Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:48, 14 November 2008

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PAVA11. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Acknowledged...

I understand, and could easily read the "personal POV" in the post, I merely wanted to clarify that an uncivil edit on any page (be it a Talk page, an AN/I, etc) is still an edit, and is still uncivil. That's all I was saying :) BMW(drive) 13:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

victoria skating rink

I have worked on the article a bit, on the dates and some of the cites. Please take another look. Alaney2k (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, take another look. BTW, thanks for the sharp eye. Alaney2k (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin's continued support for Knik Arm (Don Young's Way)

Based on our recent discussion on the talk page, would you be willing to undo Collect's two changes? I fear if I do it, we'll enter an edit war. I don't believe Palin's continued support for the bridge, or its official name, are reasonably disputed.GreekParadise (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. You put back in a false statement as a WP:BRD. The source says Palin supports the bridge. It says it twice. You said her support is unclear. Do you have a source for this other than Collect's say so? This source -- and I can find you a dozen others if you want to see them -- say she continues to support the bridge. Did you make a mistake? I think you did because you have come down on the talk page as saying that "support" means "support" instead of Collect's idea that "support" really means "unclear." You have to undo Collect's changes to fix the error.GreekParadise (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Troy Davis Case

This page is inaccurate in many ways and in need of much editing. yet when I try to contribute my edits are undone without explanation. I intend to make more edits, so please let me know why you are deleting my edits. Thanks, Justiceisaboutthetruth (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On Obama

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Article, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Grsz 21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info. I'll try and behave. Grsz 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pens roster

WP:HOCKEY decided to make all rosters one template so one update covers all of the pages it's on. Should make it simpler. Blackngold29 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is true, I was gone for awhile. But now how do we denote IR, as we need to for Gonchar and Whitney? Grsz 02:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I didn't have your talk page on my watchlist, but it looks like you figured the IR thing out. The roster looks good, as well as the season article. I figured we could do a month-by-month recap kind of thing like the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season did. Hopefully that'll give the article more of a narrative feel than last season's (not that it's bad, it's very good actually, still waitin' for that GA pass) but we can always try to get better. I'm chompin at the bit for the season to start; FSN just announced 49 HD games, I need a new TV! Blackngold29 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got a 18 inch LCD, so it's a good picture, just small. Also got tickets to Jan 6 Thrashers game. It's the best I could find, even though I tried when they went on sell. Grsz 22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Any idea on how to work this article into the season page? It's a good story, but I don't know if it's notable enough. I didn't realize the Pens' fanbse is as global as the Steelers'. Blackngold29 14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ba, Ba, BarnStared!

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For constant upkeep and innovative designs put into the first ever hockey season Good article. Blackngold29 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I didn't do much until the playoffs, but it's cool to be part of a Misplaced Pages first. If everything goes as planned 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season should be a GA soon after the season's over (hopefully that'll be in February). The 2009 Pittsburgh Pirates season is off to a good start, perhaps we could be the first city to have a GA season for all three sports. Blackngold29 23:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move (List of female state governors in the United States)

Very sorry about that. I didn't see a lot of activity on the talk page so I didn't think anyone would mind. It appears I was mistaken. I'll be sure to check next time. SchutteGod (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

SchutteGod is disruptive and silly. The word “female” is a completely acceptable adjective. The word “woman” makes a better noun. For example: first female president, or, first woman to serve as president etc.

Please knock it off SchutteGod. Hello4321 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: MAHL teams

It's a tricky issue but I support you idea, also maybe making note in the MAHL section about the merger that these teams were going to be expansion teams but the league disbanded before the season... Technically theDetroit Dragons and Chelsea Tornadoes are notable enough to have their own articles. Basically as a member of Wikiproject Ice hockey I've gone off of the WP: ATHLETE and I've used similar criteria of notable athletes for teams as well. It states that athletes who compete at pro or the highest amateur levels (Junior ice hockey) and college ice hockey are notable. The thing that makes this situation tricky is WP: ATHLETE says, "competes" and these teams did not compete. Also many defunct teams have wiki pages but most of those teams competed for many seasons, won championships, had notable athletes/coaches, etc. and these two teams have had none of those things even though they are defunct. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football October 2008 Newsletter

The College football WikiProject Newsletter Issue XI - October 2008
Project news A college football article is a featured list candidate and is looking for comments, criticism, and/or your support. Be sure to visit Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons to put in a few words. Two new featured articles have been added to the project (2007 USC Trojans football team and 2005 Sugar Bowl), bringing the project's total to 12 featured articles. The 2008-2009 college football season is in full swing! Teams ranked in the top 25 should have a single-season page or at the very least a separate football page. The rankings page and the overall season page should be kept updated, as should the pages of players of note, particularly Heisman Trophy candidates. Heading out to a football game? Be sure to carry a camera and get pictures of players, teams, stadiums, and all the action and pageantry of college football. An excellent guide to taking pictures for WP:CFB can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/Images. Even if you don't think a photo can be immediately used for an article, try uploading it to Wikimedia Commons so future article authors can use it. The College Football Portal needs to be updated with featured articles and pictures. Do you have a great picture that illustrates the best of college football? Consider adding it to the featured image queue on the portal.	From JKBrooks85 Welcome to the latest issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter! I hope that you're enjoying regular updates about the goings on of college football on Misplaced Pages, but if not, feel free to add your name to the "no delivery" section on the newsletter signup page. I encourage everyone to make regular visits to the College Football Portal and perhaps make it your Misplaced Pages entry page instead of using the Main Page as your gateway. Nominations for selected articles and pictures are always welcome, and can serve as a great way to show off that new article you just shepherded to Good Article status or the great picture you took the last time you were at a game. Comments and suggestions on improving the newsletter are always welcome, and help me improve it on a monthly basis. Keep contributing and editing, and don't hesitate to contact me or post on the College Football Wikiproject talk page if you need help or just want someone to look over your article.
New high-rank articles 2007 USC Trojans football team — Promoted to Featured Article on September 6. 2005 Sugar Bowl — Promoted to Featured Article on September 16. UAB Blazers football seasons — Promoted to Featured List on October 4. 1984 Independence Bowl — Promoted to Good Article on September 12.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MAHL

I agree since they never played a game.JaMikePA (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Your edit summary is very brief, so I'm unclear about why you edited the article the way you did. Would you please explain at the talk page? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean there was no consensus for the edit, though you cited the talk page. The discussion there is you and Greek going back and forth. There needs to be a more thorough discussion before you can label it as "consensus." Grsz 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which of my edits you're referring to. GreekParadise has for weeks insisted on repeatedly reinserting material into this section without consensus, and he has explicitly said that he doesn't need any consensus to insert disputed material. So, now it's a fait accompli, and nothing can be removed from this huge section without consensus? That doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, cheers.... Good night.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you get a chance, would you please indicate which edit of mine you're referring to? Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit that changed the bridge section. Grsz 03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Many edits have changed the bridge section.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly I didn't even revert as far as I intended. This edit should be undone. You cite this as discussion on the talk page, but this is far from consensus. Grsz 03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure what I meant. I'm gonna step out of this one for now. Grsz 03:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but my main point stands. Greek Paradise has spent weeks jamming stuff into this section without consensus. My objections have gotten me nowhere. Just to take one small example, the last sentence of the section is extremely POV: "The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration state that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses." It's cited to an unreliable source, and is extremely misleading. Palin could have indeed cancelled the road when she took office, but she did not even decide to cancel the bridge until nine months later, so there is no reason to expect her to have knwn when she took office that she would cancel the bridge. The whole section is clogged with POV nonsense like that, and I will try again to straighten it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the current volume of quotes is sufficient. Grsz 04:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue of how many quotes there should be was the only real difference between me and Greek Paradise. He was willing to accept everything else. Therefore I've caved regarding the amount of quotes. He wanted more and I wanted less, but I've agreed to more quotes. I assume that's what you support too.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, why aren't you discussing changes at the Palin talk page before making them? For example, you deletd this statement: "During 2008, Palin’s decreasing support for federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation." The cited source says: “One thing is clear: Palin has increasingly distanced herself from earmarking since she made her first trip to Washington D.C. to lobby Congress for money in 2000. And over the past year, it has been the leading source of tension between Palin and the state's three-member congressional delegation."

I will reinsert this, and I ask you to please discuss at the talk page. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR board

Hi - I am too busy to do a quick count but you should be careful not to go over 3RR yourself in an effort to clean up the 3RR board. If you can't quickly tell you might want to self-revert until you can be assured that your most recent removal of CENSEI's disruption was not your fourth revert on the board. It would not be the first time someone accidentally stepped over 3RR when dealing with one of the problem editors. Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as a follow up, I've found that if one or two removals of disruption on a meta-page don't stop an editor, they're unlikely to be stopped by warnings, reversions, etc. . . as you can see the more people are warning and reverting CENSEI the more disruptive and uncivil he is becoming. This is really something the administrators have to deal with probably. Also, revert warring to deal with long-term tendentious editors opens you up to a gameplaying accusation that you and not they are the problem. Unfortunately his attempt to blow smoke by accusing everyone else of things tends to sour the uninvolved administrators on the whole problem, an unfortunate thing. Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Though my first were just restoring a deleted report. Grsz 04:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama

What did I do? --Megapen (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

. Also per WP:BLP and WP:TERRORISM it is inappropriate to label individuals as terrorists. Grsz 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Ad section? I do not believe it but an add did come out and people need to know all. I think that we should write something about the fact that it is false since my notice may not of have done the job. --Megapen (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty non-notable. Groups display ads untruthful ads about stupid things all the time, and as far as I can tell, this hasn't received much more attention than any other one. Grsz 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a quote! Lets not put that in but let other things remain!--Megapen (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It was actually featured on the news on a veraety of channels so it seams important and notable. --Megapen (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of weatherman actions

Hi. I've removed the merge tag you added to this article, and I'd be glad to explain this to your satisfaction. I just created this last night as a child article to try to deal with the excessive length, citation problems, etc., on the main weatherman article. This article seems to have been sourced a long time ago without line by line citations. The material needs to be checked. I assume good faith about its creator, who did not seem to be partisan, but there is a lot of stuff. It's also in a list format that isn't really conducive to editing. It has remained unchanged for a few years. The list also circulates widely on the internet. If you do a search on some of the language you will find it many places. So even though its's susceptible to being a decent list I think it's an impediment to shaping up the Weatherman article overall.

As soon as I created it a new SPA editor simply reverted with a misleading summary (look at the weatherman article history). As such, I don't think there needs to be a proposal to merge it at all. Rather, the burden is on me to propose that the article exist at all as a child article. If i convince people, then that means it should stay. If not, there is no merging to be done - rather, it would simply be deleted. I've only added a couple sources so we could easily just add those to the main article instead.

Hope that's clear. Not being contentious, just trying to avoid yet another possible line of discussion/drama. Thanks for your attention to the article, for sure. Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Thrashers

For the third time, Kozlov is a candidate for the Thrashers captaincy. He was (IMHO) passed over for it 2005 (with the appointment of Mellanby) & 2007 (with the appointment of Holik). I got this feeling, he's gonna be passed over for it again, with the likely appointment of Schneider. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, they didn't pick Kozlov. Actually, they didn't choose anybody. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making a deliberate attempt

To hide both your and wikidemon's unacceptable behavior. We have given your reasoned arguments, and in return you quote policy or insult us - neither of you have ever ENGAGED in rational debate. There is no reason to delete the conversation other than to cover up your obvious bias and inability to have a rational debate. The debate was moved to wikidemons page since he abused his admin rights to close a conversation on the Barack talk page. Is this the "strategy?" Constantly delete and move conversations until people get fed up with trying to reason with you people? TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon isn't an admin. Grsz 05:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah so he just gives subtle threats to people to be quiet as if he had some authority to do something. I understand now.TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And what rational argument? He and I were discussing on his talk page before you butted in. Grsz 05:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh did you own that little section of the talk page? There were 5 total editors involved in the discussion. Apparently you just wanted to have someone tell you "You are right Grzz" instead of showing you how Ayers can quite accurately be called a terrorist.TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You've offered what you claim to be neutral edits at multiple articles, Obama, Ayers, etc. Most of them are incredibly ladent with your POV and have been shot down not only by uninvolved users, but the occasional other who pokes his head in. To say that I can't engage in a rational debate is laughable, when it's you that edits, gets reverted, then cries that you're being repressed. Maybe if you actually made an effort to put forth some neutral, encyclopediac content rather than get your opinion across, you wouldn't be in this situation nearly as much. Grsz 05:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is flat out false. The editors who've dropped in have supported me. I'm not the one whose been camping out on the Barack Obama article for god knows how long. You don't own it and you need to show a lot more maturity in your wikidealings. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the editors that aren't throw-away accounts, single-purpose users or the random vandal IP. And please, "camping out"... in my last thousand edits, I've edited Obama once, and it was to revert vandalism! Grsz 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That one editor made it quite clear he was afraid of retribution from the "Obama clique," which is why he wasn't using his account, but whatever, thanks for fixing my un-archiving of the discussion.TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations that I've been involved in abuse at the Obama talk page are illfounded and offensive. Grsz 05:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If it comes down to it, I am willing to look at each of your proposal individually and we can discuss them. Grsz 05:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, TheGoodLocust is either trolling or severely misguided about the purpose of Misplaced Pages, and CENSEI is one of the more disruptive editors around - so please do not take after them, even in objecting to their disruption. If you call them names you are sinking to that level, and bystanders have a hard time figuring out who is a legitimate editor and who is there for the drama. This is just friendly advice. It doesn't bother me either way....but there are plenty of corners of the encyclopedia where this kind of stuff doesn't happen. We really are here to edit articles, so once a discussion passes all hope of being productivity, it's often best just to ignore the provocations as long as they don't mess things up. And if someone is showing any sign of being willing or interested in productive editing it's best to explore that side of things. That's my POV anyway. Wikidemon (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolfeton House

There is no speedy deletion category for structures; you should have prodded it instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Sorry, thanks for fixing it. Grsz 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Double Standard

If I tried to insert anything as controversial as "Bridge to Nowhere" in Obama article then you'd all gang up and try to ban me. In case you haven't noticed, there is a consensus in the discussion section that there are serious problems with that section - because some people decided to gang up to insert their own biases into the article. Obviously, you haven't read that people should put far more thought into reverts than they do into edits - you revert with far too much ease and it betrays your bias. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in much of the bridge section, it moved too fast for me. I've got no vested interest in it, I was simply given you a heads up. But whatever. Grsz 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for overreacting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman article

The section I added has the authority of numerous editors who came to a consensus at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Whatever else is in the article needs to make way for implementing that consensus. Don't get in the way. Make whatever other edits to accommodate that consensus that you think fit and I'll be very accommodating to that, but the consensus rules. Don't even think of overruling it without another, larger consensus. -- Noroton (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the section already there is almost exactly the same as what you added. Grsz 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there was no consensus. Grsz 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to the redundancy. Please point it out on the article talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful

You are at 3RR on Weathermen. I know you're reverting a problem editor, but as you may have seen, they will not hesitate to file 3RR reports if you go over. So no more reverts for now, okay? Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I given Noroton a courtesy edit about the AN/I report you just filed about his recent edits. Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: You have been blocked from editing for 12 hours for edit-warring on Weatherman (organization). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in hostile editing behavior. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. east718 // talk // email // 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): promise to cease edit war Toddst1 (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

Thanks for the reasons you gave for reversing my edit, however, I don't accept the points you cite.

Firstly: "Undue Weight". This story is currently challenging the global financial crisis as the lead story for many International Newspapers and Websites. It would be difficult to conceive of a story with more "weight".

Secondly "Poorly added" - I have no idea what that means. Poorly written (no), poorly edited (no) ...

Finally, "Already addressed later in the article". This could be applied to every statement made in the lead. It is inevitable that items that appear in the lead (on every Wiki page) are discussed in greater detail elsewhere on the page.

Before I reverse your edit again, it seems fairer to give you another opportunity to say why you think your edit should stand. David T Tokyo (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's getting a lot of coverage right now maybe, because it just happened. It doesn't belong in the lead, plain and simple. Putting it there is a violation of WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Grsz 04:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could cite the specific text in WP:UNDUEWEIGHT or WP:NPOV that shows that it is a "violation of WEIGHT and WP:NPOV" - Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well? What exactly is the violation? I've read WP:UNDUEWEIGHT several times now and I can't see it. The line that sums it up for me is this one:

"Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors".

You would be hard pressed to find any story with greater prevalence in reliable sources. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DENY

I know you and he have gone around quite a lot, but you really should stay off of User talk:thegoodlocust's talk page while he's blocked. He can't comment on anything that's not there, so this is a good time to leave him alone and let him figure out why he got blocked in the first place. Just some friendly advice. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to counter his off-wiki stalking? Grsz 05:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you've made a report at ANI, that's a good start. If you're worried, ask an admin to oversight the edits, then stay off of his page while he's blocked. If he continues (without provacation), an admin will protect his talk page for disruption. The whole point of being blocked is not to continue arguments in the interim, it's to provide time for an editor to understand why they've been blocked. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pens

We were discussing how to go about that over at Talk:List of current NHL captains and alternate captains#Penguins alternate captains. I think, as on that list, we should only put Orpik and Malkin as they are the only two who have actually worn the A during a game. Blackngold29 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was hoping to work on Mellon Arena eventually, but sources will probably be harder to come by. Pens didn't look to good the other night, hopefully they can get better tomorrow. Blackngold29 16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ziggy

I don't know, I don't have Versus, I got Lange though. That certainly seems like an obvious mistake, the trade was on NHL.com's front page for two or three days. Stiegerwald (I can't spell) had an interview on WDVE this moring and he said Versus sometimes says stuff because they don't follow a team everyday like most announcers do. I hope they can pull this one out, these division games are big. Blackngold29 01:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's probably it. He was on waivers Oct 1 before he could go to the AHL. That was probably it. Either way, he's doing awesome. Grsz 01:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

These OT games are OK, atleast we get a point, but when it's against a division opponent even if we win it's like a half win. Blackngold29 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not to knowledgeable about the various Pittsburgh regions, thanks for that. Good game last night eh? Blackngold29 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply2

See my talk page for a reply. Pie is good 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Second look at Idlewild

Congratulations on what at first glance looks like big improvements to the article. I'll take a closer look tomorrow (Thursday), and I may have more suggestions. I see some minor c/e issues such as missing en dashes in date ranges and page ranges that I can probably fix in less time than it would take to write notes about them. Since I'm taking an extended c/e holiday, I won't do a full c/e, but I'll probably fix a few minor things. More later. Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't resist doing some c/e. If you don't agree with any of my changes, please revert. In addition, I added a few more suggestions to the peer review page. The article is much more interesting than before. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I'm sorry that QuackGuru was giving you a hard time. See my message to QuackGuru here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Coppertwig. It was rather annoying. He was just going on about bad faith or something and then some other guy came in an asked for my rollback to be removed. Oh well, nobody is buying his story, so it's all good. Grsz 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Basque Country

Hi Grsz. I responded at my talk page. Please comment on the article's talk page or address me wherever the debate takes place, but, on the other side, please respect my reasons as well. I found your message a bit over-the-top provided the circumstances (move is based on google impacts, not on personal opinions and a notice was made prior to the move, without any comment from anybody). Mountolive _{le déluge} 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz 03:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Block Query

Hello, I recently took notice of your warning towards the user AZT2008, and just recently I have had to move the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article and the Methodism article from vandalistic titles that were added by the user. So, I was wondering if either of these edits occured before or after your warning towards the user. If after, then I think you know what I'm getting at. Jason (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look, but hasn't he warranted an indef block anyways? Grsz 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

Using fact tags is one option, but policy ("Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." emph added) supports removal as well, in fact before suggesting the option of fact tags, and so it is opinion that fact tags are a better option.-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How can cultural references in an episode of Family Guy be challenged? My point is yes it's obviously OR, but it's not like it was made up or damaging like say, unsourced portions of a BLP. Grsz 04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

They can be challenged to show that their interpretations of sources and targets of parody are valid and supported by a third party's analysis and not WP:OR on the part of a Misplaced Pages editor. "Challenge" is no where limited to BLP issues, although it is there where it MUST be enforced most emphatically.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to remove vandalism - which the removal of fact tags without providing sources is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Though removal of sections of text that aren't vandalism is. Grsz 03:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kennywood

It may well still exist, but I need a proper citation. I'm not really sure what to do at this point, I'll think about it. StarfoxRoy 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

apparent 3RR claim?

With as few edits as I have in Sarah Palin, and considering the nature of my edits, I do not feel that this is in any way an "edit war" -- note that I consistently post in Talk:Sarah Palin, asking for consensus, and ask the other party to post in talk, and also post on that users talk page to go to Talk. The new user in question (Speaker1987) is an interesting case now well past 4RR to be sure. Note the others who also reverted his strange edit. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (delayed)

Goodbye

I have just one question for you. Are you the anon editor from MIT who is logging out, commenting, then logging back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSW-red sox win (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If I went to MIT, wouldn't I have better things to do with my time? Grsz 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say so. I just was curious. One IP traces back to MIT, and almost immediately you message me. So you see the basis for the connection. But, I digress.RSW-red sox win (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Looking off the page

It's not a big deal, just something that usually comes up at FAC. :-) Cheers, –Juliancolton 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

EntertainU's User Page

Why did you delete the video and gaming content on my userpage? I see no one else that has it getting tagged for it! I've seen at least ten users have stuff like that. I'm busy and finding this for you was the only thing I had time for. Click that, and tell me why he's not getting tagged. I would rather you have a reply on my talk page. Thank you and Happy editing. --i-am-entertainU (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to Misplaced Pages pages aren't the same as linkspam to YouTube. Grsz 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Hello. Normally, I wouldn't be concerned about a sandbox edit, but this should be brought to your attention. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. What a funny guy. Grsz 05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

...I turned my back for one second and there he went again. As long as it got dealt with anyway, I'm glad :) ~ Troy (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

That is only if i revert the same user adding the same stuff 3 times, not different users and different unsourced CRs. CTJF83Talk 01:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're misinterpreting. "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material" (emphasis added) Grsz 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

When and why did it change to what it is, from what it use to be "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."? Who decided it needs to be changed, I think the new stuff is crap! CTJF83Talk 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mean any different, you're just reading in incorrectly. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." This states that undoing an edit of one editor, and undoing an edit by another both count as reverts, and that right there would be two. Grsz 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, if I get blocked for rvting the addition of unsourced material, then I get blocked...in my opinion, by a poor admin. I assume, again, you warned me, as to not get me blocked, thanks if that is the case. CTJF83Talk 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a common misinterpretation, and people argue that all the time. The best thing to do now is just tag them and wait until things calm down. I'm sure you won't be given any trouble. Grsz 01:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the page is protected, so there shouldn't be many problems. CTJF83Talk 01:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rays

I actually kind of like the Sox, but they've won so much recently I was definatley pulling for TB and I will root for them in the WS. The fans down there don't deserve it, but the organization does. And anything to make Flyers fans angry, I support. Blackngold29 03:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems quieter tonight, I missed most of last night's game because of various discussions. Hopefully all will be OK for the rest of the series. Pens did well, awesome game. Blackngold29 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)