User talk:MisfitToys/Archive 3

Heywood Broun

Thanks for fixing up the Heywood Broun page. I like the added Baseball HOF stuff. Question, there appears to be 2 women named Ruth Hale. One was a feminist married to Broun, the other is an actress. How can we have 2 pages for the 2 different women? I want to add an article on Broun's wife, the original Ruth Hale. Thanks for the assist! -- k72ndst 02:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I revised the link in Broun's article to Ruth Hale (feminist); all the other links to Ruth Hale appear to be for the actress/playwright. You can start the new article; once you do, make sure to add the following text (or something similar) to the top of the Ruth Hale article: For the early 20th-century activist, see Ruth Hale (feminist). MisfitToys 20:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I added Ruth Hale (feminist) to Wiki tonight. However, searches still default to Ruth Hale the actress. Can you somehow edit the actress page so that there can be a listing for the feminist on the actresses' page? It's driving me crazy. Thanks! -- k72ndst 22:57, 02 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone appears to have created a disambiguation page for the name, so all is now well. MisfitToys 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You can help (and you did:)

Thanks!

Thanks to all who helped take care of the Richard O'Connor article while it was on the mainpage. The RC patrol and CV unit truly ROCK most righteously, and I salute you! Once more, thanks --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Baseball on Wikicities

Hi MisfitToys, Googie Man here - I wanted to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done such great work on Wikipedia I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please tet me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 16:28, 4 January 2006.

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

Could you do me a favor and look at the edits in process by an anonymous user on this page. I'm a bit tied up with the Martin Luther and the Jews and Martin Luther pages at the moment and I suspect there's editorializing going on.

Thanks! --CTSWyneken 01:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rv! I've tried to keep up with their nonsense, too. -Rekleov 03:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the help! I'm too swamped to deal with this stuff. --CTSWyneken 14:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

USC titles

Hi - I notice you've asked several admins about this. I'm curious how you picked me, since I'm not generally a content dispute kind of guy. In any event, your compromise seems reasonable. I'll watch the article for a few days and do what I can. BTW - in the intro, shouldn't the second sentence start with "The university claims a total of eleven national championships ..." ("has won eleven recognized" being the subsance of this dispute)? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you had asked me last June if I was interested in becoming an admin (see above), though I never replied (I was on vacation at the time, and upon consideration decided that the time (and potential headaches) involved in being an admin would probably be more than I'd prefer. From your request, perhaps I presumed that you were an admin without looking to closely. I hadn't looked at the article intro's wording since this dispute began; I'm not sure if that was my wording, or if I (or someone else) used the terminology from the main article for nat'l titles, which refers to "recognized" titles. My concern with the anon user's version is that it seems obviously dismissive of USC's claim, and takes the position of trying to "debunk" the 1939 title (which you can't really do in a matter of this nature - this is all about differences of opinion in 1939). If one takes the position that USC's claim in 1939 is not legitimate or realistic, then you have to take precisely the same position regarding Michigan's 1932 title claim, which is based on precisely the same basis as USC in 1939 (the roles are reversed; USC is the 1932 choice of the historians, while Mich. won the Dickinson System trophy). I'm not taking that position; I have no problem with Michigan staking a claim to the 1932 title. But thanks for taking a look at this; it's much appreciated. MisfitToys 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Marcell

I didn't know what to do about the spelling of "Marcell" because different sites say different things.

Since the Baseball Hall of Fame website says "Marcell" with no "E" I took the liberty of changing it on the Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2006 article.

Baseballlibrary says "Marcell" also. But Blackbaseball.com says "Marcelle" with the "E". And so does nlbpa.com. Any way to know what's correct? TrafficBenBoy 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Negro League Baseball Players Association [1] and BlackBaseball.com [2] both spell it Marcelle, as do Blackball Stars: Negro League Pioneers, The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues, and The Complete Book of Baseball's Negro Leagues: The Other Half of Baseball History, so I switched it back (the second book notes alternate spellings of both Marcell and Marcel). BaseballLibrary has a lot of typos here and there, and I think the HoF site spells it differently in different places. MisfitToys 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Really???

So you really had no desire to be an Admin? Did you know you have about a bazillion edits? And good ones at that. You cite the potential headaches Admins might deal with. Is that the only reason? Cheers, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 Texas Longhorn football team

I appreciate the article move you made from 2005 Texas Longhorn Football Team to 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. It appears, though, that you might've missed our article title discussion and vote, in which we were working towards consensus. jareha 23:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I saw the discussion, but it didn't seem to discuss the capitalization issue. My main concern was whether it should be Texas Longhorn football or Texas Longhorns football; I suppose that's an issue best resolved by those more familiar with the terminology used by the Texas community. MisfitToys 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We had brought up the capitalization issue, but instead of making a change twice (proper capitalization, followed by a new consensus name) we would accomplish both at once. jareha 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional thoughts added at Talk:2005 Texas Longhorn football team. jareha 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello MT

I’m sorry to say that this user want to delete all articles in Dates in baseball (please see), because he (or she) ‘’don't see baseball history by date as notable or useful”. I would like to know what do you think about it. Thanks in advance. MusiCitizen 20:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are obviously Wikipedia articles which cover each date (e.g. June 20) in general; specialization (e.g. June 20 in baseball) is one way to keep the main date pages from becoming overwhelmed. MisfitToys 00:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My Baseball namespace

Thanks for editing those category links. I didn't want to have my namespaced page on the category list, but didn't know how to do that without removing the category link altogether. Jpers36 16:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Least I could do after you got that page started; the balloting articles are something I really need to get back to at some point, beginning with adding the Veterans voting in 2003. MisfitToys 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

vote here keep

exscuse me but also Muriel has done this trying to get people to delete this article important for a monarchic branch. This is a democratic encyclopedia and so this page has right to stay here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. MisfitToys 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

€2 commemorative coins

I keep accidentally reverting you. Sorry. I'll let you fix it yourself. --TantalumTelluride 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian Heritage

If somebody types in "Christian Heritage School" or "CHS" into the search bar, how would I get it to re-direct them to my "Christian Heritage" page?--WatchHawk 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved your article to Christian Heritage School (Texas), since there are apparently several schools with that name. I'm not sure how the school is particularly notable, but there appear to be existing articles for numerous similar schools. The relevant disambiguations and redirects are all in place, I think. I'm not sure the Abe Levy article is reasonable, though; articles shouldn't be started for every journalist who's gotten a byline. I deleted the links in his article to everyday stories he's written, as that seems too close to promotion. I'd probably favor deleting the article unless you can include some material showing that he's decidedly more noteworthy than most reporters. MisfitToys 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sports Wiki

I noticed you were active on many sports pages. My friends and are I starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles. The site is ArmchairGM. We're not "officially" launching until March 6th, but you can feel free to poke around and add content. Let me know if you have any questions.--Awrigh01 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Date formats

Hi, MisfitToys. I appreciate your edits to Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., but I have a question. Why did you change the date formats around from, say, [[4 June]] to [[June 4]]? Since the dates are wikified, this is something that will be handled by each individual user's preferences, so I was just curious why you changed everything. (It's not my intention to gripe, mind you. Just wanted to know if there was something I was missing.) — BrianSmithson 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly standard to use MM DD format for U.S.-centric articles, and DD MM for articles on European/Asian subjects, etc. The formatting gets adjusted based on user preferences, but for casual visitors to the site (those with no preferences set) it's better to have the dates appear in the formatting appropriate to the subject. MisfitToys 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. But it's also very common in academia (even in the US) to use DD MM, hence my preference for it. Like I said, no biggie. — BrianSmithson 22:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

WhiteSoxInteractive edit war

Just wondering if you might have any suggestions? There was a long-time link on the Chicago White Sox page to an online fan community. It's actually the largest Internet community for White Sox fans, with significant amounts of information, articles, and generally seems exactly the sort of thing that external links should point to. It seems that a user from that community that was banned keeps deleting the external link, citing that it's not a good site on the talk page. Seems like vandalism to me, maybe some sock puppetry thrown in for good measure. What is a good course of action in this situation? Mr. Zarniwoop 04:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was in an edit war last month with an anon user, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask for ideas on how to resolve it - particularly if there appears to be consensus that the link is appropriate (which it appears to be). The site traffic is one factor, along with the range of material included; bias on the site shouldn't be a factor, or links to blogs would be essentially out of the question. Given the nature of the article (a sports team), I'd probably advise againsts links to sites with adult content, but that isn't the issue here. I really don't have any ideas on how to deal with the specific user (apart from vigilance); what rankled me in particular about his (or her) conduct was the inclination to delete vandalism notices. MisfitToys 21:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Find-A-Grave edits

Hi, and thanks for finding a couple of right people to link from the Find-A-Grave/T list! Just out of curiosity.... how did you find the page? It seems a rather obscure corner of Wikipedia; I just stumbled across it through some loose-page linking, and adopted this letter! --Alvestrand 07:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've run across those pages in the past, while looking at what links to some page or another. Occasionally I match the links up, but I don't always look for them. MisfitToys 23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 37% for major edits and 7% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mathbot (though I am Notabot) after your unexplained changes to Kirby Puckett's age. Summaries make it easier to figure out who introduced errors. Thanks! Jokestress 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It took a (little) bit of detective work to figure out why you removed a category from Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee yesterday. Benn Newman 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; sometimes if I'm deleting duplicate cats from several articles in a row, I include the summary only once or twice. MisfitToys 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for cleaning up the article on the Diocese of Dallas! Sarum blue 20:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the silktassel photo move

im glad to see theres someone else on wikipedia with a sense of style and layout for articles...this is the way i had the original layout until someone changed it :) cheers Anlace 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

wiki dates

Just to let you know, that you can set in your preferences, how dates look for you. No need of editing them in an article to suit either American or British style if they are formatted right internally. Agathoclea 20:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but some casual users don't have set preferences (not everyone is a Wikipedia editor); see my response above under Date Formats. MisfitToys 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Baseball Wikiproject

Hey, I notice that you have done a ton of work on baseball-related articles. You know about the Baseball WikiProject, I presume?--Deville (Talk) 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and though I'm sure much of my work coincides with what's going on there, I haven't really gotten involved with it, primarily just a matter of allocating my time. MisfitToys 20:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert of 78th Academy Awards

One theory regarding hometown bias has been sourced to a particular article while your "theory" is of your own. While I don't think that hometown bias did play a part in the Best Picture Oscar, a reference to a newspaper article stating so or any sort of factual evidence is needed to put forward the other side. At the moment, what you have edited in looks like conjecture and nothing more, not a factual theory. Please respond to this on my talk page or the 78th Academy Awards talk page so we can reach a compromise -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 03:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not presenting a personal theory or an argument; I'm simply including the factual evidence which you agree is needed. (If by factual evidence you mean actual evidence of how people voted, or the actual motives of individual voters, I don't believe that's in any way possible due to it being a secret ballot.) I'm not suggesting there is or isn't a bias, but the fact that no film set in Los Angeles had won Best Picture until last year is a piece of factual evidence which tends to disprove the idea that Academy members prefer films set there, and should be included. If you don't include the factual material, you must exclude the quote. As for your suggestion that the entire section doesn't belong in the article, I would think that if it hadn't been titles "news" (a poor choice, I agree) there wouldn't be an issue. MisfitToys 18:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Da Ark

Misfit, thanks for taking the time to go through the article and fix the links. Many of them existed a while back, but the madness of the last 24 hours messed up an awful lot of them. Again, thanks. •Jim62sch• 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. MisfitToys 22:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Years in baseball

I've been adding the standings for the baseball years. IMHO, we need a better way to "get into" the articles. They are practically impossible to find. Also, how about a "next year--previous year" button on the page? User_Talk:Ratwod

Since links to all the years already appear on each page, I think a "next-previous" addition would be repetitive. I've been thinking about how to get more links to them (especially since most of the early years are rarely linked except from the template), but for now I'm just focused on getting the last half-dozen started. Afterwards, going through other articles and adding the appropriate links is one ideal project. MisfitToys 20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work on 1936 HOF election citations.

I don't know what you mean here by the "last few years" but it may help to know that I added baseball notes to many years in sports for pre-1850s, 1860s, 1870s. I shortened or criticized the length of the two longest that were already there. --P64 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I eas talking about the last few articles in the "Year in baseball" template. Thanks for adding the material to the earlier pages; obviously, they're a bit skimpy, so I wouldn't wortry too much about the length for now. MisfitToys 01:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

O'Malley

Hey, sorry about the reserve copy of the biography. I didn't realize that the categories would show up. Thanks for making them not show. Someone orphaned every image I uploaded, so I was trying to preserve a copy at my namespace. A lot of work goes into hunting down and scanning the images, and all it takes is one person to delete it. Images aren't backed up, so deletion is forever. I am related to Walter through marriage.

No problem; simple maintenance thing, and easy to undo if you switch versions of the O'Malley article. MisfitToys 22:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Nice work fixing up the recent edits and wikifying the New England Patriots article. — Deckiller 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Washington Senators

I understand what you mean about moving the page. It would be good to have the edit history intact. Unfortunately, it won't let me move it to the new page since it already exists.

As far as what you said about the Senators page needing to be a disambiguation page. I understand your side of the argument, but I tend to side with the other side. It's an argument that probably resembles the Nats/Expos discussion that you spoke of. I think that the team should reflect the fans in the respective city, not the entity that signs the paychecks.

I created pages that Washington Baseball fans can be proud of. As a Washington Baseball fan, I am not interested in learning about Minnesota Baseball or Texas Baseball. The Montreal baseball fans have their own page, so should the Senators. I was about to add photos and such to some Senators player pages, but now I am throwing my hands up in frustration. I will revert the Senators page back to the way it was before I started editing it, and I will add your changes to the "19th century baseball in Washington" section.

I guess I will stick with the history books. I just ordered a new book on the Washington Senators history. I just hope it doesn't say "Please see Minnesota Twins history" inside the front cover  :-)

Each team is a business/organization, and as such, relocation and renaming shouldn't cause a new article to be created. I understand your srgument as well, but the articles aren't about "Minnesota baseball" or Texas baseball", but about the histories of specific franchises. But by all means, add the photos. MisfitToys 23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kansas City Chiefs (baseball)

Hi there. I'm trying to figure out what I was thinking months ago when I created Category:Kansas City Chiefs (baseball) players. The log suggests that you blanked it, which means there must have been something in there, yes? But since I can't find any mention of a KC Chiefs baseball team, what was it? Any insight you can provide into my mindset at the time would be appreciated. :^) --Mike Selinker 00:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that I moved Charley Jones from that category to Category:Kansas City Cowboys players. No problem; some of the cats for 19th-century teams are a bit of a mess, especially for different teams, some of which changed their nicknames, from the same cities. MisfitToys 00:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

2006

With every respect, I've restored Steve Howe to the 2006 deaths. One did not have to be a Dodgers or Yankees fan to have heard of Howe; his battles with alcohol and drugs, his bans from—and reinstatements to—Major League Baseball were well-documented and nearly legend. I believe he should be there. Feel free to discuss. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The deaths section on the main year page is getting to be hugely overcrowded; the main page should really include only the 100 or so most notable for the whole year (there are plenty of other places to list the rest), and Howe will certainly not be among even the 250 most significant figures to die this year (I doubt he'll even be among the top half dozen or so baseball figures). At some point in the future, I plan to get around to revising the pages so that only the top 20 or so sports figures are included each year, with about 50 listed on the page for the year in sports. Howe's death will still be listed under 2006 in baseball and Deaths in April 2006, and in the sidebar for April 2006 in sports, as well as the category for the year's deaths; those should be sufficient. MisfitToys 20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We may disagree on "top half dozen or so baseball figures" but, okay. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a somewhat kind year so far in that respect, but Puckett, Gowdy and Dedeaux are all probably ahead of Howe. (As for Dedeaux, his impact was certainly greater than Howe's; the commissioner issued a formal statement on his death, and there were big stories in the overseas press as well.) Heck, I think I'd even put Paul Lindblad at least even with Howe. MisfitToys 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of that list, Puckett was the only one who occurred to me offhand—I'll give you Rod Dedeaux but, outside of Boston, Curt Gowdy was at least as well known for football as baseball. As for Lindblad, I'd rank Howe higher for gaining a wider notability (read: infamy). My current ranking [Puckett, Dedeaux, Gowdy and Howe] sounds like an accounting firm... :) RadioKirk talk to me 23:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

World Series teams

There is a category page that has been requested to be populated. I saw the request and have been taking time to fill out some of the earlier World Series champions. [3] Darwin's Bulldog 02:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A little template help

I'm trying to do a "years in basketball" similar to the "years in baseball". I'm having trouble getting the template to work. Do you know who wrote the template? Ray 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The template was created by CrazyTalk, who apparently left Wikipedia last November. But I think I've fixed the problem on the pages you've started so far (note the revisions I've made at the top of each page in the template line); make sure you include the year. I've also gotten the appropriate categories entered in the right places. One thing you'll have to figure out is how to coordinate these pages with the ones under National Basketball Association seasons; you need to figure out what kind of material goes on each page. Some overlap is going to be inevitable (and indeed useful), but you don't want them to be completely redundant. MisfitToys 23:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

TFA

Hi, I reverted to a prior version, you had missed some vandalism in the lede (compare versions, you'll see). We'll have lost your last two copyedits, sorry. Kaisershatner 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Election Templates

Good call on the category change. What is your opinion on the templates themselves? Do you think they are useful? I'm wondering if there is an Elections project. Chadlupkes 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda; the templates are fine, though it takes some creativity to keep the template itself out of the category - sometimes you need a template within a template, or something similar. Often you can format the category within the template in such a way that only adding a tag within the template on the article page triggers it: For example, the template might include [[Category:{{{state}}} elections]], and the article would include the tage {{Template title|state=Arizona}}. That way, the same template can be used for multiple states; one problem there, of course, is that different states have different offices. But the people involved with the project would likely have some ideas toward resolving that issue. MisfitToys 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany vs. Nazi Germany

I didn't mean to undo this change. So many things had been messed with that I went back to an old version of the intro, but apparently it was wrong in that regard. Anyway, I'll make sure that I revert to your version from now on. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Expos/Nationals edits

Hi, I made several corrections to baseball articles to make sure that clicking on an Expos-related link brings you to the Expos page and clicking on a Nationals-related link brings you to the Nationals page. (My comments for these edits were usually "fix bad links"). But you reverted all of these edits... None of these edits were vandalism, they were just corrections intended to fix a mess that was created a while ago. 128.230.13.64 18:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Officially, the historical records of the Expos belong to the Nationals franchise. I'll concede that I'm not in favor of separate articles, but I think the appropriate handling in the current situation is to have all the links regarding actual on-field performance link to the article for the Washington Nationals; links regarding the Expos as a cultural entity (such as articles on sports in Canada) would link to the Montreal Expos article. MisfitToys 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that the historical records of the Expos belong to the Nationals franchise (they are the same franchise, after all). I think your idea makes sense and I'll try to go through all of the links to sort them out when I have time. 128.230.13.64 14:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Matt Hollowell

Hey. Thanks for the pointer. That's quite a mess they've got going there.... Actually, I gotta tell you. After my {{prod}} was removed with the comment "Hey, if players with minimal tenure stay, why not umpires," I figured that was fair enough, and I didn't really care to fight it. But by getting back into the discussion late in the game, and building off of your ideas, I was able to see it much more clearly. Thanks again! -Seidenstud 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fa Lun Hai

And if you want a good laugh, check out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fa_Lun_Hai_(Farenheit) and see the "organic expansion" possibilities of the article in question. As you know, sometimes these inclusionists can be a bit over-zealous. -Seidenstud 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

College Football Project

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you! --Mecu 01:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've got my hands pretty full as it is. But I have at least tagged a couple of articles for your project so that you're aware of them. MisfitToys 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Year in baseball

As you know, someone (not me!) moved the major baseball stuff to a separate article. I thought it was poor taste for him to do that without asking. But, apart from the bad manners, what do you think of the idea? As to 2000 and forward, it isn't a bad idea. But pre-2000, the article in "Year in baseball" would be almost empty. Never been to spain 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed this at Talk:Major League Baseball Season 2006. I think it's a lousy idea, since most users are going to be looking for major league material at the year in baseball articles, and separating it between two pages would just be a mess in deciding what goes where. I mentioned some of the pitfalls in the discussion above regarding years in basketball, though in that situation the season is spread over two years, so the separate pages make some sense; also, basketball overseas has different seasons, and college basketball is much bigger than college baseball, so there are more fronts to deal with. When you're dealing with just one year, there's no point in separating it. I realize there's an issue of article size (particularly with 2005 in baseball, but trimming the highlights and maybe shifting some of the graphs/charts to templates would resolve that nicely. MisfitToys 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

How do you put an article up for deletion? Thanks, User:Clay4president 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See the 3-step process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. MisfitToys 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Baseball managers

I saw your partial revert. OK, fair enough, except where are you getting this 500 career victories thing? I have no problem with keeping out guys like Ted Turner who only managed a couple games, but I think 500 wins is way too lofty. Only about 100 MLB managers have pulled that off, in over 100 years of MLB history. Lloyd McClendon, Johnny Keane, Kevin Kennedy, and Jim Riggleman are guys for whom I immediately think, "manager", but they didn't make it to 500. If you're worried about them cluttering up the category, then the rule -- which is supposed to be the rule for all Wikipedia categories -- that sub cat membership precludes main cat membership should solve the problem.

So have I persuaded you, or is there something I'm not considering? --M@rēino 02:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As you note, the general policy regarding categories is that articles shouldn't be in both a parent category and a subcategory, which would mean that (in theory) the category for baseball managers should be empty, with major league managers being listed only in the team-by-team subcats. In this case, the parent cat and subcats are really two categories apart rather than just one, so the duplication isn't quite the policy issue that it could be. Besides, in practice I think it's sometimes acceptable to have some articles in the parent category as well as a lower subcat, as long as there are reasonable guidelines – the reasoning being that some users might want a handy grouping of the most prominent major league managers (which isn't necessarily the same thing as the ones with the most wins) as a starting point. The present guidelines allow for about 175-180 managers (there are about 10 missing, I believe; I've added Riggleman, whose article is somewhat new), and I think that's a reasonable number. We could lower the required number of wins; but that would take the category to a second page, and then we're just gradually sliding toward including everyone again. I suppose the category could also be emptied, but the same purpose would only be accomplished by separate articles/lists (managers by wins, managers by playoff appearances, current managers – and users would have to do a lot of their own cross-checking between the articles). Keane, Riggleman and Kennedy all managed playoff teams, so they qualify anyway; McClendon, on the other hand, never had a winning season (and it's true that hardly anyone would think of him primarily as a player), but if he manages two or three years someplace else he'll probably get to 500. Otherwise, it's hard to imagine him being considered more prominent than Jim Marshall, Preston Gómez or Frank Lucchesi. It's really difficult to think of a particularly notable manager who doesn't qualify. MisfitToys 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. What the entire Wiki server really needs is a new search engine that allows for more complex categorization. Until that happens, I can't really say that there's anything wrong with the system you've described. --M@rēino 02:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here ya go

User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party, User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party, User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Libertarian Party. I have closed the associated AFD. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. MisfitToys 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminship?

I always see you around making tons of tons of good edits and do major work with baseball articles so I wonder if I can nominate you for adminship. Please reply in my talk page. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I created you RFA nom Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MisfitToys. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A few people placed questions in your RFA. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan Quisenberry Revert

You reverted the Dan Quisenberry page to Daniel.

It is really hard to find evidence, when for years people have assumed that Dan must be short for Daniel. This fallacy was propagated by one of his early Baseball Cards, and there was no saving the truth from there.

Short from scanning in his birth certificate (which I don't have, of course) the next best thing might be his grave marker [4], which would very probably state Daniel as his given name (it states his name as Dan).

Chad Metcalf, 70.246.229.153 06:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, every reference source I can find gives his name as Daniel, including: Baseball: The Biographical Encyclopedia, The Biographical Dictionary of American Sports, The Baseball Encyclopedia, Total Baseball, The ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia, The Sporting News' annual Guides (1980-90) and Record Books, and the annual American League Red Book (1980-88) and National League Green Book (1989-90). Do you know of a published source indicating that it was actually Dan? Gravestones aren't necessarily definitive; some people choose to engrave nicknames rather than full names (and I won't even get into the issue of incorrect birthdates). I suspect it's also possible that his wife's given name isn't actually Janie (as engraved), either. In the absence of actual evidence that everyone's been making a mistake for 25 years (such as happened with Kirby Puckett's year of birth), I think it's safe to give the name as Daniel. MisfitToys 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is too bad that so many sources are incorrect. That makes believing me even harder. I looked into Birth Certificates, and I don’t want to buy one. The best that I could come up with was a page that would list the birth name, DOB, and County of Birth.

http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/calbirths?c=search&first=Dan&last=Quisenberry&spelling=Exact&4_year=1953&4_month=0&4_day=0&5=&7=&SubmitSearch.x=0&SubmitSearch.y=0&SubmitSearch=Submit

This is Dan Quisenberry. It is not the official document, but it is an unbiased database of births in California. The birthday and the birth-county both match.

This is a case of everybody assuming that somebody could not be named just Dan.

70.246.229.153 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's also possible that even if his birth name was Dan, it was changed later to Daniel (either by his parents or by himself). A death certificate would also be useful in this regard, obviously. (And even a birth certificate is not the absolute final word; I have a relative whose name was spelled wrong - missing a letter - on their birth certificate. They are sometimes filled out by medical personnel who don't know the right spelling.) I've also just checked the Royals media guides from 1980-88; they all say Daniel as well. MisfitToys 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

baseball people

That's a lot of people pages. What does the bold title mean?

Re [Chicago White Sox people], the rookie of the year award originated in Chicago (1940-1946) and it was named the J. Louis Comiskey Award until 1987. --P64 02:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've simply bolded the articles where I've contributed more. MisfitToys 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Hines with references

Misfit, Please revisit Paul Hines. You have written many ballplayer articles and revised many others; if you tweak the format of the longish citations I might follow that elsewhere. But citation format is not all that will interest you, or at least catch your eye.

Feel free to send direct email if you know me. (The scope and timestamp on the previous Paul Hines discussion is not a little surprising.) --P64 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got the article on my watchlist because I began it, so the fact that I noticed the talk page note so quickly isn't unusual. (If I know you, I'm unaware of it.) I've added some material and tweaked a few other things, all noted on the article talk page. The citations aren't long by any means. You might want to look over Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes (though I haven't used the latter very often - yet), and figure out what format you prefer or believe ideal. MisfitToys 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're now an admin. Use the new tools wisely--I recommend being conservative with them, especially at first, and re-reading the relevant policies as necessary. But dig in as soon as you can and help out with the backlogs. Copyvios tend to have a long one. Have fun making this a better place and keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 22:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much; you can be quite sure I'll be cautious about the tools. MisfitToys 23:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Strong Congrats per above. — Deckiller 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Redirect Though I didn't support, I wish to welcome you to the shiny button club. I hope you stay an excellent editor and grow into a great admin. Yanksox 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move request

I would have gone to the page moves list but that page is suffering from considerable backlog so I thought I'd hunt out an admin instead and ask them personally. Could I borrow your admin powers for a moment and request that you move "Caesar IV (computer game)" to "Caesar IV" (unnecessary disambig). The edit history for the latter contains only the creation of a redirect and the categorisation of the redirect. Cheers.  -- Run!  13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, in keeping with Caesar II and Caesar III. MisfitToys 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

JAO Preuses

Why did you move all the JAO Preuses to J. A. O. rather than keeping them Jacob Aall Ottesen? Just wondering. Uac1530 08:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article title should reflect how the person was commonly known, and all three have been primarily known by their initials. Note that the Minnesota Historical Society site identifies the eldest primarily by his initials while also noting the full name. (And here's a link for J. A. O. II.) I'll note that perhaps the youngest should be entered as Jacob A. O. (or maybe even Jack) [5] [6]. MisfitToys 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When I added II and III, I just followed the format that someone had already used for I. Thanks for the explanation. Uac1530 02:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Pat Powers (baseball)

Thanks for your message...after doing a little reading, I think you're right. I guess I should transfer the information from my article to Patrick T. Powers. Do you think I should redirect my article? Let me know what you think. BurmaShaver 23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Patrick Powers already redirects to Patrick T. Powers, and I've added a cross-reference under Pat Powers. (I seem to remember a page for a poker player with a form of the name, but I can't find one now.) Certainly once you merge the material, you'll revise your article to a redirect, though revising the connecting links should solve most problems. MisfitToys 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Maryland elections, 2006

Daniel Vovak is being listed under "D" rather than "V", and his name should be listed as he filed for the ballot, as Daniel "The Wig Man" Vovak, as he is more widely known as "The Wig Man". 69.173.98.243 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless Maryland elections officials are listing him on the ballot under "D" (or placing him under "D" in whatever random ballot arranging they do), he should be listed under "V". You could make the argument for listing him under "W", but "D" seems really off-base. MisfitToys 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Gremlins

Hello, while I may seem difficult, it's strongly encouraged for articles of this nature to be free of "cruft". Plot sections shouldn't include every detail; in fact there were a couple complaints this one was already too long, especially when Snow White is already mentioned below. Additionally, just because American Werewolf is a horror-comedy doesn't mean it's appropriate here, when the section is based on a single journal article related to Gremlins but not the other movie. Also, what sources do you have connecting Gremlins to Child's Play? Please remember WP:NOR. Thank you, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a separate link for American Werewolf, which was the first film of the type to be widely successful in this period and strongly deserves mention here. As for Child's Play, the NOR policy doesn't prohibit making factual observations about plot similarities; please remember that the films themselves count as primary sources. I didn't imply that Child's Play was made because of Gremlins, but only noted the success of a similar later series, in contrast to the others mentioned which were relatively unsuccessful. Also note that it's advisable to repeat a link later in an article for a technical term that was mentioned much higher up (e.g. MPAA film rating system). MisfitToys 01:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you're inserting information in the middle of information cited to one source, and you're not connecting it to the actual subject matter. I can see you're enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia, but please remember it's an encyclopedia. You apparently like Child's Play and American Werewolf movies; but, is this article about Child's Play or American Werewolf? If you're allowed to draw your own conclusions what other theories will appear in the article- mixed with those theories belonging to published academics? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've not particularly a fan of either series, though the first of each was good. And how am I not connecting this to the subject matter? When an article discusses a genre trend, as this one does, it's crucial to discuss the influential works of the period, or the reader has no context of what was going on in the medium at the time. The sentence I amended regarding Werewolf specifically mentions other prominent genre titles of the early to mid-1980s ("Gremlins was produced during a time when combining horror with comedy became increasingly popular. The film Ghostbusters, released in the same year as Gremlins – and later Beetlejuice (1988) and other such films – were part of this growing trend"), so it's incomprehensible to me how adding the earliest major title in that era could be construed as being "unconnected to the subject matter"; it's completely in keeping with the rest of the sentence. If one looks at the list of comedy horror films (linked from Gremlins under "see also"), might not a reader want to know which was the first widely successful title in the 1980s trend? (Werewolf was among the 15 biggest hits of 1984, far more successful than any of the other titles between 1975 and 1983.)

Also, the paragraph in which I mentioned Child's Play discusses various titles of the late 1980s, none of which were directly connected to Gremlins either. The material I added isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, introducing a theory; it's a basic presentation of facts, with no argument or theory presented. I didn't suggest that Child's Play was made because of the success of Gremlins, or that its own success was indicative of anything; I simply noted that it was a film with a similar style and plot that was more successful than other titles also similar to Gremlins; that's source-based research, not original research. You seem to believe that mentioning any other films is pointless and inappropriate. We're not here to simply regurgitate other people's writings. MisfitToys 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you new? Wikipedia uses sources. We can't change what a source says. So when we have a source that mentions Gremlins and compares it to other works, that's what we describe. We don't add movies that we particularly like just because we see a similarity; we may describe a plot, but comparisons of plots will be our individual analysis. The material where you mentioned Child's Play is connected to Gremlins, in that the sources speculated, or said, that they were inspired by Gremlins. We didn't make this stuff up. I hope this clears things up for you. See also Template:Welcome for further tips on editing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not new; I've been a contributor since early 2004, and was elected as an admin last month after declining a few times in the past. Again, films are specifically identified as being primary sources in and of themselves (please review WP:NOR), and factual information can be used from them without citing secondary sources. Comparison of plots is not only allowed, but thoroughly reasonable. Specifically: "However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources ... Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia". I believe my connection of Werewolf with Gremlins qualifies as just such an uncontentious descriptive claim. Werewolf IS a comedy-horror film (this is simply not a personal theory of mine), and it WAS the first such film during the period to meet with wide success. MisfitToys 21:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be a comedy-horror, but discussion of it would probably be more appropriate in an article about, say, comedy-horror. As far as brief context goes, this one already does provide an idea of what was going on at the time. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't really see what the big deal is; we're talking about an essentially uncontroversial half-sentence (not really a "discussion") in an article that's only 33K in size (far shorter than most featured articles), so fleshing it out with contextual details should be encouraged. If the article was 60-70K in size, I might feel differently. MisfitToys 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Theology of Martin Luther

I've created a new article to serve as a main article for the Martin Luther page. To get it started, I've pretty unceremonially dumped a lot of text there. If you have a moment, would your drop by and tweak, overhaul or rearrange a bit? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nick & Nicholas Young

Have you seen "Nicholas Young" for the baseball executive? It seems to me that he and the current "broadcaster" should share "Nick Young". --P64 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a cross-reference on Nick Young's page; as for Nicholas Young, I suppose I have seen the article - since I started it. MisfitToys 18:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Austin Leslie

Thanks for the quick and thorough copyedit on my Austin Leslie piece. You have a great eye for that level of detail. I wish I did. Your changes should help me get more in line with wikistyle on future articles. Again, many thanks. Jdclevenger 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my pleasure; I hope you contribute more, as it's a good article. Sorry about the delay in replying. MisfitToys 23:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Format of multilingual link list

Referring to your edit in Isometric projection, Wikipedia has yet to provide a standard on how to sort multilingual links. A poll to determine the best approach(es) produced two roughly tied choices: By "the two-letter language abbreviation or the name of each language in that language." However, as Wikipedia:Interlanguage links#Sorting highlighted, the latter arrangement is frequently chosen over the former. Hope you can understand the basis of my previous edit. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

No problem; I happen to think alphabetizing the codes is better, as many languages (Japanese, Korean, etc.) don't use the same characters, and we'd end up placing those codes alphabetically anyway. MisfitToys 21:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party

Thank you for helping to maintain the traditional name of this party at James Madison. The revisionists, however, have some argument on their side: Jefferson and Madison did call it the "republican party", meaning that part which wanted to keep the United States a republic, in opposition to the aristocratic or monarchist tendencies of the Federalists. I am therefore attempting a compromise with "republican party"; but let's see what happens. Septentrionalis 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

MLB Seasons

Lol I didn't see your reply on my talk until now, thought it was a image tagging bot. Anyways, I know theres a huge discussion about this already but if theres articles like 2005 NFL season why can't there be 2005 MLB season, I know theres those "in baseball" articles but those are suppose to be in general not just MLB, even though its mostly about the MLB--Coasttocoast 23:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the main issues are: 1) other seasons (NFL, NBA, NHL) occur over more than one calendar year, so a separate page for the season is justifiable; and 2) other sports have more prominent collegiate competition (football, basketball) or multiple international leagues (soccer), so there's a lot more areas to cover. MLB accounts for (by far) the most coverage and interest among the various areas of baseball, and while college baseball, the minor leagues and international competition (including Japan) are covered under the year in baseball, MLB will certainly still account for the vast majority of what's there - making the duplication both unnecessary and potentially confusing (contributors adding things to one page but not the other, or trying to decide which is more appropriate). MisfitToys 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Holy Cross Lutheran Church

Hey, just a quick question, is there a particular reason why Holy Cross Lutheran Church was moved to Holy Cross Lutheran Church (Atwater, California)? I didn't see any other articles for Holy Cross Lutheran Church, so I was wondering why disambiguation was necessary. Is it due to some necessary naming convention for churches or is there another reason? Just want to know for future creation of articles. Thanks in advance. Nehrams2020 03:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The move is due to the name being very common for churches; it's certainly not the only church with that name, and there are probably at least several that are more notable. Just in the same LCMS district, there are churches with the same name in Concord (250 members), Los Gatos (1200 members) and Rocklin (375 members), and in the PSW District there are others in Cypress (300 members), La Puente (70 members) and San Diego (140 members). In addition, there are three ELCA churches in California with the name, one of which has 700 members - and there's many more in other states. There are Holy Cross Lutheran Churches that have about 2000 members each in Indiana, Colorado and Kansas; just because they don't have articles yet doesn't mean we shouldn't expect them to in the future. Creating a disambiguation page (or moving the article, as in this case) doesn't always require that there be two existing articles with the same name; we also try to anticipate whether there might be other articles in the future with that name. MisfitToys 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And now that I've looked at the LCMS churches in the area, I think I can say that there are probably others among them which should have had articles first; there are seven churches in Holy Cross' circuit which are both older and larger, including Saint Paul in Tracy, which is over twice as old and four times as large (St. Peter in Lodi is about the same). I wouldn't argue that the existing article for Holy Cross should be deleted, but given the current skepticism among editors about church articles, the most prominent churches are probably higher priorities. MisfitToys 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely that the titles of church articles normally benefit from disambiguating them by their location. I have related queries, though! First, I notice you've changed the 'disambiguation' part of the article titles for some churches (for example, at St. John's Lutheran Church (Conover, North Carolina)) by putting their location in brackets, whereas other editors have usually been disambiguting churches by commas (that is, by using Holy Trinity Church, Town, State rather than Holy Trinity Church (Town, State). See examples of both styles at St. John's Church and at St. Mary's Church. I always thought that where the disambiguation required is geographical, commas should be used - as at Richmond. This would also better match the style of articles such as Pacific Southwest District (LCMS). I prefer commas and it does seem to be the majority usage, but have I misunderstood this? Is it a US-only thing, because the 'bracketted' article titles seem to appear only in some US-located churches? Thanks.

Second, redlinks should usually not be the only link in a given entry on disambiguation pages - see MoS - your entries at St. John's Church refer. Thanks! Carbonix 17:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, a specific church isn't really a geographic location but rather an organized entity; many churches relocate their sanctuary/facilities a number of times, but new articles need not be created. The article isn't always specifically about the building (though that can be a focus for various landmark churches) but about the organized entity. Also, there's a lot of precedence for using parenthese in cases of buildings and institutions such as restaurants (The River Café (London), Burger King (Mattoon, Illinois)), theaters (Greek Theatre (Los Angeles), Shubert Theatre (New Haven), Fox Theatre (Atlanta)), casinos (Trump Plaza (Atlantic City)), hotels (Knickerbocker Hotel (Los Angeles), Drake Hotel (Chicago), Grand Hotel (Brighton)), hospitals (St. Vincent's Hospital (Manhattan), Norfolk General Hospital (Ontario, Canada)), and skyscrapers (Grace Building (New York), Hearst Tower (New York City), Chase Tower (Chicago), Aon Center (Los Angeles), etc.

As for the redlinks, I realize the problem; I suppose the city could be linked for each, although it would be slightly redundant. MisfitToys 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good find

Just wanted to repeat here that I thought your find of the former Ft. Moore cemetery was top notch ... uh... "Wiki-Detective" work (I guess that's a decent description of what many of us do). --Bobak 15:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've helped out on research for The Political Graveyard website for a few years, so I've been aware of it for a while; it's often identified by other names (as here), as the other article I linked mentioned. Just trying to help point out something that would make the article more complete, and I'm glad to help. MisfitToys 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Question on Don Clark update

We seem to keep bumping into each other today :-) (mostly because a few of the articles you've been working on are on my watchlist) Here's my question: I noticed the reference that Don Clark ended up at Prudential Overall Supply. When out of curiosity I checked the website, I noticed the photo of their founder "John D. Clark" and it made me wonder if there was any relation between the two (incidentally, John D. Clark is a very common name, there's an article on a different John D. Clark already on Wikipedia). Any ideas? --Bobak 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

None at all; I'm looking at his LA Times obit, and there's no mention of family or why he took that particular job. MisfitToys 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Update - just added some more info from another article following his death; John D. Clark was his brother. MisfitToys 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Great work, thanks for the update. --Bobak 22:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:209.7.171.19 indefinite block request

Could you please put an indefinite block request on User:209.7.171.19? He was warned of his attempts to savage the Charles S. Lawrence article and I am not happy about this. The article has been decminated from the eight section when you did it originally to four as it is right now? I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the article and posted a warning; we'll see what happens. MisfitToys 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things for you.

Just wanted to thank you for your help on the Charles S. Lawrence article. It earned a DYK on November 1, 2006 right before it was vandalized. This leads me to my second thing I wanted to get you: The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar - For your revert on the new DYK of the Charles S. Lawrence article on November 1, 2006. I am forever in you debt. Chris 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It's definitely appreciated (barnstar moved to my user page). MisfitToys 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on User:Happybooker99

FYI. Keep an eye on User:Happybooker99. He was another one who was involved in vandalism on the Charles S. Lawrence article. I issued him a test4a vandalism warning to him by informing him that if he did it again that I would make certain he would be indefinitely blocked. Thank you. Chris 22:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you made a mistake on that one, though; Happybooker99 deleted two of the vandal's additions to the text, but failed to realize that material had also been deleted by the vandal. Given that this is a new account (these were their only two edits), it's unsurprising that they didn't understand the nature of the vandalism they were trying to correct. I think you should go back and remove the test warning, with a note of explanation; this falls under the heading of Please do not bite the newcomers, particularly the advice to "Remember that newcomers often don't realise that edit histories are saved." MisfitToys 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted per request. Chris 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jake Daubert Article

I feel that the changes made to this article are appropriate and within reason. I see that you were the originator of much of the content. I would suspect you are familiar with WP:OWN so i am trying to figure out the basis for your comments. More specifically, Moran's death does not really have anything to do with Daubert. If you would like to discuss this further, i would be happy to do so on the Daubert talk page. Regards // Tecmobowl 05:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your changes essentially amount to deletion, rather than addition, of material along with some minor (and IMO, unnecessary) rearranging. I don't believe you've explained your reasons for the deletions in any satisfactory way. The fact that Daubert hoped to become his team's manager when the position became vacant upon Moran's death (but was disappointed when he didn't) is certainly notable (see his NYT obit), and obviously relates to Daubert specifically. (I would think that any biographical article would mention a notable supervisor's death if the subject of the article hoped to be their successor, particularly if the death greatly affected the organization's performance.) You've been deleting statistical information and rankings as well; this is completely bewildering to me - it's verifiable factual information (for anyone with several hours to spare), and his rankings at the time of his retirement are not readily available elsewhere, so it's certainly useful to include them here - his NL record total for sacrifice hits is of obvious significance. A few other points: 1) You've changed the team name from Brooklyn Superbas/Dodgers/Robins to simply Brooklyn Dodgers - this is factually inaccurate, as the team was known by three different nicknames during his time with them; 2) You've deleted the phrase "One of the premier players at his position throughout his career" - you seem to think that this sentence is problematic, but numerous facts to support the statement (including the stats/rankings you keep removing) are included in the article, and it's not necessary to quote another source (such as this, already included as a link) which makes the same statement. It's thoroughly permissible to state, for example, that Hank Aaron was a major baseball star, even without directly quoting a source which describes him as such - all that's necessary is to include factual information (awards, stats, league rankings, etc.) which someone familiar with the sport would accept as supporting evidence; 3) You've deleted his league-leading batting averages from the intro, with no explanation, and also the statistical notes on his rookie season (among NL leaders in triples and HRs); you also deleted (WHY???) the note that he finished second to Hal Chase in the 1916 batting race and the noteworthy info that it was Brooklyn's first NL pennant year; 4) The items for which you requested citations, including that he worked in the coal mines at age 11 and his 21-putout game in 1910, are from the reference source I've already cited; 5) Splitting the article up into subheadings is unnecessary given the current length, especially as two of the subsections are only about two lines each; 6) It's generally inappropriate in Wikipedia to refer to the subject of an article by their first name (except with royalty, for example); 7) Your change to the sentence regarding Gil Hodges is grammatically incorrect; 8) External links are routinely listed before references. As for WP:OWN, I believe that tends to be directed toward editors who try to keep information out of articles - arguing for the retention of useful info and data hardly qualifies as the kind of territorial attitude you're implying. I would have no problem with your adding useful information, as Daubert is certainly worthy of an article considerably longer than this, but I have definite problems with your deleting valuable material from the article. MisfitToys 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Governor List

Hi, that's why I added 'elect' by new office holders. I believe the 'Governors Elect' are more important then the 'Governors outgoing'. Could we at least save my version for when all the swearings in have happened? Rednaxela 23:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The list should really stay with the current names until the transitions; believe me, I'm saving you some grief on this point. (If you were to revise Dennis Hastert's bio to say he was Speaker of the House, for instance, you'd see an immediate outcry.) Two years ago, the governor changes were made over the course of a couple of months. I'd have suggested doing a new version in a user workspace (e.g. User:Rednaxela/List of current United States Governors), but the changes aren't all at once as they are in Congress - Alaska's inaugural is in December, and the rest are spread out through January. MisfitToys 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple things I need an opinion on

I need an opinion for Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg. Me among a couple others think it's a ligitimate photo and some others don't. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 9.

Since you're an admin, I need your opinion on User:Panarjedde. I can't assume good faith anymore with him. I think 99 out of 100 edits are bad faith. Can you follow him around and give me an opinion on him? Kingjeff 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not having much personal expertise on the subjects he's been editing lately (Roman emperors/usurpers, international soccer, etc.), it nonetheless looks to me like it's generally OK. As to the Australia national football (soccer) team article which seems to be the issue, I guess your principal disagreement is over the Sepp Blatter quote and aftermath (most everything else he's done seems to be reasonable copyediting); I think including the paragraph is reasonable, though the fact that's it's an article covering the entire history of the team makes it useful to keep details of specific games to a minimum (I don't think the quote should be in the article five years from now, for instance; its recent nature is really the only argument for keeping it). Unfortunately, the article 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage – while being thoroughly admirable in formatting – has absolutely nothing in the way of game summaries, which would be a useful place to cover the issue. The quote is included in the article for 2006 FIFA World Cup, under "Route to the Finals", so it's present somewhere in Wikipedia. I agree that including the material in an additional, more specific, article would be ideal, but I'm not sure the team article is the best place; as I noted, the article covers the 80+ year history of the team, so individual games should be covered sparingly (I know the MLB team articles are far too focused on recent playoff history; that material really belongs in the articles for individual series). My personal suggestion would be splitting up the knockout stage article, with the round of 16 on one page and later matches on another, but that's something for the soccer editors to hash out. As to his issues with press kit photos, I think I'm on your side on that one; Wikipedia:Publicity photos seems to indicate that their use is completely acceptable until a new photo is added to Wikipedia. MisfitToys 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more then Sepp Blatter's quote. He's been harassing and following me around. He couldn't do one of his famous reverts on the Bayern Munich Junior Team article, so, he ends up putting Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg up for deletion. This was during the period that he was following edit after edit on me. Kingjeff 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see a little more now; I've added a note to his talk page regarding the likelihood that press kit photos are acceptable, though I'd hardly consider myself an authority on the issue - I'm sure there are other admins who deal with image issues more regularly. And yes, he's a bit aggressive in some areas of editing, which he appears to have been cautioned about (his selective deletion of your comments on his talk page was alarming). But it might also be worth it to back off regarding his responding to your comments, and consider that it may not be harrassment; it's resoanble to think, for example, that he added to his watchlist those pages where you were discussing his conduct, and responded pretty quickly for that reason. I've already added my comment to the image deletion discussion, suggesting that its restoration would be reasonable; other than the fact that I'm not enamored of his style, I'm not sure what else I can add at this point. Your best route at this point might be to consult admins who deal with images more often; my voice probably won't count for much on this issue. MisfitToys 00:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at this funny page. 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 24, 41, 55. Ha. It describes him perfectly. Kingjeff 00:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just reviewing them, I like 13, 33 and 38 myself. And the meta link on How to win an argument is good too. But please remember: 3RR only applies to edits to the same article, not 3 reverts to all articles combined, so I don't think he's been a problem in that regard. MisfitToys 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

he is gaming the system. Kingjeff 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with his methods, but at least I'm aware of him now. Nonetheless, I'm not the best person to debate him over image rights. MisfitToys 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Colonel Denning State Park

I just double checked the map on Colonel Denning State Park. The red dot is there showing the location of the park. Maybe it didn't load for you. Dincher 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I also double checked it (the dot showed for me) and compared the dot to an official map and it is in the right place. Sometimes the dot does not show, not sure why. Please let one of us know if it is still nt there. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I'm getting it now. MisfitToys 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Eagle

Could you semi-protect Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)? It would save a lot of needless reversions. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

While it's certainly an understandable temptation in these situations, the policy Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy#When not to use semi-protection clearly notes that the Featured Article should not be protected. Yes, it requires more vigilance, but I think there are a lot of editors who keep watch over the FA. MisfitToys 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Illinois' / Illinois's

Could you discuss the change between Illinois' and Illinois's at Template talk:USCongDistStateIL? So far, people have gone through and renamed all the pages at least three times, and we need to find a final answer on this so they don't keep getting moved back and forth. Thanks, Interiot 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added some comments; I think the issue is the redirect more than the grammar - if new templates were created (or someone with more expertise than I have were to tweak the existing ones somehow to allow for variations), I doubt anyone would complain about Illinois' in the absence of redirects. MisfitToys 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gliding copy edit

Many thanks for the useful improvements to Gliding. They were well-timed. JMcC 21:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Leisha Harvey

For the Leisha Harvey article you just edited, User:Rebecca deleted my Infobox_Politician template post, footnoted text on how Harvey's name has been used as a political and legal football since her prison term, and deleted my Persondata template post. She justified her edit in her Leisha Harvey edit summary by writing revert mostly worthless edits. I reverted her vandalism as best as I could. She appears to have a history of confontations (for example, one of her edit summaries reads "actually, fuck this, I won't be intimidated by a psychopath"). You appear in a better position than myself on how to address this matter and I thought I would bring it to your attention. -- Jreferee 21:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives

United States House of Representatives is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Thesmothete 06:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikified dates

Just a friendly notice that if a date is wikified then the order in which one writes it (i.e. 5 June as opposed to June 5) doesn't matter. It'll be reformatted to match your display preference automatically. For example, June 5 and 5 June should look exactly the same to you even though they're written differently. --ElKevbo 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See my response above under Date formats. MisfitToys 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Menomonee Valley

Hello, I'm curious why you choose to move the article for Menomonee Valley to Menomonee River Valley, Milwaukee? Menomonee Valley is the common and proper name for the valley, and as far as I can tell, there are no valleys competiting for the name space to warrant appending Milwaukee to it. Thanks 72.131.44.247 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize the potential confusion, but the article is about a specific neighborhood in Milwaukee, rather than about the entire river's environs; articles related to the entire river should link to Menomonee River instead. Also, I noted that the "Milwaukee Neighborhood Identification Project" (PDF). gives the neighborhood name as Menomonee River Valley, rather than simply Menomonee Valley. MisfitToys 02:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I strongly disagree with this move. Although I had added the article to the neighborhood category (because the land is plotted on the map along with other large plats such as Mitchell Airport) the valley is a distinct and independent land formation, and the article was written as such. Please see Category:Valleys of the United States. The majority of references to the valley that I have encountered all refer to it as the Menomonee Valley (including the associations listed in the external link section and ye 'ole Google test), with Menomonee River Valley being second runner up. The datum for the Neighborhood Identification Project is also quite arbitrary. A good example of this are the exploded boundaries of Bay View. 72.131.44.247 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it must be noted that while there is a Conejo Valley and an Imperial Valley, there is no Conejo River or Imperial River; those valleys are unrelated to specific waterways sharing the same name, which is not the case here. The alternative is to have separate articles for the neighborhood and the entire valley, which I think would be even more confusing. I can't speak to whether Milwaukee's standards for the neighborhood boundaries were arbitrary, though they are clearly officially recognized. In any event, the Menomonee River article describes it as a river in Milwaukee, so including Milwaukee in the title here shouldn't be problematic. MisfitToys 03:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why not having a river associated with it would change its name on Wikipedia? There is no namespace clash or confusion that would warrant the move, especially one that appends 'Milwaukee' to it as would be needed to make room for a disambig page. The Menomonee Valley is noted on the Milwaukee Neighborhood Identification Project map only because it fills space (just as the afore mentioned airport and Jones Island)), and not because it is considered a neighborhood of sorts. It is a large geographical land formation. Thanks. 72.131.44.247 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me; I simply meant to indicate that in most cases, there's no reason for a river's valley to have an article of its own, as linking to the article for the river is generally sufficient. (Ohio Valley, for instance, redirects to Ohio River.) That's why many of the articles in the category for valleys are for those with no single corresponding river (e.g. California Central Valley). Again, nearly all of the material in the article pertains to a small industrial section of the valley (in the news today due to an explosion), rather than the entire length, which includes residential areas as well in its more northern sections. The neighborhood certainly warrants an article (and would eventually have one anyway), as does the river itself; would it make sense to have three separate articles for (1) Menomonee River, (2) Menomonee Valley, and (3) Menomonee River Valley, Milwaukee (which is clearly the correct title for the neighborhood, in keeping with title formatting standards for neighborhoods)? As I indicated earlier, material relating to the valley outside the specific neighborhood should link to the article for the river itself. I'm puzzled as to why you believe the Neighborhood Identification Project didn't intend it to be regarded as an actual neighborhood, even though it's identified on the map in the same manner as all other neighborhoods; certainly they could have left blank areas (as some cities do) for regions which have no identification (neighborhoods need not be residential; there are also industrial neighborhoods). You might try going to Milwaukee's My Milwaukee Home page and entering the address 3001 W. Canal St. (or 1651 W. Pittsburgh Ave.); the resulting form identifies Menomonee River Valley as the neighborhood. I'm going to place this discussion on the article's talk page so that any interested parties can be more aware of it. MisfitToys 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello.. I responded to this discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks! 72.131.44.247 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Greater...

I'm interested in why you are moving some articles from the existing name to "Greater..". (ie. Greater Uptown, Houston, Texas and Greater Greenspoint, Houston, Texas? As a native Houstonian, I can assure that these areas are not know by the "Greater" prefix. Is this a naming convention that was approved? Thanks Postoak 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes on the basis of Houston's official designations, namely those for Greater Greenspoint and Greater Uptown. Feel free to revert if the official designation is actually the earlier version. (I also noted that the Greater Greenspoint article already began with the name in the way the title now appears.) MisfitToys 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, since those are the official designations then that's the way we should go. I guess I live in Greater Uptown! :) Postoak 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Gustaf Tenggren

Hi MisfitToys, I reverted your recent edits on Gustaf Tenggren. Please, see the Tenggren history. Camptown 12:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for catching that. I don't know what happened there; I was just trying to fix one thing (which you'd apparently already fixed), but it seems I was inadvertently looking at an older version of the page and changed a bunch of things I didn't intend to. I think it's fine now. MisfitToys 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Idaho

Hello. I noticed you tagged a few articles with this. Is this something starting up? If so, count me in. --Faustus37 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just trying to populate the category a little so that it's not deleted. I'm not from Idaho (and I've only been there once, for a couple of hours), so I don't think I'd be an ideal person to get involved with any potential WikiProject. But you're among the Wikipedians in Idaho, so perhaps you can get others in that group organized? WikiProject Alaska looks like it could be a good model to follow if you decide to proceed. (You may note that the Alaska Project page began quite modestly early this year.) MisfitToys 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Riggs Stephenson

Thanks for making note about the AC reference. I realized his batting average was not the highest after reading Baseball-Reference, but I forgot to remove it. I'll see some way of changing it around. Nishkid64 23:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, sometimes quoted sources are mistaken – though we can hope that it's not too often. Frankly, I think it's more awkward trying to explain where his career batting average ranks all-time, as there doesn't seem to be any official standard for how many at bats are needed to qaulify for the career list (Ty Cobb had so many at bats and such a high average that there hasn't really been any need to establish a minimum for the record). MLB's officially licensed Record Book (published by The Sporting News) uses 1500 hits (which Stephenson barely reached) as a minimum for the career leaders, though I know other major sources have used 4000 at bats or 1000 games as a standard. MisfitToys 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about splitting YYYY in baseball articles...

...is going on at Talk:List of MLB seasons#Split the YYYY in baseball articles?. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)