't get any closer to the date than the LoC can. Nor can I tell what ballpark it's in, not that that would really help as all the ballparks were concrete by 1915.
What I find most interesting is that three of them are watching the field, whereas Shore is eyeing (if not glaring at) the camera. He later became a sheriff in North Carolina. Being a good law enforcement officer means keeping your eyes on the suspect. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This photo File:George Rube Foster.jpg or LoC [46] shows Foster warming up front of a dugout that looks a lot like the one in the photo in question. This one is labeled 1916. The photographer (G.G. Bain) is the same guy, the dugout looks very similar, and the numbers etched on the upper right of each photo are just a couple different in sequence, but I don't know what scheme they were using so I don't know if it proves anything. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is tempted to think this could be from the 1916 World Series and that this would be Ebbets Field, but I don't think it quite matches. It suggests more like the old League Park in Cleveland, although it could also be Griffith Stadium in D.C., which would make more sense for that collection to end up in the LoC. Maybe someone could see what city that Bain guy worked out of. For example, Conlon's photos, including the famous Ty Cobb sliding into third, were mostly all taken in New York. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Staxringold had already confirmed the 1915-1917 window per signings and trades. Was wondering whether it's possible to narrow down a bit more by uniform changes or something like that. If any of the editors here can provide referenced/confirmable information about the exact year or the location, we could forward that to the Library of Congress reference department. Earlier this year they updated a bibliographic record and credited me by name for the update. So here's your chance to become an official footnote to baseball history. ;) Cheers, Durova31418:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to look closer at the 1905 photo when I get home. As to the 4 Red Sox, they wore those same road uniforms for about 10 years, so that's insufficient. The standalone photo of Foster might give a better clue (see my comments above). Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots18:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo says "c1905 Aug 26". I don't know how you can do an "about" on a specific date. Anyway, retrosheet would indicate Chicago [47] but it doesn't look right for South Side Park, which had a somewhat elevated grandstand. Complicating matters is that the not-yet-Red-Sox wore "BOSTON" on both home and road uniforms that year, and this one looks like a home uniform. Note the white inner sleaves. That was a home uniform feature. The road uniforms had blue inner sleaves. The uniform fits the Boston home uniform for 1905-1907. But it doesn't really look right for Huntington Avenue Grounds. So it's got me baffled. Striking out again. :( Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in Cleveland. The photographer, Louis Van Oeyen, was Cleveland-based. The other photo in his small LOC set is of Lajoie with his leg in a cast, dated in July of 1905, which certainly could be, as Lajoie only played 65 games that year. The ballpark looks like it could be Cleveland of that era. In fact, looking at a photo of League Park from around that time, it looks a lot like it. That doesn't explain the apparent Boston home uniform, but it's possible Okkonen didn't have all the facts on this one. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots05:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning, Doc. I must admit thinking this categorization was rather strange, but it seems to work well on the Montreal Expos page, and I believe it's important to maintain consistency, even if what's being consistently maintained may need re-wording. Cheers - Badger Drink (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you don't intend your current comments to appear to be flip, and the man is dead, so this is not a true BLP concern, but unless you are an expert in English jurisprudence, libel law, and the transmission of AIDS, I suggest that your opinion of the likely outcome of a different libel suit, of Liberace's sexual orientation, and your evidence for either or both are not confirmed by the WP article. Perhaps such views ought not to be on the Ref Desk without considerable documentation that would allow the inclusion of your views into the article. // BL \\ (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching my mistake. I took out the wrong number.
Anyways, I've been checking some refs, and (trying) to fix some stats, and I've found a problem. This source says "First Baseman Gil Hodges, Second Baseman Jackie Robinson and third baseman Billy Cox all led the National League in fielding percentage in 1950." And this page says "For the 2nd year in-a-row he captured the NL's fielding honors. His .992 is a new National League record and he also broke the league's double play record (his own) by taking part in 137 last season."
The site is not considered a reliable source, but it sounded reasonable. So I'm trying to say the same thing using accepted sources, and have looked at two baseball-reference.com pages. 1950 2nd base fielding and 1951. Should I say he lead the league among players with over 31 and 22 games played? Is there a standard number of games needed to be a leader, like 1/2? Plus there's the National vs. American League thing. Thanks for your time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting there. I'll definitely leave out the fielding percentage. What should I say about the fielding? Maybe "JR led the national league among 2nd basemen who played more than half (or 2/3?, or 50) of the season in 1950 and 1951."? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ...
I was just getting ready to drop you a line. I figure if there's anyone here that's knowledgeable about Axman, it would be you. Glad you are following along, and seeing all this. Do you think I should indef that account? are there any AN/ANI threads going on about it? — Ched : ? 02:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL .. yep .. I'm familiar with that one .. the way I've said it is: "What mean 'we' kimosobie?" I think I'll block and post a notice to ANI — Ched : ? 02:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Baseball Bugs. We have recently been discussing the signal to noise ratio on the Reference Desk talk page. I think you might want to take a look at that discussion, on the talk page. A lot of your recent commentary, including the one I'm linking below, are off-topic and distract the OP from getting a helpful answer. Can you lay off the joking until at least the question has been suitably answered? Thanks.
Hi Baseball Bugs/Archive009, the Reference Desk has been strugglingwith its signal-to-noise ratio lately, with lots of off-topic jokes and chattiness reducing the value of the Desk. I think your post here falls into a category other than "signal" and thought I'd mention it in hopes of improving the Desks in the future.
I've already asked you twice to take the reference desks more seriously. Edits such as these are the same as vandalism [48]
The reference desk is not a talk page, it is not a forum or chat room either. Please cease from doing this ie do something constructive please.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to bring this up on the talk page of the reference desk. Please comment if you want.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed an edit concerning Eskimos and Polar Bears at the above page. I can't fathom how your edit could possibly help answer the question. Possibly there is somewhere less disruptive that you could attempt to interact with others. More honestly (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference desk
I gather today's meme is to add new, identically titled, sections to your talk page! Here's my contribution! Beyond that I have no opinion, other than the obvious "new sections redundantly duplicating sections already redundantly duplicating redundant sections" is a wee bit silly.
[49] Can you see how this edit is wrong? Why not discuss it on the talk page of the reference desk. If you have any issues with questions, or other stuff relating to the reference desks you should bring it up on the talk page, NOT on the reference desks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your commitment at the Reference Desk Talk Page to stop with the sarcastic answers to questions. As for your Ax8 question, I offered a remark concerning anagrams in user names. Having 16 characters in my log in, you could only imagine the possibilities. Erector Euphonious (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, your kindness, and your willingness to take time out from your editing here to comfort and befriend a fellow wikipedian has not gone un-noticed. Your thoughtfulness exemplifies the type of collaboration and consideration that all wikipedians should display both as editors, and as human beings. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your kindness. Thank you for your sage words both on and off wiki. Thank you for being my friend. — Ched : ? 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She must have been a cheap date though (unless there was a waiter brave enough to deliver the check when she had that hatchet in her hands). Soxwon (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheap is right. Get a few drinks in her, and she would dance on the table. All the time carrying the axe, though, so you didn't want to get too close. And when we went dutch, she had a rather unique way of dividing the bill. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And all this time I thought that meant you were against the sale and drinking of alcohol. Must be the massive right-wing conspiracy... Soxwon (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Good Humor may be awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be.
This barnstar is awarded to Baseball Bugs, for his ability to make every situation a lighter one. I wish there were more Wikipedians like you in the project. Ikip (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for brightening my mood in regards to Pastor Theo. I was always wondering about how you would feel what was happening during the arbcom I was recently in, because you were such an outspoken critic of this admins admin powers. Ikip (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2010
Well it wouldn't be the first time I've waded into a slugging match with a page protector.
OK Bugs, I don't want to beat a horse when we could just throw it off the boat[50] - but what is your motiviation for this edit? Here again you are making a presumption of motive on the part of the OP. Why would you do that? On the RefDesks, we don't, unless there is a solid indication of trolling or other problematic behaviour, in which case we discuss it on the Talk page. In this case, when the question is posed by an IP with one single edit[51], geolocating to Saudi Arabia (check the "Geolocate" pick at btm of the IP contribs page) - I'm not following your connection.
As several other RefDesk regulars have tried to outline for you, please ensure that your posts are either solidly grounded in logic (which can often stem from your own life experience, but needs to have a well-defined chain of reasoning from your own experience to the thread you are posting to), or are solidly wikilinked or sourced so that your statements are supported. It's quite common too that regular posters will contribute their general impressions or opinions, but in general never never in regards to the motivation of the OP. So again I'd ask you, what does this have to do with Patrick Swayze?
Please confine your RefDesk contributions to either factual contributions to the thread at hand, or to well-grounded speculation about the thread topic, not the reasons why the topic was introduced. Thanks! (And as discussed elsewhere, occasional humour is often apropos if it is intended and small-texted - but almost never if it is directed at the OP) Franamax (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it sure would be nice if you had email enabled, though I also understand the many reasons why you wouldn't want to do that! Sure would facilitate more open communication though... Franamax (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow
Sorry Bugs, I had initially thought that you were an editor who could be approached and reasoned with in a calm and non-confrontational way. I mistakenly assumed that your sardonic and off-beat style meant that you were open to the ideas of other editors, hence I took a whole lot of time to formulate my ideas and develop what I was hoping would be a cogent response. Indeed, you challenged me to respond on your talk page. I'm now faced with edit conflicts all over the place, apparently you respond at other editor talk pages but archive you own. So whatever, the following post will reflect my first response, then I'll follow up by moving everything else over from my talk page in accordance with the bir orange box at the top asking you to respond at your own talk. Franamax (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you're interpreting my Swayze comment as being critical or something. I saw the question, I gave an answer that directed the questioner to the appropriate article. At that time I was unaware that Swayze had just died. Once I found out, I added that because maybe others didn't know either. I'll reword it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding e-mail, I only do e-mail with a small group of trusted editors, and I don't go near that IRC or whatever it's called. Meanwhile, if you've got something to say to me, say it openly. I can handle it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My objection was to your use of the preface "Presumably..." rather than "Perhaps..." or "If...". One assumes a state-of-mind, the othera do not. On the RD's, as in other areas I've seen you active on the wiki, it's important to not assume or pre-judge the attitudes of others here. On the RD's, one of the objections I observed to your activity was unnecessary personalization of the OP (that and injection of irrelevant/sardonic commentary, which I almost always found quite funny, but I am not the RefDesk!) Perhaps/probably I'm stepping in with a severe correction for a minor transgression here - but I'm trying to do it with the best of intentions, honest! I've seen many helpful posts you've made on the RD's, like many others have. Just trying to help steer the boat. :)
Just like I said before, I do understand your view of email. Remember though that you can enable email, but that doesn't mean you have to respond to email. I'd recommend a generic gmail account if you want to enable general mailing. And it is indeed called "IRC", Internet Relay Chat - and it's a total waste of time IMO, anything more than approx. three people in a chat channel quickly devolves into zero. Especially if some are pursuing an agenda and others are practising swear-words. Good choice there! Franamax (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I left the entries intact that indicated that there was common (and realistic) use throughout a series, or that it was the central element of a work. A work that's called "The Mysterious Mickey Finn" is likely to actually deal with the topic. A single episode of a TV show where a "magic" drug that does...something...is not notable.
Wikipedia cannot be a cross-reference to every use of a word. There's a Wiki article on "The". Would you propose adding a popular culture reference for every use of "the"?
(I'm not going from what I like, I don't particularly care for Wodehouse, and I deleted references to shows that I actually do like, such as Bugs Bunny).
I'd be ok with deleting the entire section. I doubt much of it adds to understanding the topic.
Didn't want to clutter RFA with excessive threaded discussion.. But regarding this - He's not trying to hide the fact that this is a second account. He merely doesn't want to make public the identity of that old account, which is apparently tied to his real-life identity. Given that we've previously had kooks harassing people in real-life over on-wiki disagreements, this is not unreasonable. How do you propose he become more open and honest in this situation? He seems to have already taken reasonable steps to accomplish that. Friday(talk)18:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Just trust me" coming from Theo/whatever-his-name-is is a problem, yes I agree. But we can ignore that now, right? Do you realize that the unstated alternative you'd be OK with is that he could have hidden his past? That's less honest, yet it would satisfy you more. He gets no honestly points for being up-front about something potentially controversial? I don't get it. Friday(talk)19:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standing for RFA is always a "just trust me" situation. I don't see how this one is different. As for trusting Theo.. well, someone volunteered to help ANN2008 verify his claims about his past account. The volunteer was an admin who in theory had already been vetted by the community. I don't see a lapse in judgement on that front - it's just bad luck. If you want to question the judgement of the people who supported Theo's adminship (and that of his last persona), then I'm with you, but that's irrelevant to the case at hand. Anyway, I suppose I'm not going to get you to change your mind.. but I was hoping to at least understand where you're coming from a bit. Friday(talk)13:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I've seen it. Ever since I was put under some mild restrictions, I've tried to cut back on my activities there except for situations where either I'm directly involved or I think I can truly help. The megillahs like that one have become less and less interesting. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Our Prattville removed from the Prattville. Alabama Wiki after it was place there by AniMate?
Why did you take Our Prattville off of the Prattville, Alabama Wiki? AniMate re-added the link under Media. What is your rationale for overturning his edit? This all seems like silly gamesmanship at this juncture, The link is not (spam) as you claim. Our Prattville in fact is the news media in my hometown of Prattville. If you are going to include the Prattville Progress and WIQR then you must mention OP also. Why? because they are the only news outlet from Prattville, they are the major news media from my city.
eMail
Sorry for the delay, but you've got mail. And Bugs ... Thank you so much for everything. It's meant more to me than I can express in words. Hopefully I'll get to meet up with you someday and buy you a few rounds, you've certainly earned them. Cheers my friend. ;) — Ched : ? 18:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. desk
Do not restore irrelevant and inappropriate personal religious rantings to Wikipedia ref. desk
His alleged "humor" seems a whole lot more like intentionally offensive sneering jeering contempt and hatred for other people's religion than anything funny-ha-ha, but in any case it was completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject under discussion. AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of getting a little tired of all the irrelevant nonsense that's going on the Ref Desks now, and that particular remark of his was not only rather irrelevant, but over the line. If you and him want to indulge yourselves with extended chats on the the I-hate-Christianity web forum site, then by all means go there immediately, but here at wikipedia we're really not very interested in any rants and tirades on the subject expressed as an intrusive pure personal opinion... AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he can express his point in a factual way, without lame attempts at alleged "humor"[sic] which fall painfully flat, and without irrelevant religious defamation, then I'm perfectly fine with him restoring his remarks in that apropriately altered form. Otherwise, it's just one ref-desk irrelevancy too far... AnonMoos (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know... I'm the extra one here but still, I have to say this...
Your proposition may be good But let's have one thing understood Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it I'm against it! --Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers
Hello Bugs, I recently blocked an account that had been going around and changing your posts so that your signature was a link to a YouTube video (contribs here). Any idea who this might be? GlassCobra19:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every discussion that's been had on manipulation has agreed that extreme care must be taken not to mislead unnecessarily, such as changing the image's details. While subtle, it's still inappropriate for on Wikipedia, and perhaps more troublesome because it's subtle, and thus hard to spot. Shoemaker's HolidayOver 206 FCs served01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The RfA process.
I've come along here to talk, as I feel we both have common ground on a certain RfA process. I should be cautious though, as I don't want things I say to jeopardise my nomination process - although it is running at a loss now - too many people opposing, on the grounds of "lack of knowledge", "not enough edits", one even to goes as far as saying "too young". For Christ sake, I'm 30 - how can that be too young? I know a user who is 19, and yet they are an admin - and they say I'm too young!!!!! They are forgetting to consider the background knowledge that someone has on administration procedures. I've got 14 years of admin-type jobs under my belt, and like to keep things organised, and professional as possible - and to the highest standards (my main user page shows this alone). Yet, they are ignoring these factors, and basing their decision on the "lack of edits" and other lame excuses. I've offered them chances to throw mini-exercises at me, and see how I respond to them. And to each task completed, they say I've responded correctly. Yet still, they oppose on grounds of "lack of edits". So passée if you ask me. Of the ones who are supportive however, are the ones who have seen these natural factors. They have commented on how pleasant, polite, and mature a person I am, and how much of an asset I wuold be to the team. I can even quote one supporter as saying Wikipedia needs more people who can interact in this way. Not at all concerned about trust at the moment in that if there is an issue with which you are unfamiliar I would be confident that you would at the very worst request assistance or avoid doing anything to damage. Now why can't the other see that? Anyway, you can see for yourself what the others are saying on the subject via Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pr3st0n. I'll step off my soap-box now and have a cigarette and a mug of coffee to calm down a bit LOL. P.S. if its OK with you, I'll add you to my list of "wiki-friends" (which can been viewed via my main page. Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I almost never go to pages where voting is involved, unless I have a specific reason to do so. A number of colleagues here have gained adminship and I didn't even know about it until after the fact. The proof of the pudding on the RfA thing is that "Pastor" Theo fooled everyone and got adminship (for awhile), just because he kissed up to everyone, something he learned to do after his previous, and openly belligerent, sock was denied adminship on obvious grounds. That fiasco is presumably what led to a lot of the current angst on the subject. →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots09:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Baseball Bugs. I see you reverted all edits by Kocs citing WP:DENY. The essay gives some good advice but I don't think a proper use is to go through every edit by an indef blocked user and remove them from Wikipedia regardless of what subsequently has occurred. Specifically, the user's help desk post may have been part of his recent "innocence campaign" to appear like a new and constructive user, but I do not think you should have removed his post once responded to by two users. More pertinently, I cannot imagine why you reverted my edit to rattle citing wp:deny simply because I was initially drawn there by Kocs' post. If you'll note, I identified at the help desk about 5 things wrong with the user's correction to the prior entry for ratchet on that page, and completely rewrote the entry to comply with WP:DAB on my own initiative, replacing both the original entry (an improper red link on a dab page) and his poorly formatted correction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The primary usage per the what links here tool is a train crash. Now there is a disambiguaiton page for the band, weed, and the metaphor. The metaphore is listed at the sister project Wictionary (where definitions and not subjects belong) under the second heading. If that is not sifficient we could try putting the definition at the disambiguation page but the preference per the guidelines is a link.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get over it. The guidelines called for it and it was mentioned in two separate places 24 hours ago. You can fix the the disambiguation page or create a brand new page for the definition.Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing just to argue? The subject "train wreck" is about trains smashing. You can make the article about the metaphor if you want but then you will have to delink all of the links pertaining to the train crashes. Everyone reads an article differently but to make sure that nothing is left out for anyone: hat notes and disambiguation pages were created. I see your point that train wreck is common vernacular for a complete mess/disaster/whatever Make it clearer at the disambiguation page or even better fix the sister project that is a dictionary. I'm not going to call you an idiot by wikilinking half a dozen guidelines so just go check out the guidelines on disambiguation pages and others that are related.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you were just arguing to argue then? Little hard to assume good faith when you the first user box you see on your talk page says exactly that. Don't preach to me about Wikipeida or snide comments. Is there something that needs fixed at the train wreck page or not? Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yes. My reasoning for it was to follow the guidelines. I also commented at the administrator's page with what can only be described as a rebuttal. Next time you really should do it at a notice board. Also, the comment you made that really ticked me off was saying that I won't make it here. To be honest, you might need to reevaluate over use of both noticeboards and going through individual admins while less than 15% of your edits are to articles before saying things like that. I don't want to be part of that. That is supposed to be constructive criticism and not a jerky remark (I think I am only at 30%+ of the last 500). Also, I am quite comfortable with how I am getting along besides a few drunken telling offs.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use the excuse of drunkenness here. I did it previousley and that is why I mentioned it. Stop jumping to conclusions. It doesn't matter anyways. You couldn't get over it and just wanted to argue. You saw what looked to be a "meataxe" (your term) and wanted to save face when it was clearly shown that you were wrong. So yes: Get over it. Fix the disambiguation page and stop searching for reasons to argue on Wikipedia. Go to /b/ if that is all you want.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking mplating
Yeah; I do think in that case he was just *totally* unclued to wikipedia. I tend to put the notes up first, *then* do the blocking (which takes 20s) so that they're not blocked and going 'what the hell?'. The problem then is, *because* I AGF *constantly*...my 'warnings' tend to be big ol' guidelines, and in a case like this...I get beaten to the punch :-) --Thespian (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Baseball Bugs has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Baseball Bugs's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Baseball Bugs!
(Some background. I hope it makes some sense. The basic point is that Ottava has been making claims about the "Persian Empire" which are not even WP:FRINGE. They are so off the wall, they are unique to him).
In most English sources, the "Persian Empire" overwhelmingly refers to the Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC). It is less frequently applied to the Sassanid Empire (224 AD-651 AD).
On the other hand, Ottava has been pushing a bizarre theory that the Persian Empire ran from 600 AD to 1800 AD (or some alleged "Ottoman conquest", whatever that is supposed to mean). No more, no less.
He has repeated this point again and again, e.g.:
"The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." [53] (You've got to love the "No more, no less").
"Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD. Mentioning the Sassanids at all shows that you don't understand what you are talking about." [54]
"It covered the 30 or so dynasties that were labelled the "Persian Empire" for hundreds of years. These dynasties spanned from 600 AD to 1800 AD." [55]
Ottava was most insistent that the Persian Empire did not apply to anything before 600AD. In other words he wanted to exclude the Achaemenids (the Persian Empire) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.:
"The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that?"[56]
How indeed? Unfortunately, most historians fail this comprehension test (including the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the multi-volume Cambridge History of Iran). But Ottava knows best.
He made many, many other historical howlers. This is clearly a guy with no concept of Iranian history. So the question is why did he suddenly develop a passion for all things Persian, so much so that this passion has led to ANI (at least three times), a proposed ArbCom case and the edit-warring noticeboard (about a non-existent edit-war)? Zeal for scholarly accuracy or something else? You go figure. --Folantin (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous gaffes notwithstanding, I think Ottava Rima now claims that "Persian Empire" means any and/or all imperial states that existed in Iran. The reason why I think Persian Empire should redirect to Achaemenid Empire is simply because the overwhelming majority of references to the Persian Empire in contemporary English refer to the Achaemenid state. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Kingman
I checked the link, and had actually heard sommeone else say years ago that the game that inspired the obscenity laced tirade out of Tommy Lasorda was while Kingman was with the Cubs. I have a CD put out by Rhino that has that tirade on it called "Baseball's Greatest Hits," and it gives the date of occurrence as the 11-0 Mets victory over the Dodgers. Your source seems more reliable, but I would still feel better if we had a third source.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
NowCommons: File:Cap Anson WSP 19080422.JPG
File:Cap Anson WSP 19080422.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Cap Anson WSP 19080422.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Cap Anson WSP 19080422.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Resolved
An article that you have been involved in editing, Types of gestures , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.19cbaseball.com/images/radbourn-flips-the-bird.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/244275206_b193b9e2ca.jpg?v=0){kind=link}
![[14]](http://aycu21.webshots.com/image/49740/2003713607759164514_rs.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/79/238902096_98dd1ab60d.jpg?v=0){kind=link}
![[24]](http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/8162468.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cock_and_balls_doughnut.jpg){kind=link}
