ok im gonna organize this so I dont miss anything.

1. ok my mistake about the boot shot.
2. When I say that trick shot evolved from artistic pool I say that because while people have actually been doing trick shots for a long time, artistic pool was the basis of actually competeing.

1. Snooker trick shot championship should be covered I agree, but we should have a separate section for that.

1. having a section on the most legendary players would be a good idea but might cause some people to think that the article is expressing POV.
2. I definetly agree with what you said about us having illistrations of trick shots and also vid recordings.
3. yes I am in the oarticipant section.

<fontcolor="red">Vandal<fontcolor="black">fighter101 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sig seems to be busted, unless that was intentional. (I've broken mine plenty of times in experimenting with it!). Looking at it more closely, I think the problem is that it says "fontcolor" instead of "font color". Anyway:

1. No worries; stuff happens.
2. That would need to be sourced; I remain skeptical. Artistic billiards is almost totally unknown in the US except among the most hard-core billiards nuts, and the US fields hardly any professional competitors in it (most of them are European, Asian and South American); meanwhile trick shot exhibitions in the US date to at least the late 1800s, and by the 1920s were one of the main sources of additional income for US pool pros, between championships (and remain so today; many pros do trick shot exhibitions for special events all the time, aside from the championships). The relationship between pool/snooker-style trick shots, artistic billiards and finger billiards (which has no article yet) is a complex one. The evidence I've come across to date seems to suggest that finger billiards (practitioners of which can achieve amazing english) was the main inspiration for artistic, while pool/snooker trick shots were their own animal, but in the last 2 generations there has been a lot of crossover. Documenting any of that reliably, however, will be a real challenge. Note: I also was not aware that you were drawing a distinction between artistic pool and artistic billiards AND trick shots. The clear facts are that trick shots have been around for hundreds of years, artistic (carom) billiards has been around for several decades as an organized sport, and artistic (pocket billiards) pool is comparatively quite new, an adaptation of artistic billiards to pool tables via the influence of classic trick shots. 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Agreed; the US/pool and UK/snooker world championships should have their own subsections under "Competition" or whatever that section is called right now.
4. POV: I see what you mean; the way around that would be to profile world champions (and really in brief; if it's more than 2 sentences we're really talking about a stub player article instead).
5. Keen. I'm sure that will take a while. It would probably be more productive in the short term to document (televised competitions can be cited as sources with {{Cite episode}}) some of the more frequently used shots. I don't think we should go nuts here; probably ten very-well-described shots is more than enough. Per WP:NOT (Misplaced Pages is not a game guide, Misplaced Pages is not an instructional manual, etc.) we can't get too far into the detailia of how to set up these shots, just describe the basic layout, the desired result, and what makes it challenging).
6. Welcome aboard! Please check out WP:CUETODO if you have spare time; a lot of really basic work remains to be done, much less pushing things to Good and Featured Article status.

— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I wasn't aware of APTSA and Rossman's ArtisticPool.org, and their use of the term "artistic pool" in a sense distinct from "artistic billiards" (which is played on pocketless carom tables). I created a thoroughly-sourced overview at Trick shot of this "movement" based on those two sources. It definitely post-dates and was obviously inspired by artistic billiards, which is a couple of generations older. Because a.p. involves more than trick shots per se, I suspect that it will eventually need to be split into its own article. For now, I will ensure that Artistic pool redirects to it, and will also go update the artistic billiards article to mention it. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Chemical-importance

I am sorry, I have reverted your edits to this template. These articles should be categorised for lack of importance, not for lack of notability. These things are not the same. Since it was apparent that when they were in {{importance}} they were going to be deleted, because people not involved in any chemical wikiproject did decide that if they did not know the subject and could not see why it was important, it should be deleted (in stead of notifying a wikiproject and/or actually doing something about it). I had to revert/fight these prods/AfDs/template removals on a forthnightly basis, and being tired of that, it was decided to move them to an own template and category. So articles in that list are important enough, but the article does not state that yet, and therefore they are on a todo list of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemicals. I guess a similar reasoning is there for the music template. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC) similar reasoning is there for the music template. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like a curious variant of WP:OWNership to me, as in "we're special and our articles are special and should not be subject to the same processes as everything else." I don't really care all that much, but really there is no such thing as "important" in Misplaced Pages, except in the context of Misplaced Pages 1.0 prioritization. The "importance" concept in the context of whether an article is important enough to exist in Misplaced Pages at all, was soundly rejected as early as 2004, and replaced with notability. The comparison to the music version of the template isn't appropriate, as that template especially has no reason to exist any longer, having been replaced entirely by {{Notability|music}} (look at the code of Template:Music-importance). Not a big deal to me, but you'll need much better justification than this if (more likely when) {{Chemical-importance}} comes up at WP:TFD. I'm likely to take it there myself, because this is not how WikiProjects are supposed to "importance"-tag articles for their own internal (or WP1.0) purposes; you instead use the |importance= parameter of the project's banner on the article's talk page. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

United States Professional Poolplayers Association competition?

I have removed an unsourced statement you added :

"The UPA is in competition with the Billiard Congress of America and the International Pool Tour for US market dominance in cue sports."

I know nothing about the subject but there was a help desk complaint and then I didn't want to just tag it as unsourced. PrimeHunter 12:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It should have been tagged as unsourced, since it is a simple statement that can be sourced. It actually needs to be elaborated on, about what roles each organization playes in the market, but I don't have time to do that for now, so I won't revert-and-fact-tag it. Not a big deal really. FYI, the BCA is the nonprofit WPA affiliate in the US; as such it promotes and holds ranking events for the WPA World Nine-ball Championship and similar events. The UPA and it's WPBA all-women sister organization, which should have been mentioned there too, are long-standing WPA/BCA-independentent professional leagues run by nonprofit player co-ops, and hold directly-competing national and international events. The upstart IPT is a for-profit corporation that has organized national and international tournaments which again directly compete with all of the above for venues, TV coverage, sponsorship, and professional membership. This can all be trivially documented, by someone with a few hours to do it, but that is not me right now. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: What help desk complaint? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Nevermind; I found it. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Naming Conventions MOS mess

Further to my previous note, the issue of reconciling this bloated page with WP:MEDMOS is long overdue, and strengthens the case for more centralised coordination. Tony (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh. I hardly glanced at MEDMOS and I already have a headache. After I replace my medulla, can you remind me what "previous note" and "this bloated page" refer to? Do I need to check my off-WP e-mail? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you meant now. I'm not sure I want to get too deeply into the naming conventions, but I'll stop by. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD

Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_27#CompactTOCs_merge_and_rename has been closed, and the instructions set forth in your nom are endorsed. I, however, am not going to do the clean-up, it's too large of a task. RyanGerbil10(????????!) 03:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone volunteered to do at least some of the AWBing; am in touch. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge on List of champion snooker players

Hi, I would partially oppose the move. The page has had a patchy history, first being AfD'ed when it was titled "notable players" due to potential POV concerns. The compromise was "champion players" which, now that I look at the page, I am not really 100% with. The aim (and I think it is a very sensible aim) is to get together a article with the "names" of snooker. I would use the word notable but it has been stricken from the record as being POV. Essentially we want an article that highlights the big names in snooker - but not at the preclusion of having won the world championship. People like Jimmy White - and a more recent example in Ding - I think are important to be included in the ensemble without only having a mention in the ridiculously long List of snooker players. Thoughts welcomed (this can be cc'ed across to the article talk page if there are more noises, but they are pretty low traffic pages and issues). SFC9394 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that such an exercise as you describe is POV, by definition. At least being World Champ is an objective criterion. The "champion snooker players" list is almost certainly destined for AfD as soon as someone notices its subjectively inclusive nature. The World Champions list is safe, since it is documentable and objective, so no one can attack it on the grounds of it being nonencyclopedic. I've looked around and so far can't find a list like the champion players list at issue for any other sport or activity. No list of baseball greats or brilliant minds in chemistry or champion race car drivers. This strongly suggests to me that such lists aren't encyclopedic, and where they have been created they've either been deleted or converted to objective criteria like world record holders in baseball, Nobel prize-winning chemists, winners of the Indianapolis 500, etc. I'd prefer that WP:SNOOKER just merge them now and redir the subjective article to the objective one, rather than wait for someone to AfD it, because such an AfD might well draw attention to other WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. problems that are still rampant in the snooker bio articles, many of which are barely-altered copy-pastes (i.e. copyvios) from World Snooker's website and other previously published material. We have so much cleanup to do that creating additional questionable articles seems like a dangerous idea. I'll respond in less length over at the merge-to article's talk page, just so it's there and others have a chance at input either way. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of professional snooker players

I have suggested editing the 'List of snooker players' (on its talk page as well), to only the players with articles written on them. What do you think? Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is bigger than this. There are way, way too many lists of players (by this criterion or that); I have merge-tagged several of them, and brought the issue up at WT:SNOOKER. As for your specific proposal, I do not believe this necessary or even a good plan, as we know from experience that redlinks encourage article creation, and one does not have to pass WP:N in order to be mentioned in a list, only to have an article. Some would argue that everyone presently on the list (other than some probable vanity entries that have slipped in) are notable enough in their own right for articles anyway. So, I'm a little on the negative side of neutral with regard to your specific proposal, but strongly positive toward merging and cleaning up these player lists into a single comprehensive list-based article on snooker players. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that actually sums up my feelings as well really, I think editing the list like I suggested would be a negative thing to do on second thoughts. Samasnookerfan (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mosconi Cup

hi; first of all: sorry that i write as an IP, but i only have an account at german wikipedia. i have started and improved lots of articles about poolbillard there. i found some contradictions in the englisch Mosconi Cup article.

1. The player appearances are not uptodate. I tried to improve this on the german article with the help of the Historysection of the official Mosconi cup site. Maybe you (or someone else who acares about cue sports) could check that and use it for the english wiki-site too.

2. in the part "European representation" there is one player from Northern Ireland and one from Ireland, but in the Most appearances there is no irish (Northern Ireland belongs to UK, i know that). Could you tell me who of these players is irish or north-irish?

German Wiki page:

History of Mosconi Cup (without 2007!):

my Profile:

Help would be nice - I even wrote something on the discussion page a few days ago, but there was no response, so i thought, i could try it here. thx in advance, Tmv23 from Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.216.148 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure who the Irish players are. I agree that the article needs updating, but I have been very busy lately so WP article work has not been at the top of my to-do list. PS: You may find it helpful to simply create a Tmv23 account here and use it; that way it will definitely be yours and no one else can use that username. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Axes & Albinos

Hey there, SM -- I was on my way to leave you a note, but stopped off to check out your user page. Of course, I had to read through the litany of amusing items. Your pseudo-Taoist proverb re axe-grinding was terrific. I laughed my proverbial ass off, and then sent it on to my son, who I'm sure will do likewise. I especially like the short version! :)

Okay, so the original reason for coming here was to leave you a note about Category:Albinistic artists and entertainers -- which I was looking at after I spotted it in Category:In popular culture. I can sort of see why you thought it belonged there -- but what it really needs is a parent cat or two in the area of artists, entertainers, performers, etc. You'd have a better idea than I of what's appropriate, as I'm only familiar with a couple of them. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. You are right that I didn't think through that one very hard. Eventually we might want a cat. for albinistic musicians, another for albinistic actors, etc., but for now there's just the one cat. for albinistic celebrities in general, and they are few. Maybe the cat. should be renamed to be even more generic (Category:Albinistic celebrities maybe). Not sure, really. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've belatedly taken the matter to WP:CFD for discussion. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ten-ball edits

Hi, I see you edited a couple of my edits about the ten-ball championship. No worries, I was just trying to clean up what I thought were non-encyclopedic edits by User:Florentino floro. He has since gone back and re-edited the Ten-ball, Wu Chia-ching, Darren Appleton, and Niels Feijen articles. I am not interested in getting in an edit war with him over this (see if you're bored), as billiards is not really my area of expertise, but I thought you might be willing to take another look at those articles to see if they need to get cleaned up. Thanks, axschme (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. The information is definitely valid (when tagged with current sport) for the article on the sport, but I have to agree with you that it constitutes blatant trivia in some of the other contexts. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've cleaned up the player articles, but Ten-ball still needs work. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

With all due respect, I fully respect your comment, and on the talk page - - I desire that, if you have time, please read my evidence. Basically, I and User:Cma or Mr. Dominique Gerald Cimafranca, both from the Philippines and both alumni and student, respectively, of Ateneo de Manila University-Ateneo Law School (1974 and 1982) and Ateneo de Davao (student, present), respectively, had had personal angers, hatred, and differences which spilled here in Misplaced Pages with Max. There were long battles between us 3 for blocking:

• User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling
• The very long Rfc Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Florentino floro and then, Max challenged my userpage, and I created this to refute Max:
• User:Florentino floro/Learned Treatise:Legal-Academic Values of Compleat User Page
• Max's contributions are daily and nothing more than stalking of my edits. I and you, with all due respect, never ever found any editor of millions here, that, had had only one agenda: stalking another editor, co-Filipino, co-Atenean.
• User:Cma barely handful of edits had nothing more but edits of my daily edits

In law, there is no other best evidence of stalking than this. Stalking is a crime and punished under all foreign laws and by Misplaced Pages by blocking

IN FINE, I respect your opinion on this, and I desire that you edit and amend, Ten-ball: the Philiipines, my country will never forget this event, and please visit our country. Cheers.

User:Florentino floro) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It would be good for you to either reconcile with this user, or not deal with him at all (which could mean avoiding editing certain articles). As for ten-ball, I actually have a total overhaul of that article planned, with both sets of rules (WPA and traditional BCA) fully sourced. It is an important article, as ten-ball may well be the future of professional pool. I assure you that it will be handled as best as I can handle articles here, and the event in question will either remain a major part of that article or become its own article. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

18 new pool pictures availible on Commons from the Mosconi Cup 2008

hi, i know you are a bit interested in billiards, ans so i just wanted to told you, that someone, who was in malta an made picures from the Mosconi Cup allowed me to upload them. Maybe you could put them into the articles and make good subtitles here in the english wiki - i'll do so in the German wiki (my mother tongue as you might have guessed after these lines)... All 18 pics can be found here: commons:Category:Mosconi Cup 2008 Greets --De-tmv23 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

new pics again - not sure if you used the MC pics for the english wiki (if you forgot i either remind or annoy you now), however 6 new pics are uploaded now from the World Pool Masters 2007. To be found on my commons profile page (2nd row the six pics left of the skyscraperpic) --De-tmv23 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It says here in tautology to remind you...

It says in a comment on Tautology

Remind User:SMcCandlish to provide a photo of a street sign; might be a nice enhancement to the article. It's only about 2 miles away.

So I have. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I'll try to remember to take a pic of it next time I drive past it. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I need your mentorship

Hi,

Remember me?  :)

I need help from an experienced Wikipedian, and I was very glad to find your name over at WP:ADOPT.

I need your advice concerning WP:WPOOK, which I've been coordinating. The set of pages the project concerns is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Projected outline, and has grown to about 500 articles in the encyclopedia.

The goals of the WikiProject are:

1. Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Misplaced Pages
2. Complete the existing outlines
3. Create an outline for every subject that is extensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields). There are thousands of these.
4. Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
5. Surpass portals in number by the end of the summer, and leave them in the dust by the end of the year
6. Get the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in place of or in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
7. Increase the OOK to higher quality than Britannica's Outline of Knowledge (published in its Propaedia volume).

I'm very interested in your comments on how to achieve these goals.

Also I'm interested in every possible way of reaching readers and editors of Misplaced Pages. How can I get the most eyes and typing fingers on Misplaced Pages's outlines? Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Misplaced Pages, and I want to contact all of them. But how do I do it?

Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your advice.

I would also like to know how to find or attract editors to create new outlines. And I need advice on finding editors to help write the new outline article mentioned above (it needs to be fleshed out, completely referenced, and brought to featured article status).

Please recommend anyone you know who might be interested in sinking their teeth into a project like this. Or ways to reach groups of editors. Or ways to reach all editors. I welcome any and all recommendations and advice you might have.

And any thoughts on attaining the WikiProject goals above.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist    03:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Spinks "C class"; various other matters

Hey Stanton. I was looking at William A. Spinks earlier today and I noticed that it is listed as C class on the talk page which is absurd so I went to the change it and it is already listed as B class by the coding, so something's going on with the display of the cue sports project assessment template. I fixed one fact tag in the lead and another in the farming section (by replacing them with citations). This is so close to submission for good article. If you can't find anything to expand the farming and oilman sections you can just fold them into his personal life. Some tidbits I found in searches you may not have come across: , , use the zoom box to highlight the red text, same, same, same (notice the use of "goose egg"), new information? Spinks was Schaefer's manager, same, same, same. Did you ever notice that I had responded to you at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/List of pocket billiards games?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it; I keep meaning to finish up my research on that one, but I get side-tracked by other matters. I agree that after the farming and oil sections are fleshed out a little (they may only need a paragraph each with 2-3 citations), that it is a solid GA candidate. Thanks for the links; most or all of those are new to me. I may have some time this week to work on it, since all of my pool leagues are presently on between-season break, so I have time to breathe. :-) Hadn't noticed your response on the other page; will check it out. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: The B/C class thing: If any of the B-class "checklist" parameters are not "y", any article tagged as B class will still show up as C. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 01:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Dickens!

If you have not seen this before (I hadn't), check this out. Who knew? And a rather involved and interesting history it is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting 1901 lawsuit I came across you might find of interest for William A. Spinks

See Hoskins v. Mathhes. Quite a lot of detailed information such as the full breakdown of the chemical formula used for their chalk, how they came up with the idea, prior similar compounds and more. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New stuff

Chess-WikiProject

Can you explain more about why you removed Round-robin tournament from the Chess-WikiProject. I'm quite happy that you add other projects to the article but I've not encounters WikiProject untagging before, could you point me to discussion or guideline about this. SunCreator (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Because WikiProject Chess is a child project of WikiProject Games. If every child project of WPGAMES added their own tag there, the talk page would be useless. Likewise, WikiProject Biography does not add its tag to the talk page of Albinism just because there are albino people, and WikiProject NASA does not add its tag to Aluminum just because some parts of NASA spacecraft are made of aluminum. Your project is over-tagging. Guidelines: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide. See in particular the entire "Overtagging is disruptive" section. Some choice quotes: "banners should not be used to duplicate the category system", which is what you've been doing. "If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article"; one of multiple tournament formats used by chess and hundreds of other games is only tangentially related to chess in particular. Another section worth reading is "Identify the best scope" (intended to pre-project-creation consideration, but serves as a good reminder to limit scope. Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Even Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Board and table games, WikiProject Chess's most immediate parent, and itself a child of WikiProject Games, shouldn't put their tag on basic sporting/gaming articles like Round-robin tournament. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That project says:

• • Other WikiProjects with similar scope include:
    • WikiProject Chess and Wikibooks:Chess: Articles relating to chess.

And nowhere does it say that the chess project is their child and no where on wp:chess does it say that board and table games is a parent. Bubba73 , 06:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are sorely misapprehending how parent/child relationships work between WikiProjects (namely the same as they work in Categories). Is chess a game? Yes. Is is played on a table and/or a board? Yes, both. Then it's a child project, period, just like WikiProject Go, etc. The board & table project's been updated to reflect this. I won't bother trying to update the chess project, since you clearly WP:OWN it and will reflexively revert anything I do (based on my experience so far, which is a 100% revert rate by you of chess-related edits made by me). I'll have to address these OWN and over-tagging problems in a different way, namely with an RfC. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 07:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to recent edit summary claiming chess exists in a void and isn't a child project of anything: Let's not be silly. Of course the chess project is a child project of the games project (more specifically of the table and board games project, itself a child of the games project). Whether you've bothered to list it as such notwithstanding. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You quit being silly by telling a project that you are not a member of what they can do. Bubba73 , 06:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OWN, please, and have a cup of WP:TEA. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: There are no such things as "members" of WikiProjects (per WP:CFD, several years ago), and if you actually read WP:WIKIPROJECT you'll become more familiar with the idea that there is nothing special about them, and one does not have to be a self-identified participant in (not "member of") a project to affect it, comment on it, edit it, edit "its" articles, etc., etc. This is a wiki, not a continent of warring mediaeval fiefdoms. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 07:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PPPS: You're also off-kilter here. I'll quote "your" own project page: "Several other WikiProjects can be considered as "parent" or at least "related":...'. It then proceeds to list not only the games but also the table and board games projects, and specifically describes the table and board project's relationship as that of a parent project, namely one that has relegated all chess scope to the chess project as a child project/task force, and refusing to handle chess articles within its own scope. Please relax and stop picking fights over absolutely nothing. Stirring up dust here just to argue for the heck of it because you like arguing is going to get you labelled a tendentious editor, habitually incivil and eventually actionably disruptive. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Read on: "WikiProject Board and table games specifically excludes chess articles from its scope, in order to avoid interference with WikiProject Chess." So it is not a parent project in any real sense. The chess project articles are not automatically also handled by the board games project - they are specifically excluded. That is the way the chess project wants it and that is the way the board games project wants it. A more accurate name for that other project would be "Board games excluding chess". Chess is a board game, however the chess project and board game project have nothing to do with each other.

So what is the point of your taking an article that the chess project specifically works on out of the chess project and put it into a project that specifically doesn't work on it? The chess project works on those articles, the board games project does not. We (the chess project) know what we are doing and you don't know what we are doing. Don't disrupt our work. Don't bother to respond. Bubba73 , 06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau and User:Canadaman1960

I left a note on User talk:Canadaman1960. We're obviously dealing with a newbie, so be careful not to bite. (S)he's obviously basically correct in most of those additions, but it needs to be done in the proper manner. If those are already wikilinked in the article, then they shouldn't be added to the See also section. Some of them should probably be added, but I haven't checked right now. Let's see how this develops. Again, be careful not to bite. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not WP:BITEing a legit noob in my view, but I will relent. It's the same editor that's been making the same edits under multiple IP addresses, pushing a POV without sources, in contravention of our most hard-core policy. The editor, taken as a multi-account whole, may well be a noob or quasi-noob, but policy still applies, and the user should have gotten the point by now. I'll back off and let you handle him/her/it. I am was less tolerant of anti-helpful editors than you are. >;-) PS: I tend to agree on Trudeau's nature and doings, but I'll still revert material that violates the BLP policy, even if I personally happen to believe every word of it. PPS: Not a single one of those things should be in the "See also" section, because they are leading, begging the question, and highly POV. If any of the linked-to articles are appropriate for the main prose of the article (arguably all of them are), they should be worked into the text smoothly. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 07:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we basically agree, and keep on watching that editor and the page. BLP violations are serious matters. This editor is indeed edit warring and needs to learn not to do it. They are editing in a disruptive manner and need to learn how to edit Misplaced Pages. They should use the talk page and seek consensus. If the sources and content warrant it, See also links can be appropriate if not already dealt with and wikilinked in the body of text. The categories already deal with some of the criminal issues, but the See also section can be used legitimately. It is still best if such things can be incorporated into the text. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Right-o. :-) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

<-- I have moved the See also links and started a subsection for their discussion right below your section here. I have also invited the disruptive editor to join the discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. :-) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Trudeau article

The problems continue at Kevin Trudeau and I've recently reverted an anonymous editor who is almost certainly the same person you discuss in the section above. Your report to ANI was not actioned, in part because it was not really the right place (though it could have been handled better as a block was clearly called for). At this point Canadaman1960 has engaged in more than enough edit warring to warrant a block (I would do this myself but I've reverted twice and do not use admin tools when I'm involved in editing the content). If you come across a further revert by that account please consider filing a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (if I see it I'll do the same obviously). Another possibility, since the person seems to be using both an account and IP address, is to make a report at WP:SPI and ask for a checkuser to see if the person is switching between an account and anonymous editing.

I'll try to keep an eye on this as well, but just wanted to give you some advice on how to proceed if the edit warring flares up again since you have been working on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Canadaman1960 is up now (not yet added to main SPI page by their clerk bot; I think that takes 5 min. or so). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Have now also filed a report at AN3, and requested semi-protection on the article. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Blocked for the unusual number of 31 hours; page semi-protected for 7 days; an admin says SPI isn't even needed. Would prefer long-term semi-protection, since almost all anon edits at that article are crap, but oh well. It's a start. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, glad that got dealt with (just FYI 31 hours is often a standard block for vandals, the rationale being, I think, that many vandals are kids at school and by blocking for 31 hours we prevent them from causing trouble for the rest of that school day and the next one). I have the Trudeau article on my watchlist strictly because I've noticed a lot of drive-by BLP violations there (it's difficult to exaggerate the extent to which I do not hold Trudeau himself in high esteem), and you could well be right that a longer term semi-protection is necessary. If you see continuing problems with IP edits don't hesitate to contact me and I'll consider protecting for a lengthier chunk of time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the 31-hour span. That now makes sense. Agree with you about Trudeau (and I come from the pool side, not the informercial side!) Lastly, I've been 'listing this article for 2+ years, and virtually every IP edit is either bogus or is so minor (typo fix, etc.) that someone else would have made it shortly anyway. I'd semi-protect this long-term, on the same basis that albinism was until years of constant IP vandalism finally mostly went away (probably because of a very large increase in watchers, making any "amusing" attempts at vandalism fruitless unless one gets excited by dork edits lasting for 3 seconds), and eight-ball, which is constantly subject to non-vandalistic but ignorant mangling by IP editors, that often doesn't get reverted for extended periods of time. I'll leave it all up to you, though. The article seems to be watched enough to revert this puppetmaster pretty quickly. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS

I was reverting Eubulides's change. --NE2 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I missed that, and jumped the gun. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

Why aren't you one? Have you thought about it? --John (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Been busy offline. I don't want to commit to adminship until I am certain I have time to be good and consistent at it. Won't do WP much good to hand me the broom if I'm not in a position to sweep.  :-) I've had many nomination offers. I will think about it again in Jan., when I anticipate having some time. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairy nuff. Please give me a ping if and when you do decide, if you could. Best, --John (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. ;-) — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 08:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia or relevant?

You deleted one item from the RaH article (about PETA ads), while leaving in a bunch of others that were equally uncited. I see some value in having the items, even if they do border on trivia. But it seems to me that there was no basis for distinction of the deleted item from the retained items. I deleted the section per your trivia comment (though I might restore it if there seems an interest). If we use "Popular culture" references at all, we should keep all of them (unless one seems genuinely dubious, or somehow a BLP issue). Just adding a {fact} tag, or even better finding a citation, is a more moderate approach to an individual item. LotLE×talk 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was an unsourced allegation that a controversial organization, PETA, has been engaging in reductio ad Hitlerum, a stupid fallacy. We should not keep all of such trivial crap, only the sourced bits, and even then only if the editorship of the article in general thinks that having a IPC section is worthwhile (FYI: such articles rarely pass GA, and never FA). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to put it back, go ahead with {{fact}} as you suggest; my objection is already on file in the edit history, and someone who cares about that article more than I do will fix it one way or the other. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

David Pearson

Please ask next time before you randomly pick the name for an article on a well-established topic like NASCAR drivers. The article should have been named David Pearson (NASCAR) as established on dozens or hundreds of articles. I hate to redo the move and do another round of disambiguation changes. He's a highly visible driver and controversially missed the first class of five the sport's new hall of fame. An argument could have been made that he's the primary topic for the name since he was so huge in the sport. At least some of the other people with that name are nationally know in their field, so it's probably not too controversial. The article is listed at GAN, so that needs to get cleaned up once the name is finalized. Please respond here on your talk page. Royalbroil 13:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about my actions on Misplaced Pages is ever "random", thanks. First, please start with WP:NCP, and you'll see that the convention is "NAME (description of the person as a person)", not "NAME (name of their field)". WikiProject Baseball and WikiProject Ice Hockey have been defying this convention, for reasons they have never been able to justify at WT:NCP or elsewhere, but that is no reason for anyone else to do so, especially since it is an argument these holdouts will eventually lose. I note that the hockey folks have inserted an "(ice hockey)" example at NCP. I'll probably revert that once I find a replacement example, as it is the one and only example in the entire document that does not actually follow the WP-universal convention. At any rate, the naming conventions make it perfectly clear that "(NASCAR driver)" - or simply "(driver)" if "NASCAR" is not needed as a further disambiguator - is the correct disambiguation, just like "(chemist)" and "(pool player)", not "(chemistry)" or "(pool)". Pearson is a person, a driver, not a type of racing.

Secondly, if you actually look in driver categories (e.g. Category:NASCAR drivers - I actually DID look there and in various other driver categories, before doing anything), most DAB'd drivers fit this pattern, e.g. "(driver)" or "{NASCAR driver)" or the redundant "(racing driver)" which should be shortened but is at least human-descriptive. Only a minority (although a disturbingly large one - apparently a lot of NASCAR editors don't read guidelines) use something inane like "(NASCAR)" or "(motocross)", as if people were, themselves, sports. All that said, the real proper disambiguator may well be simply "(driver)", given apparent lack of any other, non-NASCAR, notable driver by this name. If that is the case, all it will take is a very simple AWB job to fix it. Actually, really all that has to happen is moving David Pearson (NASCAR driver) to David Pearson (driver) and a bot will fix all the double-redirects within a few days, with no human interaction.

How visible or controversial Pearson is has nothing to do with anything. Whether his article is at GAN or not has nothing to do with anything. Even many Featured Articles have disambiguated titles. Article title disambiguation has nothing to do with anything but the fact that article titles can be ambiguous, and this is nowhere more true than with simple human names with common components like "Pearson" and "David". No, no argument can (reasonably) be made that this David Pearson is the primary topic for the name "David Pearson" on the basis that he is oh-so notable in his field. The other David Pearsons are notable in their fields, and to claim that NASCAR racing is more important than science or other fields would be a silly PoV-pushing exercise. Let's hope no one goes there. Of course the move shouldn't be controversial, or I wouldn't've done it, and even if it was, it would have been immediately reverted (instead, I've had many leisurely hours to fix redirects, which I have quite conscientiously been doing, but will now stop doing since it's apparently a source of irritation to you).

His notability in his field isn't even that impressive. Yes, he was a champion and even a rookie of the year, but so were lots of others; there are whole navboxes of them. Interestingly, he only appears in two such navboxes, while Earnhardt Sr. appears is something like six or seven of them. Outside of NASCAR fandom, Pearson is certainly not a household name, the way that Andretti and the two Earnhardts are. He didn't make it into the inaugural HoF for actual reasons (none of us know all of them probably, but I really, really doubt that all of them were capricious and stupid). That there's "controversy" about it is meaningless. There is always fan outcry when the object of their fandom does not receive some honor or accolade that a competitor does.

I think that addressed all of the things you raised (whether to your satisfaction remains to be seen of course). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 13:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I got you upset, I was just discussing what happened. I'm not upset. I'm fine with changing him to David Pearson (driver) - he did a little drag racing and I think some sports car racing. You're right about NASCAR contributors not following standards - I gave up on trying to enforce something like that years ago. Now that there aren't very many regular contributors anymore, it might be a good time to open a discussion (which involves contacting the active contributors) to get all articles named the same. The reason there are some motocross is because a few drivers are far more notable for their motocross accomplishments than a few NASCAR starts. Changing to "driver" might change this, although motocross people use the term "rider". For the GAN, I was commenting that a disambiguous link cannot be a GAN, so the final name needs to be placed there (a checklist of something to be done). I still think that an argument could be made for him being the primary topic - he's second on the all-time wins list in a major sport watched around the world. He's higher on the win list that Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson. So arguing that he's not that impressive in his field is interesting. As far as I'm concerned, we should drop the topic of making him the primary topic and leave it as a disambiguation (as I alluded to in my first post so it's probably not too controversial). I think you should wait with changing incoming links until the name is finalized. I like how this discussion has brought out two items to address in his article (quiet, controversy for not making the hall of fame's first class). By the way, I don't consider myself to be a fan of his. Cheers! Royalbroil 14:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not upset; just trying to be clear. No discussion is needed with anyone to rename articles to adhere to naming conventions. Every single "(NASCAR)" and similar bio article should be moved to "something-er" versions - (driver), {NASCAR driver) if necessary, (rider), whatever. WP-wide, stable and very well-accepted naming conventions and other guidelines do not require any WikiProject's or other group of editors' permission to be enforced, by anyone. If you think it would be constructive to discuss the matter with editors who have been disambiguating bios with "(NASCAR)", be my guest, but it has been my frequent experience that editors who a) do not know and understand the NCs and b) have been violating them, are c) extremely likely to have bizarre and self-important reasons why their pet project and favorite article type is not subject any such rules, and they will fight you to the death for the "right" to ignore guidelines with impunity. Given that, as you say, the number of active contributors has dwindled, there's a fair likelihood that the remainder are very entrenched in their fiefdom's special ways. That's the problem I've encountered with the aforementioned projects, among others on other topics (e.g. the highway projects hated WP:MOSICON when I was developing it, because they were peppering prose - like, regular paragraphs - with street signage icons). GAN: I changed it already to the current article location; I have stopped any further post-move cleanup after that (there are 100s left), and am moving on to other things. Not that notable: I don't mean to imply in any way that he's not notable, only that his notability is not so huge outside of his field (unlike, say, Albert Einstein outside of physics) that he trumps everyone else by that name including one who holds 10 world records (how many does NASCAR Pearson hold?), and he's still a redlink. The competition hasn't even fully arrived yet, as it were. :-) Anyway, your two suggestions to me directly (drop the primary topic issue, and stop the link changing): Done. PS: Wasn't meaning to imply you were a big fan, only that fans might indeed feel controversy with regard to the HoF thing, but this is normal and doesn't make it a notable controversy, viewed more objectively from outside. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2

Hi SMcCandlish. I noticed you created an RfA page some time ago. I was wondering as to what the status of that RfA might be. Please let me know if you still intend to run for adminship with that RfA; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete it for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone else created that preemptively. I might aa well actually use it. Been putting it off for years. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 07:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Please go for it soon (I'm cleaning out old/unused RfA pages right now and it'd be great if you could get that off my radar.) Best, FASTILY 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Death cats

I noticed you cleaned up something close to one of the cats I tagged - do you have any opinions about tagging or over tagging or quiestionable overlap or pardon the term underlap of caat tags? I would be interested. SatuSuro 03:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think about that stuff a lot, probably a lot more than most. I tag like made in categories, and think they should all be tagged just like articles. For one thing, it helps readers and other editor know what project might be relevant for scope issues, help with problem articles, who to report problems to, where to find "sister" topics, etc., etc. Secondly, it populates categories like the (misnamed - should be "pages", not "articles", but that's the template's fault) Category:Category-Class cue sports articles type of categories under WikiProjects, which can be very helpful to project geeks like me - has someone tagged a category we didn't even know about as somehow relevant to us? Has someone in the project added a new category last month and I didn't notice? I need to change something on every category related to the project, but how do I find them? And so on.

I'm an un-fan of redundant tagging. That is, something (article, category whatever) should not be tagged as being in the scope of both WikiProject Chicago and WikiProject Illinois just because it has to do with the former and the former is part of the latter. That defeats the whole purpose of having narrower and narrower projects and categories. Of course if something is relevant to both Chicago as a municipality and Illinois as a state, specifically and for different reasons, then it should be in both.

Partial overlap: Not worried about it. If two projects can claim scope, that's fine, as long as one is not a child of the other, except as noted above.

As for the particular stuff you saw, I was just removing redundant parameters (the tag auto-detects that it is in a category now), and listas stuff that isn't needed either any more (MediaWiki doesn't cat.-sort by prefix any longer; hasn't for some time).

Hope that helps. :-) I consider Category:Cue sports and all its branches to be my best cat. work. Some are probably initially confused by Category:Snooker being subcategorized at every level under both it and Category:Sports and its subcategories; this is because snooker is historically and technically a type of cue sport, but culturally an entirely unique phenomenon in sports, much as rugby is not just a variant of association football (soccer). Anyway, I've taken the cue sports approach more recently with Category:Pinball as well. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 03:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: "Death Cats" would be a great band name, maybe a Cure tribute band? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow - please to have met you - I trust you have a very safe christmas - I can see we have some things in common - I will get back to you later on some of this stuff - I have some diffs I might need to share to solve a few problems sometime SatuSuro 04:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually parent child category mix on both mainspace and talk page items leaves me apopletic but at times bewildered that editors cannot see what they have done - I still have heaps to go back to and unravel at places seen SatuSuro 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya. The problem is, in part, that one or another of the guidelines, written in near-impenetrable jargon ("differenced" is a key word, as I recall) seem to actively encourage such crap. Needs serious addressing. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You speak my language sir - may the new year hear the trumpets - and a bit more of the clash and cure songs penetrate the walls of the death project :) (death songs in modern rock, dead rocks stars, etc etc ) SatuSuro 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me; been on Killing Joke all week long. Found their entire discog. — SMcCandlish   ‹(ō¿Õ)ʔ   05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry XMAS

Armbrust is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Armbrust (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your barnstar...

I regret to inform you that the barnstar that I was going to give you for this bit of hilariousness was eathen by a bear. Happy editing! Hamtechperson 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank ya verra much! I like feeding the animals anwyay. ;-) User:SMcCandlish/Sig 08:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy, massive subcategory renaming - Rugby union players

Merry Christmas!

Thank you for your recent input and support on the renaming of the category Rugby union footballers to Category:Rugby_union_players. The rename is done, but unfortunately all the subcats have not. I have asked the question at the CfD talk page as well, but are you perhaps aware of an easier way to do this huge renaming. Apart from the subcategories, there are a host of other categories that also need to be renamed... Any chance of a bot doing the hard labour? - Sahmejil (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Skye Villages

You contested a proposed speedy renaming of Category:Skye Villages, so I have relisted it at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Skye_Villages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT editing.

Continue to revert against the consensus on the proposal talk page will be considered disruptive editing and you will be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)