User talk:Grsz11/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Frustration
I completely understand your frustration. I hardly edited Wikipedia at all between last November and early March. It's a highly imperfect system, and requires almost superhuman patience. I think that this little spat with thegoodlocust was exacerbated by your assumption that he was a troll or sockpuppet — although I understand why you'd think that, it's always good to give people the benefit of the doubt and/or enough rope to hang themselves. Rest up and feel better. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Pirates
Most of the good articles I could find listed them by the best ERA to worst, which looked good. Though, once we get deeper into the season there should probably be a minimum appearences set for the list, so it is fair. I agree limiting it to the top five would be good, although at the end of the season a full list should be added, we've got plenty of time until that comes up though. Leave any more questions on my talk page, this is my first baseball season as a Wikipedia member, I look forward to doing what I can; and if that first game was any indicator it's gonna be a hell of a season. Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just wrote that. I figured that we should have some sort of worded summary of the season. I don't plan to include every game by any means; only major highlights (Opening day, home opener, how they were able to overcome the past and win the World Series (yeah, right), any big win/loss streaks) stuff like that. Blackngold29 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since we're gonna rank the pitchers by ERA, should we rank batters by their batting average? And are the batters limited to the top 5 also? Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll definately be watching the Pens tonight, it's kinda conveinent that the Bucs aren't on TV. I'll probably get on and update their stuff anyway, if you haven't beaten me to it. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant the baseball. Most of my classes don't start until later in the day, so I'm usually on for a little bit at night. I've learned from the Steelers Project that the more stuff that you can do while it's happening, the easier it is. I admire those guys who go look through all the old newspapers to find out game results from 50 years ago. I've considered trying to start up a Pirates Project, but I don't know if it's really worth all the effort. Just like the Steelers, the Pirates seem to have a good amount of articles, but most need work. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll definately be watching the Pens tonight, it's kinda conveinent that the Bucs aren't on TV. I'll probably get on and update their stuff anyway, if you haven't beaten me to it. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since we're gonna rank the pitchers by ERA, should we rank batters by their batting average? And are the batters limited to the top 5 also? Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I go to college in Butler, at BC3. I assume you're from around Pittsburgh too? Blackngold29 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to remove personal attacks...
...why would you leave in place a personal-attack section heading, now functioning as an anonymously posted billboard? With your intervention (which, might I add, removed a lot of ontopic discussion, which just happened to be in that section), you have made the personal attack on me conspicuous and hard to attribute. --Mareklug talk 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did some work on it now, i'll be back in about an hour and a half. You may have had some relevant conversation, but you have to admit that most of it (and there was a lot of it) was quite unsubstantial. I'm also going to fix my post at the noticeboard. Thanks, Grsz 11 14:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but having been on the receiving end of your follow-up "work", I feel compelled to include the following excerpt on your talk page, as you clearly need a little more practice and thinking about the consequences of your interventions, before policing on Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Begin quote from Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
Troll
< User:Grsz11 removed due to repeated personal attacks, etc. between User:Tocino and User:Mareklug. This talk page isn't for your discussion of who may or may not be a troll. If you insist on talking about it, do so on a User talk: > Grsz 11 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I did not make any personal attacks, but participated here, forced to define what I meant when I declared the phrase "declare formal intent to recognize" to be an example of bullshit. I had to defend this, and my reputation, being unfairly characterized as having been blocked here before, and to illustrate what bullshit can and does mean, and to properly source this. This section, titled "Mareklug is a troll", was, however, started as a personal attack on me. I'd appreciate you learning first how to mediate and correctly remove personal attacks, if they are to be removed at all. You have botched this operation here, among other things, removing without justification substantial amount of meritorious ontopic discussion, as well as orphaning as anonymous the original section heading, which was a personal attack, so that it became impossible to see who made this personal attack. Now, many hours later, you come back and unfairly and ineptly characterize your earlier edit. None of this was terribly adroit of you, or fair, including your follow-up call on the Administration Noticboard for admins to "dish out punishment". I don't think I could vote for your Request for Administratorship, given these crude edits. Clearly you need to hone your skills, because this intervention of yours brings more harm than good and is more incendiary than the offending text itself. And personal attacks are not between users, but made by one user on another. However, meddling and mishandling them, while removing relevant discussion, definitely constitutes an in-betweenness of the most undersirable kind, not to mention, suppression of speech. Undesirable speech should be confronted with more speech. --Mareklug talk 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-- End quote from Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
-
- I saw the post; it's clear that your attitude has never changed. Personally, I could care less what you think of me. Both of you have seemed to turn that page into your personal battle grounds. It states at the very top of the page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article." What's so hard to understand about that? Bitch at each other on your own talk pages as much as you want, but don't waste everybody else's space. I acknowledge that Tocino initiated the whole thing, but your continuous responses were inappropriate as well. This was unnecessary, and you know exactly what you were trying to do when you did it. Does anybody really listen to Tocino? I'm fairly certain you're integrity on the page would stay intact, no matter how many times he called you a troll. You just need to stay cool. Grsz11 05:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments after September 11
The edit was not intended to be biased. It is, in my estimation, cleaner and easier to follow exactly what was said by whom.
The edit I offered improves on the existing text in a few ways:
1. The Media Matters reference was eliminated as it is irrelevant in that does not provide the source comments. Instead it draws comparisons between the news coverage of Wright and Hagee.
2. It is clear, and verifiable, that Wright attributes his remarks to Peck. To assert that Wright "expands on" Peck, you would have to show the "base" of Peck's actual remarks from which Wright expanded. Wright does not say he "expanded on" Peck comments. My edit shows exactly what Wright said in relation to Peck.
3. Peck is identified for his service in Iraq under President Carter. Elsewhere, Peck's service under Reagan is noted, and thus the entry is incomplete to cite only Reagan and not Carter. 4. I show the direct Wright quotes, in the order that they are given by Wright in his sermon. The existing entry scrambles the order.
5. I note at the end that no evidence has been offered to show that Peck made the remarks. That is verifiable, not original research. If anyone has independent evidence that Peck said the remarks, let them add the evidence.
Regards Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Roland S Martin
You wrote "(rmv. wow is this POV and original research. nobody said the sermon took place the Sunday directly after 9/11. that alone blows your argument)"
Roland Martin said the sermon occurred on September 16. His own network, CNN, said with him on the air they couldn't find evidence of this.
Martin also wrote that Wright was quoting Peck. You seem to agree that is not correct, since you wrote "It's pretty clear and easy to determine that Peck did not make those exact comments ..."
For the Jeremiah Wright entry, I am not disputing the "shortly thereafter" language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngwarrenbuffett (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean CNN said they couldn't find evidence that it was the 16th? Grsz 11 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Please see the link, which I have excerpted.
On March 21, 2008, CNN journalist John King interviewed Martin on Anderson Cooper 360°. King noted that CNN staff could not find any evidence of Peck making the statements attributed to him by Wright and Martin. [1]
KING: We went back and we looked for any appearances by Ambassador Peck during this time once you pointed this out to the staff, and can't find any.
MARTIN: Right. And I actually called the church to find out, first of all -- first of all, Reverend Wright is out of the country -- to find out, was that the actual date of the sermon? Was that actually right? Or did he make a mistake in terms of where he saw the ambassador, who actually was a Republican ambassador to Iraq under Ronald Reagan [sic -- Peck was in Iraq under President Carter]?
Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Peck's comments
You wrote:
It's clear that Peck put forward the idea that US actions brought forth retaliation by Al-Q.Italic text Here is various parts of Peck's various appearances on Fox. From this, I believe, Wright certainly took his liberties, but his main point (Chickens roosting) gave from Peck's statements that the US has certainly done things worth of revenge, etc. Grsz 11 03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The transcript you link is a discussion of whether the US should attack Iraq, which Peck opposed. There is no discussion of why Al-Q attacked the US. The reference to 11 years of emabargo appears in this sequence, and it's Peck's answer to why Iraqis are miserable, ie, not simply Hussein but also the embargo. Peck is not offering the embargo of Iraq as the chickens coming home to roost in the form on the 9/11 attack.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Peck says this: "He (bin Laden) doesn't think it's appropriate for the United States to be doing, from his perspective, all the terrible things he sees us as having been doing." Grsz 11 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- As shown in the transcript, Peck does not link the 9/11 attacks to US policy. He does discuss a commonality of interests between Al-Q and Hussein. Also, the transcript shows that Peck did not mention Malcolm X, roosting chickens, Nagasaki, HIrohima or various Native American tribes. Thus, I think it is more appropriate to say Wright "attributed his remarks in part to the remarks of Peck" rather than say he "expanded on" Peck's remarks. "Expanded on" is really an editorial judgment which is not supported by any available evidence.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sockage
That's funny. I actually do buy socks in Wal-Mart because I like them to be cheap and plentiful. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Farrakhan
Would you be against including the section if I retitle it? In any case, it isn't misplaced at all if it gets its own section, since it obviously directly pertains to the Rev. Wright and the controversy surrounding him.-Schlier22 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be okay to mention breifly regarding the award. It can't say Farrakhan is a controversial figure as that's a judgement. Just say that he gave an award to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and mention the quotes. Grsz11 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Plague of Locust
I wish I had a giant can of Raid or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Falcons
Great idea about the Falcon article. A year ago or so, there was a fight between the original faclon and an intruder. It was caught on film which was rare and provided a lot of information on falcon behavior. Western PA Conservancy The Cathedral falcons are actually quite important from a biological science and conservation point of view. There are plenty of references to them in the media to justify its notability. Here are some links National Aviary Cathedral Falcon webcam, National Aviary press release, Pittsburgh Falcon defeats Cleveland falcon in Post-Gazette, Trib-Review article, Trib-Democrat article, Pitt Chronicle article, Pitt Magazine article.
I think the jump off point is probably the Cathedral of Learning article, where it could have a subheading which then does a main wikilink to your new article. Great idea. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama concerns
Hi there. As an editor who seems to watch the page closely, I wonder if I can get your comments on some of the issues I left on the talk page; it would really be appreciated.
I just find it appalling that not many of the concerns are even considered "concerns" by some editors. I agree with you that the GoodLocust has acted poorly, but I hope that his/her actions don't prevent you from working with myself and other editors on the real issues at hand. Thanks for your time. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm giving it a quick look now and doing some research. I'll give it more when I get back to my computer Saturday night and can actually see the whole screen. Thanks for the note. Grsz11 03:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I introduced my concerns in a NPOV manner, and they were largely tossed right out. I don't have any pro- or anti-Obama views, thus I am neutral. I was going to object to the article a few days ago, however, because I noticed from reading through once (and later again) that there was a pro-Obama tone to it, but didn't in the hopes that I could help it maintain FA status through giving editors a list to work on. Sadly, it was not to be because most were dismissed for largely ludicrous reasons of undue weight and "BLP concerns". Happyme22 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge in the political advocacy section, which I responded to. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Pitt deletion
A Pitt related page, Oakland Zoo (cheering section), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are important. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Zoo (cheering section) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.CrazyPaco (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Superdelegates
Hi. First of all my apologies if I violated some policy by telling a user I was going to check if their IP could be linked to the Clinton campaign. It won't happen again. Please take a moment, however, to examine the merits of the dispute. That user is acting in a decidedly POV manner, and used my violation of that policy to distract from the substance of my complaint about their non-neutral actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.78.77 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Not to sound confrontational or anything but how about an apology for threatening to trace my IP address and location expose me as a biased political operative when I'm just a random chick in a Mountain West state trying to clarify the superdelegate issues and put them in their proper place (and please note my removal of a similar "pro-Obama" edit to Ted Kennedy's article. Threats of IP tracing and "real life" harm are, while you probably didn't indend them to be so, kind of scary in this new age of "cyberstalking."
Also, I'd love for you and others to help me develop this article. I've got to run to work but will be back tonight to work on it more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008
Smart Ways (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Maxine Waters Issues
Thanks for your involvement in mediating this dispute. I'm wondering what you'd think of the addition of some "Superdelegate Controversy" section to some article that I'm sure exists on the 2008 Democratic Primary or perhaps in the Superdelegate article. It seems a much more logical place for it than editing the biographies of upward of 700 Superdelgates to include whether or not they voted in accordance with their district.Smart Ways (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Or, better yet, if you have any guidance (or suggestions of who I should turn to for guidance)for me in the creation of my first article (done to attempt to diffuse this edit war, etc. I'd really appreciate it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008 Smart Ways (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Trinity
Perfect. Sorry about the bite. I have removed the tag--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Invitation
I invite you to take this issue with me jointly to dispute resolution if you feel there is a problem.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"Personal attacks" policy
Howdy. I notice that you have the userbox "This user removes personal attacks because it's the right thing to do."
I've tried to defuse a number of Wiki-squabbles, and I'm always trying to refine my understanding of civility.
It is not obvious to me that removing personal attacks is the right thing to do. (Neither is it obvious to me that it is not the right thing to do.)
It seems to me that if a person posts public personal attacks, there is an argument to be made for leaving said attacks visible, so that other Wikipedians can see what kind of a person they might be dealing with and form opinions about various users and controversies based on complete evidence.
I'd be interested in your ideas on this subject, here or on my Talk page. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's appropriate for particularly offensive attacks to be left. If a person does make an attack, they should be warned (using the warnings at WP:UTM). This allows a user coming to the talk page to see that their may have been an incident in the past. I also make it known on the page that I altered what exactly happened. I've done this by just replacing the attack(s):
<Comments removed due to personal attacks by User:Example.>, by Grsz11 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the head-up
Thanks for the heads-up. Your first reference answered my question.
I wrote to the canvasser. He is unrepentant.
I don't know what to do. I've never filed a request for comment. I think I might have to.
But, thanks for your help. Geo Swan (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking is a last resort
Blocking should be used as a last resort, not the first. Wikipedia has tons of rules, and most new users end up breaking one or two of them, but we definitely do not need to block every newbie who appears to break a rule. I disapprove of you clamoring to block User:Taostiger. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wright, take 382
I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 April 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 Wikipedia 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) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality board
People do check, myself included, but theres only so many edits you can make in a day. It's a newer board too, so not as many have it watched. Add in that those can be the harder nuts to crack problem wise... it will be a bit slower than others. Lawrence § t/e 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh it's really no big deal. I forgot I even had that there. Thanks though. Grsz11 18:55, 13 April 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 Wikipedia 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) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Pittsburgh Arenas
I recently did an overhaul on the PNC Park article, if you want to look over it and see if there is anything that you feel is missing or needs to be changed, I would appreciate it if you could either change it or leave me a message on my talk page. I put it up for peer review so hopefully it can be elevated to a Good Article soon, so I can move onto Heinz Field, which needs the same treatment. I did a revision of the New Pittsburgh Arena, but there's really not much to be added yet. If there are any other Pittsburgh fans who you think could help out too, let me know. Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Povertyneck Hillbillies
Just dropping you a line to let you know that I'm rewriting the article on the Povertyneck Hillbillies. I'm finding multiple reliable sources which seem to be sufficient to meet at least criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. (That, and I really liked "Mr. Right Now", so I'm especially willing to do some WP:HEY work here.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. As long as the article asserts notability, which it didn't previously. In a brief search I had done, I could only find detailed information (passing #1) from the Post-Gazette, and other local sources. Thanks for the work. Grsz11 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I've rewritten the article. It still could use a few more sources, but I think I've taken care of any notability concerns (being the official band of the Pittsburgh Steelers, for one). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
George Faulkner
[2] - Did you see George_Faulkner#References? And how exactly is notability not asserted? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't say how he's anymore important than the next Irish printer and bookseller. Be careful when you undo edits, as you restored peacock terms that I had removed. Grsz11 11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...I wish I was Yomangan. "was one of the most important" (if sourced, which it is) "say[s] how he's anymore important than the next Irish printer and bookseller" (which you ask for...CSD only asks that it be said he was a cool dude that's worth talking about). So I'm not sure what you're suggesting. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Goaltender
My bad I totally was just copying and pasting from the Ottawa article to avoid having to retype everything. On the Pittsburgh article it should be Fleury as he was the goalie playing for Pittsburgh. On the Ottawa article it would be Gerber as he was the goalie who got the decision in Ottawa. Albeit not the win as he would have hoped. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL
Admittedly the variations section in this article was a mess, and probably best removed. Still, though lol is most often the variation used, lollerskates, roflcopter, and similar have become pretty popular and widespread in the online gaming community(which is a pretty gigantic community), and have the same meaning. Words like roflcopter redirect to "lol", but no mention of the word(or the rather popular flash game associated with it) is made on the page. It's awkward. By the way, I didn't make up lolocaust or lollercaust. It produces thousands of search results on google, and is defined 11 times on Urbandictionary.com as lolocaust, and 2 times as lollercaust. So instead of following me around and deleting my contributions, please try to work that stuff into the article as you see fit next time. By the way, how can you be a democrat and a libertarian? Lollercaust. thezirk (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
ONIH's retirement
Yep, he's thrown in the towel & has thrown a few profane 'edit summaries' around too. Very disappointing behaviour, on his part. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Pittsburgh Steelers
We should get this back up to Good Article status; it was at one point, but has since been removed. The article was recently protected from annonomous users, which should help us some. Oakland Raiders is currently a good article, we can use it for reference. I have started a draft in my sandbox. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to help in any way you can, there is a to do list at the bottom of the page. Any suggestions would be welcome, I have no doubt that if we work together we can accomplish this fairly quickly. Blackngold29 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Malone
I removed the A from Malone at the varies articles, 'cause the Penguins are awaiting the Conference Semi-Finals. As a result, we're not certain of Roberts status until that series begins. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:At 2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season for now; I've removed both Sydor & Malone from the 'alternate captains' section in the Infobox. I suppose, we won't be certain of how the Penguins will handle Malone & Sydor (whom as you've pointed out, wore the A's for months, while Roberts was sidelined) until the playoffs have ended (thus they'll have their 'official team photo'). For example, the Montreal Canadiens in '85-86 had Captain Bob Gainey; alternate captains Larry Robinson & Mario Tremblay. Tremblay missed the latter half of that season (he retired after the season) due to back problems & Mats Naslund filled-in as alternate captain. The official team photo (after the playoffs) had Gainey (of course) wearing his C; Larry Robinson, Mario Tremblay and Mats Naslund each wearing an A. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm no longer certain of the Penguins situation. If you feel Malone & Sydor should be re-inserted as 'alternate captains'? I'll do the honors. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Black sermonic tradition
Regarding this, Wikipedians seem to have a terrible and endemic habit of writing decontextualized articles that fail to really elucidate a topic. In absence of a complete rewrite of Jeremiah Wright (which is on my list of things to do in vein of Trinity United Church of Christ), the link to Black sermonic tradition provides at least some important background knowledge to readers. Ewenss (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the link you placed on Jeremiah Wright is inappropriate in style and placement. In addition, this is not the appropriate place to have this discussion - bring it up on the article's talk page. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok
I don't want to have a protracted discussion with you about this. After staying of the Wiki for several days, I returned to steadfastly avoid any encounters with you. I had taken evey page that you edit off my watch lists and have made a point to avoid you. You complained that you were being stalked by me. This [3] Would say that at the very least, you are following me. I'd prefer to disengage completey, as my experience on the project has been made poorer for having known you. You seem to be a bright enough fellow, and I rather imagine that you might be intrested in administrative responsibilities on day. Guess what I'm saying is that I would appreciate it if you would find some other corner of this massive project in which to entertain yourself.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- So wait, you're telling me I can't participate in an RfA, one of only five at the time throughout the whole project, if you did first? Grsz11 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. One time of voting for an admin. nom. of an editor that you might not ever have interacted with, and finding a comment by me that you felt moved by the Spirit to comment on might be a coincidence. I devoutly hope that that will be our last interaction and my last coincidental encounter with you, and that you likewise will now remove my contribution list from the list of things that you watch,as well as my talkpage, and if it is not too much to ask, not develop any ""new found"" interest in any other subject that I might choose to edit.I will definitely do the same. It's a big project. If you goal is to create an encyclopedia, then this will make certain sense. Nothing good can come from further interaction between us on this project. Happy editing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yet you keep commenting. And just a note, you can't watch a contributions page. I don't even know why you're making such a fuss about things. We originally worked together towards consensus on some things, until you started attacking me. Grsztalk 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
David McCullough
Hey, I appreciate the edits, but just to warn you: I am working my way down going chronologically so don't waste too much time formatting the things at the bottom. I'll probably be changing it again when I get there anyway. One thing that I can't find a ref for that's in the article right now is that his first job after Yale was at Time magazine, if you can find one let me know. Most of the info is good, but I like to use as many sources as I can. Thanks! Blackngold29 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, just spotted it reading through (I started at the bottom for some reason). Grsztalk 23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've finished the first few paragrahs, you are welcome to proof-read them. I'll get a peer review eventually, but it couldn't hurt! Thanks for the link change a few days ago, it was more what I was looking for. Blackngold29 04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Problem user
Yeah, he seems like a hot head. I've dealt with other users like this, too, so I'm somewhat prepared. But if he acts up and starts warring, we report him and hopefully it will be resolved - and done with. I've used my 3RR on the page for today, so no more editing for me (at least there). Thanks for you help! My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please let me know what you think of the edits I'm making. On that talk page
or here. Thanks, Grsztalk 02:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC) - I also think we need to hound him on 3RR. Grsztalk 03:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Hounding" people is not necessary, productive, or in the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, it was poorly worded. I meant that we need to watch that the editor doesn't break 3RR again, as he's done so in the past and has ignored warnings to stop. Grsztalk 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for clarifying -- glad to see that was the case. Unfortunately we do get people who try to bludgeon their opposite number with policy. Carry on... Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, it was poorly worded. I meant that we need to watch that the editor doesn't break 3RR again, as he's done so in the past and has ignored warnings to stop. Grsztalk 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Hounding" people is not necessary, productive, or in the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
RE:A question on attacks
No that doesn't classify as a personal attack. Its a bit of a blunt criticism. Sometimes that type of criticism is tough to take and at times a little on the snark side but it is not scruntinizable under WP:NPA.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Draft
Well, couldn't hurt to have a back-up for Willie, to bring on for later downs. I don't know a lot about him, is he more of a fast guy or a Bus? Blackngold29 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Steelers2008DraftPicks It's official now! lol Blackngold29 21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, a lineman probably should've been first. It won't be worth paying Ben all that $$ if he gets the snot beat out of him every week. I'm sure they'll pick up one of each before the draft is over. I suppose a trade is possible too, but it would be a suprise coming from the Steelers. Blackngold29 22:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Links
I disagree. We don't have links in each section for the positions. Also the 2007 NFL Draft article just has the universities linked once in the entire article, instead of once each section. -- Tocino 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty annoying when there are repetitive links. We are following precedent here. --Tocino 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jeremiah Wright
I haven't looked at that page (or any of the Obama-related pages) since last night. I'm finishing up an AfD nomination right now, but I'll take a look at Jeremiah Wright in a bit and let you know what I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that there was POV-pushing and BLP issues there, and in my editorial judgment you were right to revert. However, there's a bit of a grey area, and some editors might think that your reversions were inappropriate. Specifically, some folks might consider the New Republic article to be a reliable source, in which case the appropriate action would have been to cut everything except that bit, rather than revert all. Since there is that little bit of ambiguity, it's probably a good idea to hold off on reverting on that page for the next 22 hours or so. If the material is re-added, I personally wouldn't object to a reversion (I might well revert it myself), but there are enough editors watching that article that you don't need to fight it off by yourself. And sometimes it's good to avoid the appearance of a 3RR violation, even if it's technically defensible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season
Sure thing, just let me know when you want a review and I'll do my best to accommodate.-Wafulz (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I removed Malone (again) as an alternate captain. See my reasons at that article's talk page. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Pgh sports...
I left a message about a project I've been thinking about here. Figured I would let you know, since you seem to be one of the most active users when it comes to the subject. See what you think.
Ready for Game 3 tonight? Blackngold29 20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
