User talk:Brossow/Archives/2006-04

AWB

I noticed that you recently edited a page on my watchlist, National Middle School Science Bowl, using the AWB. I myself use the AWB but I usually check such automated edits when I see them to make sure they abide by AWB's rules. Unfortunately, this edit seems questionable. The first rule (and the most important) is to "check every edit before you save it." The AWB is a program, not a human, and it can sometimes make unnecessary or incorrect changes. In the above-referenced edit, I can tell you were probably using a regex to redirect links from General Motors to General Motors Corporation. The AWB, as programmed, also changed mdashes from the little code to actual dashes. However, it malfunctioned, as you can see very well towards the bottom. I will bring this error to the attention of other editors, but, please, check every edit before saving. Thank you. --M @th wiz 20 20 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - The problem never would have been discovered, though, if you had checked your edit. :) --M @th wiz 20 20 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed — sorry for the inconvenience. I try to check my edits carefully but occasionally something gets overlooked. It was my error, not AWB's. Ah, the beauty of the revert function! :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the Studebaker Move

Hey- I'm not sure about the Studebaker article move. If anything this should be under Studebaker Corporation, since the company manufactured cars under that corporate entity for almost seventy years having incorporated under the laws of New Jersey in or about 1909-1910. Stude62 03:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going with the name in bold at the beginning of the article. If that's not correct, then it needs to be changed. --BRossow 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've always had a problem with that first sentence myself. I'm about ready to hit the hay - its my weekend to sleep in. I can change it in the morning. Stude62 03:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY Stony Brook

Though this move was perfectly good, I would just like to point out that the "marketing ploy" was pure vandalism. Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 15:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So noted! :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One question however: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) states that "school article titles should use the full official name of the school as provided by the school itself." If you take a look at the Stony Brook web site, http://www.stonybrook.edu, the name that the school supplies is very clearly "Stony Brook University". I'm not opposed to the move, but I'm left wondering whether it was correct. – Clockwork Soul 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the school's seal clearly gives the full name as "State University of New York Stony Brook." Looks like they're providing it both ways, unfortunately. I'd also note that http://sunysb.edu (clearly short for "State University of New York at Stony Brook") also is a valid URL for the school. Further, a WHOIS lookup on both domains lists the first registrant as "State University of New York/Stony Brook" (stonybrook.edu) and "SUNY at Stony Brook" (sunsyb.edu). Adding to the issue is that both registrations ALSO list Stony Brook University on the registration, but the first line in each registration is SUNYSB. Even though the "marketing ploy" change you noted above may have been considered vandalism, I think the point the editor made is valid and the Stony Brook U. moniker is much more a marketing name rather than an official name change in the state university system, if you see the distinction. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the information in the WHOIS database, the name that the school publicly provides is most definitely "Stony Brook University". Also, regardless of the assumed of the name, is it appropriate for us to decide the name by which the school presents itself? If it chooses to refer to itself as "Stony Brook University", and the students and public come to be familiar and comfortable with that name, who are we to say otherwise? – Clockwork Soul 16:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, the seal is outdated: the new ones are available here. – Clockwork Soul 16:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to update the logo here, then, but I really must point out that the only words on the new logo are "Stony Brook" and "State University of New York" — nothing whatsoever about "Stony Brook University." ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 16:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's true: they're "official seal" isn't available anywhere on the web site. Perhaps it's still simply trademarked, but is otherwise obsolete? – Clockwork Soul 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back: they still present it as the "official seal" on a list of university trademarks. – Clockwork Soul 16:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and the only logo on that page that says "Stony Brook University" is listed in the "Alternate Marks" section. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite: the "University Marks" section lists both. Given that the school appears to use the name "Stony Brook University" preferentially over the older "SUNY Stony Brook", and given that it's the name by which the university is known among the students, parents, and faculty, and given that it's the name that's used self-referntially not only on the web site, but on most other forms of written media, I propose that we consider "Stony Brook University" to be the official name. – Clockwork Soul 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that section! You're right, but it's only listed after the ones with the SUNY reference. Not sure how to go with this one, marketing versus name of record. Check these links, all of which are from SUNYSB's official website and all of which refer to the school as SUNYSB (though admittedly not exclusively as such): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Here we see everything from official press releases to departments and schools within the university referring to the school as SUNYSB. Even on pages that use the SBU nomenclature in the headings and graphics, the school is officially referred to as SUNYSB in documents on those pages, including curriculum vitae, press releases, recruitment notices, etc. I really am torn on this one but am tending toward "officially correct" rather than "popularly correct," particularly given that any search for either usage will lead people to the correct page, that the page itself primarily refers to the school as SUNYSB, and that all of the "most official" documents I've seen make reference to SUNSYB -- the school seal, press releases, etc. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all of that, if you really feel strongly about it, you've got the admin access to move it back to SBU (which I cannot) and I won't interfere. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer "Stony Brook University", more than anything because as a student there it's very clear that it's the name that is in most common use. If it's okay, I would prefer to change it, but I don't want to step on your toes or get into a silly and unproductive dispute. – Clockwork Soul 17:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One quick question before you do: what does the diploma say? If it says "Stony Brook University," I have no opposition. But if it says "SUNYSB" I guess I have a problem with going with "popular" rather than "official." Any idea what it says? ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure! I'll have to go look. Give me a few minutes to dig it up. – Clockwork Soul 17:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm finding evidence that the diploma says "State University...": [11] [12] [13] ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it says: "State University of New York, to all persons be it known that". It was a few years ago, but I have no reason to believe that the new ones are any different. Well enough: we can leave it as is. :) – Clockwork Soul 17:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's the anal-retentive part of me that would rather be correct than be popular. :-) / :-( ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all of your dirty work down in the boiler room, I present you with the chronically underused *WikiMedal for Janitorial Services*. Wear it with pride! – Clockwork **Soul** 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for accepting my query without taking offense, and for discussing it with me coolly and rationally, without calling me a weenie. :) For all of your dirty work down in the boiler room, I present you with the chronically underused WikiMedal for Janitorial Services. Wear it with pride! – Clockwork Soul 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the phrase goes in one of my recent favorite series of books, thankee-sai. And thank you for putting up with my rotten personality that just won't let things go. ;-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. Although many don't agree with me, it's more important to be correct than it is to win. – Clockwork Soul 17:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting University Names in Association of American Universities page

Howdy. Thanks for working on the AAU page, but please do not change n-dashes to hyphens as an n-dash is the correct punctuation to use in, say, the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Thanks a mil. Madmaxmarchhare 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with a degree in English education, I'm aware that the en dash is the "correct" punctuation. However, as a matter of practicality I changed it to a standard hyphen in order to streamline the page and remove several bytes of data. A drop in the bucket, perhaps, but it all adds up and 99.7% (an actual factual number I made up on the spot) of all readers would never notice the difference. My changes make the page load faster and take less space in the database; your preference is technically correct. It makes little difference to me but thought I'd at least explain my reason for the edits. --BRossow 01:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Michigan University

I was confused by your edit summary here ("clean up + avoid redirects to University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and University at Albany, The State University of New York using AWB)". Can you enlighten me? Thanks! · rodii · 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the above-cited page either linked or contained a template that linked to one of those pages. I'm currently using AWB to edit links to those pages to avoid redirects, either by piping or entirely replacing links depending on context. As a side effect of this process, articles with links to these articles also are having Unicode characters inserted in place of things like Φ, excess white space removed, categories and interwiki links sorted, etc. Hope that clears things up! --BRossow 03:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation, but no, it doesn't really clear things up. Take a look at the diff: [14]. No trace of any of those categories on the page. Or am I missing something? AWB appears to be running slightly amok in that respect. Do you manually check its edits? Looking at your contribs, you have made a huge number of edits today with AWB. · rodii · 04:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The University at Buffalo, The State University of New York is part of the Mid-American Conference, the template for which is on the page in question. Therefore, the EMU page was included in my list of articles being targeted by this AWB run. No, nothing was running amok, and yes, I do check each edit. Was there a problem with the edit? --BRossow 04:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, apparently not--I see I was looking for a category rather than thinking about what the template was doing. Thanks for fleshing this out; the edit summary is rather opaque and your earlier message didn't really succeed in making things clear (to me). Since no templates got changed, it seemed rather confusing (well, still does, but I'm sure it makes sense somehow :). I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. Please note my "appears", as in "gives the appearance of"--I wasn't accusing you of anything. How can you check 5 edits a minute though? That seems almost bot speed. (I use a Mac so I have never been able to see AWB at work.) · rodii · 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the edits are pretty straightforward, it's not too tough to check them with little more than a glance. I'm a Mac user, too; I'm ashamed to admit I've been bringing my work laptop home the past few days to finish up AWB edits. --BRossow 04:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another AWB quirk

Hi there, I've noticed that whenever you use the AWB on car pages, it puts an accent mark over the "e" in "coupe". I should tell you that the accent mark isn't used in the US, so keep that in mind next time when using the AWB. Thanks. --ApolloBoy 05:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an AWB quirk; it's an intentional edit on my part. Coupe is a redirect page; coupé is the main article. Using the latter avoids a redirect, which is A Good Thing™. Please don't change it as I'll just have to go back and re-edit it again. --BRossow 05:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your tone seemed rather arrogant and rude there. Maybe it's just me feeling like I don't need to be lectured by a 16-year-old when I've been driving and wrenching quite a bit longer than you've been alive, but it didn't sit quite right. It was probably unintentional and I guess I'll assume you didn't mean to sound that way. Thought I'd mention it. --BRossow 05:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I came off as rude, but I just wanted to let you know, 'tis all. I tend to get misinterpreted a lot since I have Asperger's Syndrome... --ApolloBoy 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB + quotation marks

Greetings. I see that you are changing so-called "typographic" quotation marks to "typewriter" quotation marks [15] [16] [17] (this last one is an edit of my text on a talk page). FYI, there is presently no consensus on this. Regards, Fleminra 08:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no consensus, then there's no problem, right? Typographic quotes don't always display correctly for all users on all platforms and all browsers, whereas "straight" quotes generally do. Further, in my edits I have encountered several examples of an opening quote being of one style and the closing quote the other, and/or a micture of quote styles throughout an article, both of which create a "messy", unprofessional appearance. Therefore, as part of much more significant edits I have chosen to be bold and make this change in articles I edit. I'm sorry we seem to disagree. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 12:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a Phi Kap?

Just curious. I'm a Phi Kap alum from Indiana University and saw your edits to the fraternity's article. If so, I've got a template set up for Phi Kap Wikipedians you can use with {{User phikap}} -- Mkamensek ^(talk) -The LeftOverChef 14:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just happened to be doing cleanup on a page that linked to another page I recently moved. Sorry! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University at Buffalo in the past

Please take more care in changing links to University at Buffalo, The State University of New York if they refer to the University at a time when it was called something else. I've piped the link at Eric A. Havelock to what it was called when he was teaching there in the early 70s. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I don't tend to worry about that sort of thing — to me, the school is the school is the school, regardless of the specific name. But I'm really sorry if my view of the subject doesn't match yours and I'm glad it was a relatively painless fix. Thanks for letting me know. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loosie-goosie reverts

Youre blanket use of reverts at Godwin's Law leads me suspect a flaw in either the popup tool or your usage of it. Please, knock it off, and use the comment line when you make an edit. Thanks. -Ste|vertigo 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the popup tool or my usage. An anonymous editor keeps removing the important term "threaded" from the article; I'm putting it back where it belongs. Problem? As for my use of the comment line for edits ... I almost always do. The only place I tend not to comment is changes to my own user pages. Where are you seeing an issue with regard to this? ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for move

Thanks for your boldness in accomplishing the move I requested (for a flag page). I thought that I could do it myself, but I'm still new at this and thus a bit timid yet, so I kicked it to On High. Won't be timid for long, though. -- Lisasmall 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I like to help out where I can. The great thing about Wikipedia is that if you make a change with which someone doesn't agree, or if you simply make a mistake, the complete history is there and reverting is usually a matter of a couple mouse clicks. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless politicking

Hello - think of this as me, knocking your door, asking for your vote and or support. A young user has indicated that he would like to merge the Renault Alliance article into the Renault 9 article. I feel that the two should be seperated because the Alliance is an imprtant vehicle due to its business strategy for AMC. Any help that you can provide (the discussion is going on on the Alliance's discussion page) is appreciated. Stude62 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the refactor on Talk:Renault Alliance

I shoulda, but forgot... no reply necessary, but here is fine. ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent cleanup changes to G

You recently made some cleanup changes to the G article on 25 March 2006. One of those cleanups, although typically a correct one, was in this case wrong. Specifically in the Codes for Computing section you changed some "&" markup to just "&". But in this case the & was actually what was intended. I'd fix this myself, but I didn't know if perhaps you did this sort of thing on other articles. (Thanks for the other cleanups, BTW). - Dmeranda 05:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I missed that when proofreading. I had the box checked in AWB that automatically converts HTML character codes to the unicode character. I didn't catch that in the diff, but I'm glad you did. I don't think this happened [inappropriately] in other articles, but I'm sure someone will catch it if it did. I fixed it in the article you cited. Thanks for the heads-up! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification on monobook.js file

Hello, Brossow. Could you please modify this page so that it does not show up in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this issue in my own monobook.js as well as on the script's project page, where the problem originated. I also notified two other users of the fix. Thanks for the heads-up! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 12:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fix. :-) I'll let others know, as I asked about it the Administrator's Noticeboard. Kjkolb 12:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you also change it so it adds {{Wikify-date|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} instead of {{Wikify}}, as we are now sorting by date as you can see here, I would do it myself, but I'm worried I might screw it up. thanks. Martin 12:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure — no problem. Gonna have to be tonight, however, as I'm on my way out the door for work. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 13:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 13:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you anyway??

My edits are good

I was interviewed in a front page article in NY times and was named long island innovator for a week in newsday with photo and all about my software.

So please do a little research first. —This unsigned comment was added by JoeMele (talk • contribs) .

I've done a little research, Joe. The bottom line is that the only mention you get in a handful of Google hits is a single-line quote from one newspaper article. Me, I've been interviewed on television, quoted in newspapers, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Yet I don't pretend to be important enough to be cited as "notable" in any Wikipedia article. I hate to bruise your ego, but what you've done isn't encyclopedic. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing how you nominated yourself to be admin.JoeMele 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Not sure what that exactly means in reference to anything, but for clarification I was nominated by someone else, an honor I gladly accepted. Your point is ... ? ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First dont claim you know anything about me. I am not you. I am aspergian. I am not some neurotypical dog. You did not"bruise" my ego.JoeMele 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to know anything about you, Joe, except what very little I could glean from Google. You're not noteworthy, as much as you might like to think you are. I'm sorry you're not. I'm sure you do fine work for your chosen cause, but you don't meet the WP:BIO guidelines for notability by a long shot. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH YEAH

THE FACT I ADDED IT IS IRRELEVANT. OF COURSE i DONT EXPECT A nt TO UNDERSTAND THAT FINE POINT!

3RR

Be aware of the WP:3RR on State University of New York at Stony Brook. I gave JoeMele a warning, so it's only fair that I do the same with you. Be well, and be patient. – Clockwork Soul 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of 3RR, but thanks for the reminder in case I wasn't. :-) ... Unfortunately, Joe has violated it and was subsequently reported. I regret the temporary loss of my legitimate copyedits because of his blanket reversions, but such is Wikipedia. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the last — I see you fixed that. I would have done so myself but didn't want any appearance of 3RR violation on my part. Thanks! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doQWikify

Thanks for the notice! howch e ng {chat} 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Brossow - Thanks for the cleanup on my userpage.--PaddyM 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm always a bit wary of touching others' userpages, even if it's just fixing a redirect, so I'm glad you didn't mind. --BRossow 01:05, Saturday April 8 2006 (UTC)

I'm just impressed someone noticed. I didn't know that patrolling the recent changes included user-pages.--PaddyM 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was just working on fixing redirects for the UW schools and yours happened to link to one of the UW-Madison redirect pages (as I recall). :-) ⇒ B.Rossow ^Talk|_Contr 01:40, Saturday [[April 8]] [[2006]] (UTC)

Stanford

I've moved the page back; if you care about the issue, you might want to check out the talk page for my reasoning. Cheers, Melchoir 02:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I'm not going to ask this on the talk page, but honestly, where does this "free-for-all among school articles" rhetoric come from? Melchoir 03:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it amounts to when there's a guideline in place that affects an entity that can reasonably be known by a number of different "common" names with no reasonable way to reach consensus. It's one thing for Cher, who is universally known as such. But schools and universities can be known by a number of different, equally valid names. The best way (IMHO, obviously) to resolve this is to provide strict guidance with regard to article naming. Redirects will bring people searcing for any of a variety of common names to the actual article, and the title of the article will be as correct as possible — something I think should be a goal for all Wikipedia articles — according to the school itself. When a school has (for example) "Leland Stanford Junior University" on its seal and its diplomas, I think its beyond arrogant for anyone to suggest that they are, in effect, "wrong" and subsequently name the article about that institution with an abbreviation of its proper name.

Plus, I'm really having trouble figuring out why you and Jesuschex are so all fired up about what a school article is named when there's no dispute that it is the correct, official name of the school. Sigh all you want, but thus far I'm the only one (again, IMHO) involved in the discussion who's presented an actual explanation with several examples of why I think the naming convention should be one way instead of the other. You and Jesuschex have ignored virtually all of my reasons and just keep throwing up the "common name" argument, which I feel is invalid in this situation. And for that matter, the only reason he's involved in this is because he's bitter about losing a page move vote on Simon's Rock College of Bard.

I really am about done discussing this, as I've given about as much explanation and reasoning as I can on the topic. I'm not fond of arguing, and although I enjoy rational discussion quite a lot, there's not much of this taking place and it's a real drain. I think it really is time we step back and let the rest of the community have its say. It's quite clear that neither of us is going to change the other's mind, so I think we need to give it a rest and agree to disagree. Ultimately it's not going to be up to either of us to make the decision. And it should go without saying, but there's nothing personal in any of this and whatever the outcome I assure you there'll be no hard feelings on my part; I hope you feel the same. ⇒ B.Rossow ^Talk|_Contr 03:38, Saturday [[April 8]] [[2006]] (UTC)

I'm all fired up because I object to your tactics. You moved Stanford without discussion, when from Nightstallion's talk page you already knew that such moves are controversial. You and Nightstallion both profess a disdain for WP:NC(CN), but you make no effort to challenge that guideline on its talk page. Instead you adopt some other guideline no one has heard of as your battle standard, and you confine your arguments to a talk page watched by approximately three people. You dodge direct questions by claiming they have been answered. Now you wonder why I'm frustrated?

I understand that people make mistakes. Oh shit, guys, sorry, I thought that was policy, and I was supposed to interpret it by myself. Instead, when I pointed out your error, you got all holier-than-thou about established guidelines and reverted almost everything I did, claiming you were justified in personally moving Stanford until other users got involved. Even after that, and even now, you demonstrate no regret over your actions. So, no, I don't feel the same. Melchoir 05:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're frustrated. I'm sorry you didn't know about the then-guideline. But I certainly do not regret my actions. Page moves following a posted guideline (which WP:NC(S) was at that time, until you changed it, whether or not you like it) really don't require permission. NightStallion's move at my request was done as an admin, who also read the then-guideline, agreed with it, saw no problem with it, and consequently performed the move, which I would have done myself without asking had the move not been blocked by a history on the target page. If you're bitter and/or frustrated about this situation, then I humbly suggest maybe you could take a step back and get a good night's sleep. Let the community decide if the guideline is a good one or not; you've made your effort. There's been absolutely no harm done, aside from a considerable waste of several people's time because a couple guys have their undies in a bundle over the name of an article or two, as if people would never be able to find those articles now that they bear the proper names of their respective schools. At last count, the "vote" was 3-2 in your favor on the naming convention, hardly a landslide showing but perhaps a small comfort as you get some rest this evening. Have a good night. ⇒ B.Rossow ^Talk|_Contr 05:14, Saturday [[April 8]] [[2006]] (UTC)

Mustang GT

Why did you remove the picture of the 1987 Mustang GT/ It has more relevance than the 1993 that is there, as it was the first year of the re-design. Duke53 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Okay, now I'm confused ... did you delete the picture or return it? The only reason I put it up was because it is a 1987.

I put it back after someone else removed it. ⇒ B.Rossow ^Talk|_Contr 07:38, Monday [[April 10]] [[2006]] (UTC)

Thanks for the answer ... I didn't know if I'd done something wrong. Duke53 15:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Duke53[reply]

Need your eyes and grammar skills

Brossow- I was deploying the Packard Template that I made on the Packard article page. once I started reading it, I couldn't stop myself from rewriting it. It really needs a good set of eyes, and I'm hoping that you can work it into your schedule. Thanks, Stude62 02:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do as soon as time allows. Was out of town last weekend and am leaving again tomorrow but may have time some evening soon. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 21:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't forgotten about this.... --BRossow 03:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to vandal warning toolbox

I hope you're finding the warning toolbox useful. I've made a few minor changes to it that you might want to be aware of. --Kbh3^rd talk 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac and Chesapeake Association for College Admissions Counseling

I was a bit hasty I think, will check with the editors who put the tags on next time. I think I was a bit overanxious considering about the amount who put the tags down on their first set of edits and then never came back for two weeks. Ans e ll 22:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

You should be aware that US and UK usage on quotation marks in relation to sentence punctuation differs - I think it's a waste of time going round "correcting" one to the other, and you might just wind up in a revert war! :-) -- Ian Dalziel 13:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got more than 8000 edits (and a degree in English education). Could you be more specific about which article you had in mind? ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 16]], [[2006]] @ 21:19 (UTC)

I was referring to Sic, where you've altered the punctuation to US in the process of adding yet another thing the word doesn't stand for. There is, of course, an infinite set of things it doesn't stand for... -- Ian Dalziel 02:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's quite the attitude you seem to have; it's rather ballsy for someone with fewer than 200 edits to lecture someone with considerably more experience about avoiding a revert war. Sorry you didn't care for my addition, which is a VERY common misinterpretation of the term. The source for this new addition is my father, who spent 13 years as an editor at a major regional newspaper before getting his doctorate in mass comm and teaching at a major university for the past 22 years. So yeah, there are an infinite number of things for which the term may not stand, but the omission of this one was a considerable oversight IMHO. No need to take that kind of tone with me. And if you don't like my changes to the punctuation (which I never said were "corrections," BTW) then, by all means, go right ahead and change it back. And while you're doing that, go ahead and pare down the list of things for which sic doesn't stand, if it bothers you enough to gripe about it on my Talk page. Sheesh. (Having said that, I'd note that you didn't seem concerned about the length of the list when you made this edit.) ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Monday]], [[April 17]], [[2006]] @ 02:53 (UTC)

Sorry - no attitude,tone or lecture intended, just a comment about the punctuation change. (the misinterpretation I added to the list was one I removed from the text, BTW) -- Ian Dalziel 09:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL logos

Hi. I agree. Yes aesthetically pleasing, but not appropriate with regard to fair use. They should go from those pages and be used on team articles only. Mark83 14:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mustang SSP pictures

Most pics deleted, leaving the ones that are suitable for the article (4 pics, not counting the one in the infobox.). The pic in the infobox has proper copyright. Also, the pic with the Lockheed U2 spyplane in it has also been linked to that spyplane's page to help illustrate a portion of the text there.--293.xx.xxx.xx 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron range

how long does it range? Did the poor hockey players their resent the boston players in the 1980 team? John wesley 23:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.... ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Friday]], [[April 21]], [[2006]] @ 00:27 (UTC)

i have drawn it by myself using a common WP picture, pls undelete.--Nerd

I did not delete and have no ability to undelete it. Might try contacting an administrator. Sorry! ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Tuesday]], [[April 25]], [[2006]] @ 14:00 (UTC)

RfC on Take Me Higher

The RfC on Take Me Higher was begun by Karmann today. I have asked him to sign it, considering that he started it. Could you hop on over and take a look at the content of my addition (but please, do not alter it) and if you agree with I have said, you may sign in the appropriate area. You may also include any issues that you have with his contributions. But I have to emphasize that I want this RfC to be one that both shares the problem with the community, but takes the high road in aspects. I've left the same message for Apollo Boy.Stude62 17:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Your Base external link page

See "Article Content" point number 3 here. --InShaneee 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is in the process of being updated. Back off, please. Thanks. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:03 (UTC)

No, putting links to deleted articles is innapropriate. It's listed on DRV, it'll get its exposure there. --InShaneee 20:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight. Yeah, it'll definitely get adequate exposure to Joe Schmo who is looking for AYBABTU information by being on the DRV page. This is ridiculous.... ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 20:41 (UTC)

Re: List of "All your base are belong to us" external links

You should do what I did with Lorien Trust. There were far too many links, but the complete list existed nowhere else. I created a wiki page on editthis.info and linked to it. Problem solved, without violating WP:NOT or WP:CSD A3. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tea?

Hey man, have some WP:TEA and don't get all worked up over the AYBABTU thing. Is it really worth raising your blood pressure over? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm really not worked up about it. Really. It just seems heavy-handed and exceedingly rude (IMHO, of course) for a newbie admin (Jan '06) to delete a page that's clearly under construction, marked as "in use," etc. It would be one thing if the page had been there for weeks with no action, but I had just created the page and was in the process of working on it when it disappeared. Frustrating, but I'm ignoring it for now and will approach it from a different angle when things have settled down. Sometimes you just need to let people have their way, even if they're wrong. Thanks again! ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 14:57 (UTC)

NHL season pages

I have reverted your edits to a few of the season pages because it completely destroyed the structure of the boxes. I agree with your edits, but you need to fix the page if you want to do it properly. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 23:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of an image destroyed the box structure? I sure didn't notice that. If you could please point out which articles you're reverting, it would sure help. Thanks! ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Saturday]], [[April 29]], [[2006]] @ 23:55 (UTC)

AWB and categories

Please turn off automatically alphabetizing categories in AWB. That turns a nicely ordered list of categories, ordered by say theme, so that the list of categories it is more managable, and turns it into a random list. This is especially bad for sportspeople articles as this will move the teams they have played for all over the place rather then keep them together. Qutezuce 19:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of "nicely ordered" doesn't seem to match with my idea of nicely ordered. Alphabetical order seems much less "random" to me, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry! :-( ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 20:38 (UTC)

Please turn it off. Sportspeople categories are much more managable when the categories are listed thematically. Date of birth category paired with living people category/date of death, this makes it easy to see if those required categories are there without have to hunt for them. Keeping together a sportspersons teams that they have played for so that you can add any missing ones, or update them as neccessary, there are many reasons for such a group that alphabetically plainly screws up.

And if the ordering is a personal preference as you assert, then you shouldn't be mass editting many different articles ruining the order that already existed just to enforce your personal preference. Qutezuce 20:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be perfectly clear: I'm not making edits to enforce my personal preference. The alphabetizing of categories is a "bonus" to the other much more significant edits I'm making. I see your point about grouping categories one way, your personal preference. In editing categories, whether for sports or for any other topic, I find it easier to look alphabetically rather than searching through a list grouped, as it appears to me, near-randomly. Looking at the edits you've made to my edits, I honestly find it harder to find a given category using your "system." Consequently, while I appreciate your point of view, I don't agree with it. Again, sorry. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 21:18 (UTC)

It is not a bonus if not everyone likes the edit. So if it is a personal preference then TURN IT OFF. What is wrong with that? You think it is a bonus, I think it is a negative. So just turn it off and we can all be happy. Saying your sorry doesn't make Wikipedia better, making Wikipedia makes Wikipedia better. Qutezuce 21:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're deluding yourself if you think everyone is going to agree with every edit on WP. What you're suggesting is that your personal preference is more important than mine. I'm sorry, but it's not. Turning off that option won't make everyone happy; it'll make you happy. I'm sorry that you don't think alphabetical order is a logical order for categories. I do, and so do a LOT of other people. I dare say it wouldn't be an option in AWB if many others didn't find this to be the case. We have no choice here but to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 21:31 (UTC)

Actually I am not, because I am not the one going to hundreds of pages and enforcing my personal preference, you are the one who is changing existing pages to your own personal preference. I am only suggesting that you leave things alone. I am saying that you should not enforce your personal preference, I am not saying that you should enforce my personal preference, I am saying that you should leave it alone. I don't care if the articles that you spend time editting by hand you order the categories your way, because you are editting that page, and that helps you edit the page. I disagree with you enforcing your preference on hundreds of pages at a time that you would not normally edit. Qutezuce 21:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly do you know which articles I would or would not edit? And how does scale factor in? Your perspective is that your random-seemign order is better; my opinion is that alphabetical order is better. I fail to understand why you believe your opinion, your personal preferences to be of greater significance than mine. You're enforcing your personal preference by reverting my edits no less than I am by alphabetizing in addition to other edits that benefit WP. IMHO, alphabetizing categories benefits WP and makes it easier for others to edit. You disagree, and while I find that unfortuante, I have absolutely no plans to change my preferences just to keep you happy. I'd further recommend that you stop reverting my edits — for the sole purpose of enforcing your own personal preference — in order to prevent an edit war. I have no intention of engaging in one, but sometimes I'll touch an article more than once with AWB for various reasons and yes, the categories will be re-alphabetized. I don't think you'd want to find yourself in violation of WP:3RR simply to prove a point or push your personal preferences on everyone. ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 21:48 (UTC)

Obviously we both have different opinions on this matter. Your solution is that you continue to enforce your personal preference on every article. My solution is that you leave articles in the condition that they were in. (I reverted maybe 5 of you hundreds of edits, and have since stopped.) This will make everyone happy (except apparantly you), because articles that are alphabetized will stay that way, and articles that have a different structure will stay that way. If you want to alphabetized the articles that you do much editting to by hand then that is fine because it will help you edit. Let me reiterate (because you seem to have gone back to this) I am not enforcing my personal preference, I am asking that you not enforce your personal preference on hundreds of articles at a time, there is a big difference. Qutezuce 21:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the order of categories with NO other changes to an article is enforcing your personal preference, period. That's precisely what you've done several times now subsequent to my broader edits (which certainly do not number in the "hundreds" in this batch as you've claimed without basis in fact). How you fail to see this is beyond me, so I suppose this is the point at which I end my participation in this circular conversation. Back to productive editing.... ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 22:04 (UTC)

Did you read my message? I reverted your edits about 5 times and have now stopped and am not intending to continue. I have proposed a different solution that in no way invovles me editting any articles. Qutezuce 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the typo, I have no idea how I made that edit, but I assure you it was accidental. Qutezuce 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'll take your word for it. Strange.... ⇒ B.Rossow ^talk_contr [[Sunday]], [[April 30]], [[2006]] @ 21:32 (UTC)