Jump to content

User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JAN 2013 - JUN 2013

Orphaned non-free media (File:StateFarmCalendar2002andEagleCreekSilence.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:StateFarmCalendar2002andEagleCreekSilence.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bugs, How ya doin? Been a while - hope you and yours are doing well. I ran across something in my daily reading I thought you might enjoy. I'd have to imagine you're fully aware of it, but didn't know if you had seen this particular article.

At least Rose isn't all alone anymore I guess. Anyway .. have a good one. — Ched :  ?  00:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. I suspect Hall of Fame weekend this summer will be pretty much of a dud. If the Hall is sufficiently hurt financially by the writers' non-action, maybe they'll demand a change in the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk

So we're clear, I don't have any issue with you and your ref desk comments. I think you're generally very restrained and usually correct. But why are you picking such a fight on this trillion dollar coin issue? My initial point was that there's some interesting debate about this... and this conversation has spiraled into some weird tangent that has nothing to do with what the OP asked about (which is why I'm here, and not continuing this at RD). Yes if the "government" as some monolith creates a coin by fiat I suppose that's the case, but that was never the question, nor is it ever the reality. I'm bringing up a kinda interesting constitutional argument; I'm surprised you dug your heels in on this. Anyway, I don't have a problem with you bugs, I just am perturbed by that discussion that's all. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


About Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Cricket

Hi again, Bugs. I thought you might like Twenty20. :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting concept - a cricket match that might be shorter than a baseball game, especially a post-season game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GBLT

GBLT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Giant BLT!

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Your edit to ANI made me laugh, good one. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :)
Although I must admit that I often tread a fine line between inspiration and desperation. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gratuitous snark

This doesn't really help 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user who chooses a food as an ID ought not be griping when other users make fun of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but a sentient, talking foodstuff who has already demonstrated a thin skin isn't productively provoked in the midst of an ANI discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, cantaloupes are thick-skinned. The point of my comment there is that his gripe about someone calling him by his own username is irrelevant to the discussion and should be redacted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he's not a real melon after all?, thus it's unhelpful to treat him as if he is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he removes his pointless complaint, then I'll remove my response to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are being insensitive towards his melon-choly. Ankh.Morpork 13:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 2-shay![reply]

Cardinals

Thanks for the information on the Pelicans. Even if it is not solid for the main text without a reference, maybe it deserves a mention on the talk page. I would hesitate to put it in the main text without a reference because it was stated quite directly and without qualification. It may merit a little research. Donner60 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting logo on the uniform. The right format and color. Good point about possibly being a farm team. I found a site with New Orleans baseball history but it did not seem to have any comments about the logo. Donner60 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have solved the riddle. The Pelicans had that similar logo because they were a Cardinals farm team. Hardly a reason to say that the Cardinals stole the logo from the Pelicans. It certainly would seem there was co-operation and a common interest. More likely that one team copied the other with consent, probably the opposite of that stated by the IP poster. That makes be feel even more confident about my edit on the Cardinals page. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's up, Doc?

What's up, Doc, or not? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan to LA

What do I need to clarify? it's clear. A bus travel from Michigan to Los Angeles. Period. Kotjap (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, Detroit. Kotjap (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified on talk page. Kotjap (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Hope you get drunk and have a merry afterlife! Sneazy (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't drink, but thanks for the thought. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD answer removed

Bugs, I have removed your reply from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Horst_Wessel as it made no attempt to answer the question asked. At minimum, please don't derail threads until after useful information has been offered. — Lomn 14:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comiskey capacity in 1979

Do you have anything definite? I'm working on Disco Demolition Night and the sources have capacity at 41,000 or maybe 45,000 or possibly 52,000. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrosheet shows the attendance as 47,795.[1] I'll get back on the seating capacity. I have to find some old baseball guides. One thing worth pointing out about Sox Park is that after the mid-1920s expansion, over time the capacity shrank a bit, as smaller seats were replaced with larger seats from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Sporting News Baseball Guide for 1978-79-80-81 all say 44,492. Complicating matters is that their separate publication called the Dope Book (don't ask) has a breakdown by classes of ticket prices which doesn't quite add up. It shows as 44,120 in 1979 and 44,135 in 1980. However, I would go with 44,492. In any case, it seems they had over 3,000 standing room tickets that night. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think more likely they sold an excessive number of general admissions. Do you have a page number for one of the Sporting News, say 79? I can pull the remaining bibliographic info off the web.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page 11 of the 1979 Guide. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kotjap

Baseball, I think that this user has shown a pattern of trollish behavior, and I'm not sure it's worth our time on the Reference Desk to engage too much with his bizarre statements. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I thought I would share my impression. Marco polo (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I labeled him a troll a week or two ago, and was pooh-poohed for it. I do appreciate your impressions. But can you do Jack Benny? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want to see my impression of Gandhi? Slight Smile 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disco

Could I get you possibly to weigh in, at least on the baseball aspects (feel free to go beyond that) at the peer review of Disco Demolition Night here? The peer reviewer is not a baseball fan :). Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Field, TRS and other Pittsburgh venues

Just a heads up regarding a discussion from about a year ago. The issue has reappeared. Comments on the talk pages of these articles would be helpful if you have comments. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Really? Immediately after I ask you to AGF as you demand an editor justify even asking why a Talk page has been semi-protected for two years you turn around and say that my questions are because I "probably [have] not been here long enough to have run across that kind of problem" ? I'm sorry that my tenure of 8 years and 41k edits isn't sufficient to understand the nuances of Wikipedia to your satisfaction.

I'm not sure what you were trying to contribute to the discussion but please rethink how you're interpreting WP:AGF and putting it into practice. You may have had good intentions but your actions and your tone were way off in this instance and only served to exacerbate and antagonize. ElKevbo (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith on your part, i.e. that you were young and naive about the behavior of vandals. But as you have been here a long time, you should know better than to make the argument you made. You should know that I've got it right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we disagree about (a) how unregistered/logged out editors should be treated and (b) whether admins should provide reasonable answers to reasonable questions. You don't "have it right" but I don't think we're going to convince one another of that right now. In the future, please be more careful about making assumptions about other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me your lectures. TWO admins had already said no, for a very sound reason: BLP violation, which trumps some IP's complaint that he can't edit. But then someone, ignoring the BLP issues, went ahead and unprotected it. My assumptions about IP's and redlinks trying to get things unprotected is based on experience. If you haven't had those kinds of experiences, consider yourself lucky. And I DO have it right. And you'll eventually learn that for yourself, unless you remain lucky. My viewpoint is based on discussions with seasoned administrators. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and references

Bugs,

I figured I'd move this here rather than further indenting a side conversation at the ref desk. To answer your question, though: my chief complaint is that your responses, after the initial "read Jesus" suggestion, are ill-informed speculation devoid of context. Your "Christianity is Christianity" statement is particularly ignorant; every reasonably educated Christian, of any branch (possible exception for the Universalists), is aware that this is not the case. One doesn't need to get into discussions of "who's right" in order to know that the various systems aren't inherently compatible. In the particular case, your claim that "pretty much any Christian denomination, including the JW's, should have the general concept [of the Kingdom of God] covered" is wildly wrong: the Jehovah's Witnesses are most recognizable for their 144,000 theology, a perspective that differs strongly from most if not all other groups. Finally, for your specific reinterpretation of my request for references, I'll take you up on it. Why is Jesus' resurrection of particular importance to Christians? Why is it qualitatively different from the Shunammite's son's, or Jarius' daughter's, or Tabitha's, or any of the other resurrections attested by the Bible? I'm mildly snarky because I don't think the concept is anywhere near as simple as you present, but it's also a question that I don't personally have a good answer for. I'm genuinely interested if you've got one. — Lomn 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The famous "144,000" is a detail that is obviously not widely accepted, even though Revelation uses that number. The general notion of an afterlife, a resurrection, is vital to all branches of Christianity. Without it, nothing else matters, and it falls apart. If you can find a Christian denominaton that does not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, I'll be properly shocked and awed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If you'd linked to resurrection of Jesus, you'd have found the following sentence: "Groups such as... as some liberal Christians dispute whether Jesus actually rose from the dead." That article then cites various Christian theologians who deny the resurrection of Jesus. There's also the couple thousand years of history of the dispute over whether that resurrection was physical or spiritual (and by extension, disagreement over what constitutes "resurrection"). And I'll note that you're still not offering any answer for "why it matters". — Lomn 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no Resurrection, then there's no religion. A "philosophy", maybe, but not a religion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't consider anyone who follows the Jewish faith as being a religious follower? (Note: I was raised as United Presbyterian, but never studied studied theology) — Ched :  ?  10:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking strictly about Christianity. The Resurrection is essential to Christianity as a religion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alfalfa

Just out of curiousity, were you aware that Alfalfa was a racist slur? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tor proxy block

Thanks for the compliment; I simply blocked the IP for 999,999,999 seconds and decided to let the software figure out how long that was. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Was just passing through and saw the maths sum.) About 31.6 Years I believe.

999,999,999 / 60 = minutes / 60 = hours / 24 = days /61 = months (2 months, 30 days and 31 respectively) / 6 (because covered 2 months in the last divide) = Years. Try it yourself :) MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In no way do I doubt you, but

Can you give some sort of overlap between User:ItsLassieTime and Timothyhere or Kotjap, etc.? I do see there was something with Timmy and Timothy here, and find the Montana/British Columbia connection suspicious. Thanks, I'll watch here. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove it, it's just a hunch. And my hunches are not always right. And in the bigger picture, it's somewhat interesting, but doesn't really matter. The behavior is also a bit like Light Current. The difference from both of them is subject matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree the behaviour is the same. Isn't "Timothy" a connection? (I never watched Lassie, though.) μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the sock called "Truckowner". He could be trying to tell us something. Or it could just be dumb luck, so to speak. "TimmyTruck" was actually the sockmaster. "ItsLassieTime" was created later. And, yes, "Timmy" (Jon Provost) was a star of one of the Lassie series. But subject matter is way different from what ILT was into, at least at the time, some 4 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reporting 109.151.98.87 to AIV

Many thanks. - Fantr (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I do what I can. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your Questions in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#interstellar_Bomb

you written two answers within my Quest to avert the Prophecy. Since the discussion was closed before I could have written an answer, I will answer them here. I can imagine another way this alleged prophecy could "be here": Someone made it up. Created the idea in their imagination. It happens, you know.

the prophecy isn't made up. I found it 3 years ago, and started deciphering after I found the other one (there is at least one single other Person who posses the full Prophecy and is able to deciphering it) who helped me in deciphering, and the other found it 5 years ago and is deciphering since a bit longer than 3 years. The point is: in all this time the Prophecy wasn't changed, just copied again and again (to make it impossible to get lost) but it sucessfully predicted the so called arab spring (although I deciphered that part just recently, after it had already started), as the second of just 3 dated predictions in the first half of the 21th Century. So, no, the Prophecy isn't taken from thin air, it's fact.

Why worry about something 2,000 years in the future, when there's so much stuff to worry about in the here and now?

simple: because it's the only predicted event that can be averted. There are a lot of terrible events predicted by the Prophecy, which I really would want to negate if it would be possible, but I can't. Because this events are all the result of the Developments within our Universe, so the Blackbird-Molotow-Reich-Effect will cause that it would only be possible to delay that Events a bit (that farther ones not even that). The Multiverse-War is different, because it includes Causes from other Universes, and the Blackbird-Molotow-Reich-Effect did not adhere to interaction between Paralleluniverses.--AlaneOrenProst (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe in "prophecies", nor does most anyone at wikipedia, so you're barking up the wrong tree here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, you may do not believe in the Prophecy, but it is true, nevertheless, I know it. Just because you decided to ignore the fact, that the Prophecy is right, it did not make it wrong.--AlaneOrenProst (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The future has not happened yet, so if an alleged prophecy turns out to be "true", it was just dumb luck on somebody's part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you think so threedimensional. It wasn't just luck, the Prophecy is an precise discription of uman History from the future, sent into our past via time-travel. Everybody will realize that the Prophecy is true, when their Predictions will came true one after another, but I can not wait so long. The Prophecy is true, now and forever. That's Fact.--AlaneOrenProst (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have confused an Arthur C. Clarke story with reality. The "Fact" is that there is no such thing as backwards time travel, and dat's dat. Whatever this alleged "Prophecy" is, it's a work of fiction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are insulting me on the Base of your own ignorance. The Prophecy is not a work of Fiction, I know it. As I already mentioned before, the Prophecy sucessfull made a Prediction of an notable World event more than three Years in advance (but, as I said before, that part wasn't deciphered until recently, aka two years to late). And, in contrast to your overconfident but false claim, it is possible to travel backwards in time, acording to the ammendment of the third scroll via to so called "Time-Gate" or "Time-Portal" (translation is a bit tricky here), a technical artifact created by the mighty Alien-civilasion of the so calles "Elders" (contacted by the TMSC Belgrad in 3896, acording to the amendment of the second scroll), which was found by the TMSC Hope, while fleeing from terran-Cygnian-war in 3007.
and, in response of your false and annoying claiming, that every Prophecy must be false: just because you surving despite your incredible narrowmindness, that did not mean, your are allways right. Your aren't. --AlaneOrenProst (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The good news is that I believe you: the Entities that created your Prophesy actually can travel back in time, and many of their Prophesies are true.
  • The bad news is they have a sense of humor, and so some of the Prophesies are just the younger Entities having a good laugh. The one about Emperor Dukakis celebrating his 25th year in power in January 2014 is an example.
  • But the best news is that I have access to my own Entities, and they're even more reliable than your Entities, and they say your Entities are making up the Multiverse War. It's actually Multiversapalooza 4023, featuring... believe it or not... Keith Richards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please spare your bad jokes. This is a serious matter. And I know pretty well about the Multiverse-War, swince it is the Focus of the entire forth Scroll. --AlaneOrenProst (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, has it occurred to you that you are talking delusionist nonsense?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no. But, I suppose, it might look so, because I can give only a fragmentary disarranged picture. The Blackbird-Molotow-Reich-Effect maybe also cause enhanced sceptism, to make it harder for me to spread the Prophecy. --AlaneOrenProst (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Backwards time-travel is not possible. Any premise that assumes otherwise is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current human Scientists (and, as I have to admit, even future human Scientiest, until the Time-Portal is discovered, and even after that they can't explain how it works) say it is impossible. But every Scientist before Rutherford discoverd the Atomic nucleus also would have called splitting an Atom impossible.--AlaneOrenProst (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I think we are just feeding a troll here. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not, we're pretty much at the "endless loop" phase at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted-use media list

An RfC that may interest you has been opened at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Restricted-use media list, so please come and include your opinion. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Leave your firearms, weapons of mass destruction and/or 'pew pew' zap guns at the door, seriously I laughed at that thing like 4 times (and a 5th when I looked back over it) while trying to type it out (in a class at the time of typing) and the please be neuter doesn't really help in stopping me from laughing. Combine that with your Bugs Bunny theme and well do I really need more justification to give you this? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labia/Auricula

Sometimes your comments cause me to laugh out loud.

"Close enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

I wonder if Medeis is feeding you lines on purpose. Bielle (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reference desk

excuse me, that question was a genuine one and I ask you not to be so disengenous in the future. Horatio Snickers (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a question Bowei Huang would ask. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?

You answered this one. Ryan Vesey 05:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever considered...

...to do some serious work at article space? I'm asking just out of curiosity. You sure can be funny at times, at least a year or two ago IMO, but to me it looks like you're using WP just as another forum for your amusement. Of course, please feel free to correct me if my impression is wrong. If you respond, and I'm sure you will, please don't be a dick; Remember that you're just a cute little big bunny, Harvey :) TMCk (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personal attack. I do have a significant watch-list, FYI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for being a voice of sanity in an asylum run by its inmates. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As you know from your own experience, it's tough being right all the time. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am only right somewhere between 90 and 99% of the time. The trick is correcting oneself when one discovers one is in the not right category. I do try to admit my mistakes. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being right all of the time is sure tough but part of keeping up the appearance. I failed so far but then again, I'm not English :)TMCk (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of (as-of-yet) unused parameters from infoboxes, etc.

Hi BB. One or two users are in favor of deleting existing, as-of-yet unused parameters from infoboxes. Such as date of death. The subject arose in the context of sports articles, but obviously is more far reaching. Thoughts? If so, feel free to add in your 2 cents here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical high ground

And I don't mind being in the minority when I know I'm on the ethical high ground.

  • What ethical high ground? You still don’t get it, after all these years. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are decided not by some unimpeachable authority from on high or by some Grand Moral Code, but by the Wikipedia community itself. And the interpretation of those policies is also a matter for the community. The community has spoken about this case. That is the end of the matter. If you cannot accept the consensus that the OP was not seeking medical advice, and nor was any given, then you have no business being involved and you should get the hell out of Wikipedia. I’m deadly serious. At the very least, please take a significant break and rethink your relationship with this project. Please also reflect long and hard on what seems to be your almost total inability to let go.
  • You can check out Canute's relationship with waves yourself, being a highly experienced reference desk denizen. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 05:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever this "Canute" is about, it's probably intended as a personal attack, so I won't be reading about it. As regards "ethical high ground", that refers to the argument made in the past by others, to me, about the "real" reason not to give medical advice. In theory, Wikipedia is protected from suits (let's hope we never have that theory tested) and so the reason not to give medical advice is an issue of ethics rather than fear of Wikipedia being sued. But when someone asks a question about his future medical condition, I don't see how anyone can argue that somehow that's not a request for medical advice. I am just amazed at the number of users who don't care about the no-medical-advice rule anymore. It's very unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an insulting assumption of bad faith (not to mention arrogance) to assume that people who disagree with your personal interpretation of a rule do not care about the rule. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong about how the rule is applied in this case, but I have never said (nor will I ever say) that I don't care about the no-medical-advice rule. As far as I know, neither have any of the other people who believe you have misinterpreted the rule.
You owe a number of people an apology for your last statement. APL (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't apologize when I'm in the right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) No, not a personal attack. You should know me better than that by now. I reserve my criticisms for behaviour, not people. See Cnut the Great#Ruler of the waves.
The OP did not ask about his future medical condition. He asked whether he would pass a drug test or not.
What's truly unsettling is how you paint anyone who doesn't see things your way - which happens to be the vast majority on this occasion - as uncaring. That is very far from the truth, and it's an insult to your Ref Desk colleagues. If people didn't give a damn for the rules and how they're implemented and interpreted, they certainly wouldn't bother getting involved in these discussions. Opinions on these things will inevitably differ, and when the dust settles, those in the minority have no option but accept that the consensus is not with them. That's the way it goes. You win some and you lose some. The consensus is as it is. It's not a matter of "Right" and "Wrong"; just as Wikipedia is supremely indifferent to the "Truth". When will you accept that? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've absorbed more verbal shots from you than I can count. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because you very often act in highly inappropriate ways. However, it's always been your behaviour that I've criticised; never you personally. Trawl through the archives as far back as you like, but you won't find any instances of me ever attacking you personally. Yet you frequently characterise any criticism of your posts, whether from me or anyone else, as "personal attacks". You seem incapable of understanding the difference. That, or you're pathologically unable to say "I was wrong. I made a mistake. I'm sorry". Not even "You may have a point. Let me reconsider my position".
Back on 1 February, here, you made a snide comment that painted me as a defender of child-molesters and the organisations that protect them. I described that comment as "despicable", but I have yet to see one single word of retraction or apology from you. Just dumb silence. Did you think I'd just forget that outrageous and baseless insult? Yet here you have the breathtaking gall to claim the "ethical high ground". Your ethics appear to be not of this world. When ever you get back to planet Earth, please drop in for a chat. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic Church authorities condoned child molesters for a long time. That's a demonstrable fact. Beyond that, I don't understand your complaint. I don't recall accusing you of doing anything wrong. Your RCC faith is fine. It's the evil ones in the power structure that had to be brought down, and with any luck maybe the church has now purged itself of most of those slimey characters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said back then "I know about all that shit, which is why I left the RCC before most people here were even born … When it comes to the RCC, I reckon I can out-hate anyone here". Nor only do I have zero relationship with the RCC, but I hate what they do more than you can know. How much more clearly can I possibly say it? Yet still you pretend not to understand, and here you are, telling the world that the RCC is my faith.
You understood it just fine back in February, because you wrote: It's interesting, though, to see you implicitly defending the church you rejected. And that is what I found despicable. Nothing has changed, including your refusal ever to acknowledge when you cause great offence. All that's happened is a very convenient amnesia on your part. Well, Bugs, I am done buying your lame prevarications and your slippery evasions and your refusal to take responsibility for your own actions. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vibe I got was that you were defending the RCC in the face of its criticism by others. It's understandable. Sorry if I got it wrong, but it's the way it looked to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you got that vibe, I clarified it for you in an unmistakeable way: "Having been raised in that faith (a matter over which I had no say), I could not fail to be aware of most of their teachings. But I left the Church in my teens, and I have never defended it. ... Nothing I said in this thread or anywhere else has ever been about defending what the Catholic Church teaches. ... I particularly make the point that nothing I said in this thread or anywhere else has ever been about defending child-molesters, whether they be in the Catholic Church or anywhere else."
Your response to that was stony silence. Now, almost 10 weeks later, after some prodding from me, you say you're sorry. I honestly don't know what to make of that. Don't you think back then would have been the appropriate time? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that another editor has again shut down that discussion... an editor who happens to be a lawyer. So there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Your behavior during this argument was poor." "Yea, but someone agrees with me, so there ya are." Do you see the logical disconnect here? These statements don't follow each-other. APL (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not just "someone", but an attorney who probably understands the risks of answering medical advice far better than you or I do, and hence his statement carries more weight. And I see there is growing skepticism of the appropriateness of answering the OP's question, so don't count your "we're the majority therefore we're right" chickens just yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYA (For Your Amusement)

Guess who may be popping up again. It's been a while. :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 19:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! Maybe he discovered that no one was reading his work at that other wiki he went to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feller baseballs

You might be interested in User_talk:Wizardman#Have_Feller_baseball. PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Minnesota Twins 10.png

Thanks for uploading File:Minnesota Twins 10.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted

Bugs, I accept your apology. Thanks for stepping outside your comfort zone and making the gesture. It means a lot to me. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tickling the 88s

Bugs:

Take a look at

and see if you think they might be related to our recent friend. My thought is that if we can identify the other IPs, we can look at their contribs and perhaps get a better idea of who 88 is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMK .. while there is nothing I can do to prevent your "research" - I'd suggest that the time could be spent on more productive editing. I can say with little doubt that the user that has used these IP addresses is not blocked. If there is something you feel the user is doing to violate policy, feel free to point me to it. — Ched :  ?  00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ched thanks for your thoughts, but my time is mine to spend how I wish to spend it, especially since my contributions haven't suffered. And, yes, the 88 editor is violating policy, as he is using an IP to avoid scrutiny which is a clear and straightforward violation of WP:SOCK. On my talk page, you'll see respected admins advising me that one should not even whisper the word "sockpuppet" unless one has filed an SPI, but to file a successful SPI, one has to have convincing evidence, and my comment to Bugs above goes precisely to that. The editor behind the 88 accounts is violating a policy, and knowing what other IP accounts he uses will help in identifying what his named account is. This is perfectly legitimate research, I'm not hassling or harassing anyone, not posting baiting messages on their talk pages, as my fan club does to me, I'm merely trying to accumulate information for a potential SPI. I'm sure you know that that is a legitimate activity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, carry on then. The 3 or 4 that I ran across led to a pretty big ISP that used dynamic IP addressing, so it's possible that they are not all the same, especially as some of those are from a while ago. I haven't seen any attempt to "avoid scrutiny" in violation of policy, but YMMV. — Ched :  ?  05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it bears watching. It falls into LC's area, but that doesn't prove anything. A bad-faith user will eventually make it blatantly obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert William Andrew Feller Farmstead

You may be interested in this. At DYK too. I can't find a free photo of the farm. PumpkinSky talk 15:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What

number one i was told nothing 11 days ago. And I am not doing anything ilegal. A reverse E-mail look up is legal. You pay with a debit card or cerdit card. I am trying to find a E-mail contact. To a person to ask a question about a article. Because I cant under cover any sources. I have 1 E-mail contact. But that person does not look up that account. They are inactive on that site. I am not breaking the law in any way. I dont even know what your talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.186.165 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to take it on faith that you know the law in this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:BubbaStickers.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with the Curve

Not really a "baseball" movie, but if you get a chance, check it out. I think you'd probably enjoy it. — Ched :  ?  11:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QAPLA! JAGTA-GA!!!

KARRIGLE UGTA - SKABAK ERG THRAK KILRAH MAKS RAGNITH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.244.241.11 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only thrak kilrahs I ever knew were brakskaergber farns. SlightSmile 00:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that my Klingon dictionary is the abridged edition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard the Pilgrim

Are you familiar with this? I started doing some work on it after seeing a link at WP:GOCE, and it looks like the subject is an important person in the Catholic faith - but there doesn't seem to be much reference material in the web. I remembered seeing a discussion on religion on your page once, and it seemed like you were pretty knowledgeable on the topic. — Ched :  ?  02:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only in certain areas. I don't know much about saints. I bet Jack of Oz would know, though. I think he was raised Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I was, but that doesn't mean I know the names of all the saints. Far from it. This guy, for example, I've never heard of. That suggests he's not exactly "an important person in the Catholic faith", but I could be wrong. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, I do appreciate your time. — Ched :  ?  09:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk Bugs-bait

This question seems tailored to precisely your areas of expertise. I came up with a response, but this was based on a few minutes of research as opposed to previous real knowledge on my part. Anyway, if you're interested. Have a nice day either way. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Not real sure I can do better than the other answerers. But it's an interesting question. I'll look further. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intermarriage in Israel

Bugs I thought rather than continue just being mad with you I would come over and explain what I objected to in your comments.

The OP's question was a really difficult one. It needed someone with info, like Deborahjay, to come and shed light on it. Your interjection was just politics. I know the temptation to make a political point but as refdesk regulars we really have to resist it.

You were saying: well, of course, no-one in Israel would like the idea of one our people marrying one of THOSE people, the ones who want to destroy us. I'm sure people do feel like that, but in the end it is just stereotyping. If people are in love and want to marry, they should be able to.

And you were lumping together such a large group of people, millions in fact. The article the OP was questioning was only about Arab citizens of Israel. For a start, there are Jewish Arabs, like Claudia Roden, which the OP's article could have mentioned but didn't. As far as I know, no-one would have any objection to an Israeli marrying one, but don't forget that there are plenty of tensions between Jewish Israelis of different backgrounds. Then there are the non-Jewish citizens of Israel. It was clear that the OP's question was mainly about them. Most of them are Muslims, some are Christians of many denominations. Deborahjay's answer was good, as you said, and reminded us that there is no secular civil marriage in Israel. People of different religions, and couples of two different Christian denominations, have to choose which kind of religious wedding to have.

You mentioned "neighbours" of Israel who want to destroy Israel. Firstly, are we talking about individuals here, or governments, or "leaders"? Say you heard about an American who wanted to marry a Cuban; would you immediately think of the American as a traitor to their country? No, you would make a distinction between being Cuban and approving of the currrent policies of the current Cuban government. The Cuban might be an anti-Castro activist. But in the first instance you wouldn't make any assumptions about the political views of the couple. Perhaps both of them loathe politics of all kinds. The same should apply to Arabs, surely. Among the millions of Arabs there are people of every possible political shade, from far-right to far-left, nationalist, anti-nationalist, pro- and anti-American.

It also isn't the case that all neighbouring countries of Israel want to destroy Israel. Israel is on good terms with Lebanon, where most people are Arabs, about half of them Christians. It has famously reached modus vivendis (not sure of my Latin grammar there) with Jordan and Egypt. If by neighbours you are thinking of the West Bank and Gaza, well you know that public opinion is sharply divided in each of those.

As for Iran, whose government does make noises about destroying Israel, three points. 1) it isn't a neighbour of Israel, 2) except for a small minority Iranians aren't Arabs, and 3) most Iranians do not support their current government.

So, conflating Arabs and Muslims is incorrect, and could be upsetting to non-Muslim Arabs and non-Arab Muslims. (I happen to have good colleagues in both those categories.) And apportioning political views to people on the basis of their religion or ethnicity is wrong too.

Hope you see what I mean now I have spelt it out. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have absolutely no idea what this is about

But your name has been mentioned (in code) by some neo-Nazi troll (see here). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was some bean-brain that used to put a Nazi flag on my talk page from time to time, so it might be him. Not that it matters. I decoded his message, and was amused that he can't spell "smoother". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

America

"When you're the leader, you get targeted by those who wish they were the leader. That's how things go" - are you saying I am the leader? :P

μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be. :) I was speaking more in national terms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, leader of the nation? I thought I was just leader of wikipedia, hehe. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some are born to greatness, others have it dumped on them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Transgression-Thinking Terrorists Tremble...

Hi, Bugs, I was looking up some sorting-template documentation (de:Vorlage:nts/Doku and de:Vorlage:SortKey/Doku) at German Wikipedia to fix a couple of tables at their article on South African demographics (de:Demografie Südafrikas) when I encountered some rather awesome warning templates, the kind that would give pause even to James "Whitey" Bulger, Khaled "Sheikh" Muhammed or Lance ("Liestrong") Armstrong.

My fifty futile years of trying to teach myself German (instead of taking a proper class) won't let me grasp the full gravity (or levity) of these messages, but their gravamen (at least at an Auslander's first blush) seems to be: Mess with the Wikivölker and the obsessively-efficient ProjektPolizei (the dreaded Wikipo or Stawi) will not sleep until your tired, sorry carcass is hauled (after many pleasantly-memorable hours of interrogation at the Ministry of Wikiluv in quest of Reliable Sources, Original Research and Neutralist Points of View) before some Extraordinary Emergency People's Arbitration Court for condemnation to long decades of brutal, heartless Internet-deprivation at one of the notorious Vorlagen in the middle of the Black Forest or atop the storm-wracked Tyrolean Alps. (Co-operate with the Wikithorities, however, and your family will be well treated....) Repeat offenders, who have none but themselves to blame, can expect no mercy before the Court's stern, ruthless judges confine them to perpetual 18-hour days chained to Wikipedia talk:MOS. (As the condemened are marched to their monitors, the long, hollow corridors echo with their pitiful screams of "No!, no!, Ban me, Indef me, Out me, IP-block my whole family, but please, please for the love of Jimbo, not that!!!")

But look on the bright, cheerful, sunny side ;-) : after suitable modification {Subst:), these cheery templates might just the friendly, refreshing tonic that some dozing page or message of yours might need to perk up its chirpy spirits.

I'm not skilled enough to transpose and translate templates across different projects, but their main features are below. However, to see how pungent Teutonic eloquence adds to their full breath-taking power, you should just visit the Dokumentation pages above. And that's just for dreary, mundane, workaday template documentation; any normal human being might shrink from the very thought of how BLP's and sensitive matters of passionate controversy (Hitler, Pope Benedict, the Berlin Wall, Munich 1923, Munich 1934, Munich 1972, Ford vs Siemens, the Holocaust, Creation, Angela Merkel, Lady Gaga) must be guarded from vandals. Cerberus must be on permanent retainer, while it's hardly uncommon to hear whispered rumours [citation needed] that the faintest suspicion leads to shattered spectacles, broken wrists, dislocated thumbs and crushed fingertips before the first question is asked.

Achtung!
Diese Vorlage ist vielfach eingebunden. Wenn du die Auswirkungen genau kennst, kannst du sie bearbeiten. Meist ist es jedoch sinnvoll, Änderungswünsche erst auf [[{{DISKUSSIONSSEITE}}]] abzustimmen.

Always look on the Sunny Side of Strife. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strani Beeap

Probable sock with a focus on baseball - any idea who it is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No clue. And he might be technically correct about undue weight, but his approach sucks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

spy in hiding

I do not at all disagree with your comments, but we'd better stay away from ascribing motivations to the @$$#, based on our own surmises, given he's a living entity per BLP. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. I'm just going by appearances. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk snipes

Hey, I just saw your reply to Steve and perhaps I have gotten you confused with another guy who said we shouldn't be sniping each other on the Ref Desk. I get where u are coming from, but the first place to deal with it would not to be to return fire, but post your complaint to his talkpage and if you guys can't resolve the issue amicably that way, then the Ref Desk talkpage would be the next logical place. Although we can't stop snipping each other altogether, I think that perhaps we can improve on process? --Modocc (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ref Desk

Buggs, name callin ain't where its at. You might want to stay off that RD Talk page, nothing good happens to anyone there. Let me tell you that the S1735 is a waste of electricity. If you want to solder, get hold of a UT-100SI Ultra Torch. Butane is the real deal! 184.199.165.229 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert your own name calling first, then get back to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, are you talking about the  Confirmed  ??? If you are, that ain't name calling, that was a confirmation, utilizing a form of wiki markup called a "Template". Your edit history and Mr. 98's identifier are spot on. Don't let the truth get you all worked up. It is what it is, and as you say: Dat's dat! 184.199.165.229 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're a foul-mouthed troll. And dat's da truth. But don't let it get you all worked up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point, for light and very occasional use, the S1735 would be O.K. It's just that if you try to keep it on (it has a momentary trigger) for any extended length of time, it will overheat and eventually blow the fuse. Most people, who would buy this cheap of an iron, don't have the experience to realize its limitations. In my case, it was being too impatient, and not letting it cool down, that would lead to its demise. Do you thin I should go back and tone down my criticism of the iron? Please let me know what you think. 184.199.165.229 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, please do not respond further to any of this. I have asked the thread be closed, and the next step is ANI. μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's an IP-hopping troll, who will soon be foiled. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Test

ツ

From this: [2]

I'd like

to send you an email if you will activate the option on your account. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I don't allow e-mails, except on some rare occasions with a very, very short list of trusted admins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden etc.

I don't have faith in the system precisely because so many do. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many nuances to this issue which have yet to be fully played out or decided:

  • Is Snowden telling the truth about what he was capable of? We already know he exaggerated his salary level.
  • How could he imagine that China is somehow a freer country than America?
  • Is he actually working for China?
  • How did someone like him get a security clearance?
  • Did he violate his contract?
  • And why, pray tell, are we outsourcing this kind of highly sensitive work to a company which apparently will hire anyone who walks in off the street as long as he knows how to run a computer?

Also:

  • Does the Patriot Act as it stands violate the Constitution? If so, someone needs to challenge it in court, as the court system doesn't take action on their own.
  • Does this specific program violate the Patriot Act itself? That's being debated in Congress already, and might (or might not) lead to narrowing its scope or abolishing that part of the law.
  • Supposing the Patriot Act is constitutional, if this activity violates the Act does it likewise violate the Constitution?

And this curiosity:

  • Why is that no small number of Republicans who adamantly opposed any gun-ownership background checks are just perfectly fine with this legislation?

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his perceived capabilities matter. One could easily argue had he done anything he suggested he could he would have attracted attention and been caught. His perceptions on the ranking of freedom in China versus the US are even more irrelevant. I think it is very safe to say that had he been working for China he would not be doing this and would still be where he was. Your question of "how someone like him" seems loaded and biased. I am particularly proud of his actions and courage. His contractual terms don't matter. Outsourcing is common in highly specialized trades. The patriot most definitely violates the constitution it allows officers to issue warrants. The patriot act only authorizes action "for terrorists and associated forces" everyone is not a terrorist. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary - Everything is relevant until we get the full picture both about what the government is up to and what this Snowden guy is up to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything being relevant just makes it gossip or a tabloid. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is on the table, then. Politicians are quick to assign tags like heroes and villains. We don't know who the real heroes and villains are in this story yet. Maybe some of both, for both sides. If I were you, I would be more concerned about the stuff Google and Facebook and others are doing to invade your privacy - without the hint of, or even the need for, a warrant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not even - Google doesn't have millions of people with guns that they command. Google can't lock you in a box for any one of innumerable laws. Google is a pussycat compared to the proverbial gestapo. He is heroic because he did something without concern for his own safety in attempt to better others. I just don't see how words got so twisted on wp. Like the word whistleblower, its claimed he isn't a whistleblower because the activities were not "illegal" well thats pretty amazing as it could easily preclude any whistleblower from ever staking claim. Especially how law is arbitrarily determined now by 9 fools. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google could easily be compelled to turn over all its information to the government. They are very willing to capitulate to political pressure (as they did in China). As for Snowden, you don't know what part of his claims are true, and what part could be false or merely self-serving, to get a book-and-movie deal, for example. And don't be too quick to assign the hero term to someone who fled before anyone was (presumably) onto him. "Not concerned for his safety"? Then why did he leave? The guilty flee. The innocent stand up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are never going to reach any sort of consensus. You dodge the point, google don't have an army. The government has already admitted his claims are true - they record everything. He left for obvious reason - the government doesn't play fair. See Bradley Manning and the long periods of torture he has had to endure. He did stand up - just not in front of a freight train moving at high velocity. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy into the notion that Manning was tortured. And he chose to commit espionage - no one made him do it. Likewise with Snowden. As regards consensus, we don't have all the facts yet. Once we do, we can draw better conclusions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why did they force Manning into nudity for months and keep him from sleeping? We will never have all the facts. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who says they did? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Enlish speaker

Cary Grant

A few years ago you participated in a discussion at Talk:Cary Grant about his citizenship. A recent RFC has begun on Cary Grants citizenship reference in the lead paragraph. Please feel free to add a comment at Talk:Cary Grant#RfC: Should the ambiguous hyphenated term, English-American, be used to describe the subject?.--JOJ Hutton 22:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This again? OY! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this again. Seems that someone is being very vocal about him not being referred to as an American.--JOJ Hutton 22:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[File:Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpg|thumb|right}}

Love Cary Grant. Remember Reagan not knighting him. Was Reagan confused? μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

As someone who has participated extensively in the Wikipedia MLB articles, your input would be greatly appreciated in a request for comment regarding postseason droughts. Another editor and I have reached an impasse and are looking for third parties to chime in. Thank you very much! TempDog123 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Looks like the silliness has migrated there as well - new category created for female name, then all pics migrated there, even though the majority of projects use the male name. Sigh. Kelly hi! 13:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're familiar with the expression "jumped the shark", it appears Wikipedia has now done so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it did a few months ago but this seriously drives the point home. Related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:Identity
For those not familiar, see Jump the shark.  :) Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to know what Wales, the public face of Wikipedia, thinks about all this. Specifically, of Wikipedia being ahead of the news organizations, which isn't supposed to happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am the Wales. You fool. Do you know what I do to rabbits who summon me! Wale
Well, now we know what Wales thinks. Go to his talk page, and you'll see that Wales supports this rename, using arguments that violate Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia has indeed "jumped the shark". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manning

While you made your feelings perfectly clear, I notice you didn't actually vote one way or the other. Of course you shouldn't have to do this, but the closing admin seems to have made it clear that he will only be taking the opinions of those who actually voted into consideration. Why bother to start following policy at this point, I guess. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The renaming of the page was a gross violation of policy, and the only remedy is renaming it back. If that isn't obvious to the admins nor to Wales himself, then there's no hope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Bugs/Archive016&oldid=1193024475"