User talk:Kingturtle/Archive14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ending times

Hello Kingturtle, I just wanted to say that when closing RfAs, don't forget to update the ending times and remove the "voice your opinion" buttons on the RfA, as shown here and here. Also, thank you for becoming more active on Wikipedia again, both to improve the encyclopedia, and to resume bureaucrat duties. Acalamari 18:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benazir Bhutto

Hi Kingturtle, I reverted this edit as I assume it took out more than you intended! You probably want to try your revision again :-) Best, Gwernol 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final count for my RfA

Hi Kingturtle - thanks for closing my RfA! I noticed, however, that the count total is actually 34-2-0, and it is listed as 34-2-1. Seicer had changed their Neutral to a Support. I didn't want to change the page myself, but I would appreciate if you took a look. Thanks! - AKeen (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I must say

Well spoken, that was very thoughtful and insightful commentary. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering if anybody was reading the commentary. I spent the morning with toast and coffee reading everyone's commentary. It took a long time, and was dull at times, but well worth it. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I too wondered that. It's annoying to see editors who ask people to explain the reasons for identical sentiments. If User:1 thinks it's a bad idea and you ask him to explain and he does, and User:99 essentially agrees with User:1 and s/he gets belabored to explain their reasoning, when it's quite redundant to explain the same thing over and over, which makes the discussion unproductive. I guess they just can not accept that people can agree with others. It makes it all very hard to follow and stay focused. Luckily for me I simply said, Per Doc, Splash and Spebi—it's quite simple, they summed up my feelings perfectly. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detractors?

You can't be serious. I don't particularly care, but... I think that qualifies as sacrificing user-friendliness for pinpoint technical accuracy. Please consider changing it back, I'm not going to war with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:15, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm not even sure where you're getting that definition from. To detract is to take away from something, not to oppose it or disagree with it. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:17, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm up for any suggestions. Opposer is a rather lame word to use in any instance. Kingturtle (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] - It's accurate and it's a word everyone understands. I'm not sure what more you're striving for. This isn't an encyclopedia article. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:24, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Also: Everyone who's voting against is using the word "oppose". It makes the most sense to name the section headers in line with that. No one is announcing that they "Detract". Please change it back, or agree to let me do it. I would do it right now but I don't want to get into an edit war. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:29, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not married to Dectractors, but I'd like something instead of Opposers. Kingturtle (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose is what people are saying. We don't have a hundred detractors or nay-sayers or anything else. People are saying they oppose, and when summing up what they're saying in plural, we have to use the plural form of oppose. I'm sorry but I put it back the way it was. I'm begging you not to make a big deal out of this. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:35, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

er....I wasn't and I'm not making a big deal out of it. Kingturtle (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 02:44, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~

[edit] WP:CHU

Hi I noticed you were an active 'crat so I thought I would ask you if a user would be renamed a third time if the third one is a WP:USURP request Alexfusco⁵ 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I support User:WJBscribe's note: "I see no reason to have three renames in such short succession." Kingturtle (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That was what I thought but I thought the rules might be different if the 3rd was a WP:USURP request. Sorry for bugging you I wanted to be sure before telling the user that if he was renamed now he would not be again. Alexfusco⁵ 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of Baseball

Dear Kingturtle, I see that you unreverted a reversion I made on Origins of baseball. My explanation for my reversion appears on the article's discussion page. Thanks, Mlouns (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hometown Wikipedians

Re: your comment on my talk page, take a look at User talk:Danlev#Rochester Wikipedia groups and User talk:Truthanado#hey, i moved to rochester recently. Not too promising, maybe a start. Welcome back. Truthanado (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Assassination of Benazir Bhutto#References

You may be interested in reading the above. Cheers. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] note to self

http://swen.antville.org/

[edit] Your majesty

Your majesty, please forgive me for addressing you before you address me.

Would you be so kind as to close my RFA, which stands at 52-0-1? WJBscribe has recused himself because he made the nomination. You are the only bureaucrat that has closed a RFA within the past few weeks that also has edited today. Thank you, sir.

Archtransit (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kingturtle! I will use the tools that you have granted me wisely, compassionately, and to better Wikipedia. Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your help reagan 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Question

Yeah I can see where that'd be an issue. Templates can be very tricky. If you click edit on that template, you will see that at the top, it says "{{United States topic". That means that it is using the United States topic template within the USPoliticalDivisions. Now. I THINK that you can use this page. Essentially, the PoliticalDivisions page uses the information from United States topic. But beyond that, my knowledge ends. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

George Brett

I am going to put something on this subject on the relevant Talk page, but I wanted to mention to you why I thought the "decade" discussion should be removed from the article.

Perhaps "nitpicking" was the wrong word; "irrelevant" is closer to correct. Putting in a paragraph about how decades run from 1 to 0 instead of 0 to 9 is irrelevant to a discussion of baseball; something like this should go into a section on . . . who knows what, but it should be in an article involving calendars (possibly one that discusses on which year a century or millennium begins), but not one involving baseball.

The truth is that a decade begins and ends whenever someone declares it. The last decade began 16 January 1998 and ends today if you like, by some definitions. As far as baseball is concerned (as defined by baseball writers and statisticians, official and otherwise), it is pretty much universally accepted that a decade is comprised of those years beginning with the same first three digits. Inserting a calendric technicality into a baseball article when baseball itself is satisfied with its own answer seems a meaningless diversion for this particular article. The fact that the original editor used the word "technically" in his edit should tell us that it's a tangential discussion. I believe he meant well, but I just don't think the discussion is relevant to the article.

IMO, Baseball is all about numbers, but not all numbers are about Baseball. --Couillaud (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Style: empty Wikilink vs. external link

Can you point me to some guidance on why it's better to create an empty Wikilink for Debbie Dingell? Wdfarmer (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links): "If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article, then the link should be kept as an invitation for an editor to begin the appropriate article with this title. Such links do not have an expiration date." Red links "point to "buds" from which Wikipedia will grow in the future." Also, it says "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article." Embedding external links is meant for citations and references, not for covering up red links or for creating external links.

Why is a red link better? From Wikipedia:Red link: "Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."

An embedded external link takes the reader away from Wikipedia, and could take that reader on a reading and link-clicking adventure that takes them away from Wikipedia for a long time. We want people to stick around, I think. A red link is an offer to a reader to make an article, to stick around, to help. Kingturtle (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! 'Nuff said. Wdfarmer (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting

Thanks for the greeting, though I've been editing wikipedia articles for several years now.

With the ever-increaing number of Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools, isn't there one that notices/analyses the types of changes unregistered contributors make? I suspect editors that introduce categories, magic words, and semi-obscure templates, then document their work in lengthly edit summaries, are less likely to be a vandal than the average contributor. It would be nice to get a welcome template once in a while that acknowledges I don't appear to be a wiki-neophyte... :-) — 68.167.252.13 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

welcome templates

heya Kingturtle! i surely cannot template an experienced, kind, welcoming editor such as yourself! :) just wanted to remind you to subst: the welcome templates on users' pages instead of transcluding. all the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Can you translate "subst: the welcome templates on users' pages instead of transcluding" ? Thanks Kingturtle (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and sorry for the inaccessible language! Within the double brackets, put the phrase subst: (colon included) before the template name. This does a simple cut and paste job of the content of the template. If you don't use the subst: function, the welcoming words maintain an unnecessary link back to the template itself. I think there might be a template about this somewhere... let me see if I can find it (I think it's more elegantly worded than my words here). ~Eliz81^(C) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. i'm not templating you, just wanting to share the content with you ;) ~Eliz81^(C) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, so type subst:welcome instead of welcome ? Kingturtle (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup! That would be about the summary of it :) ~Eliz81^(C) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I never interacted with HanzoHattori. My comment was in response to HanzoHattori's I leave Wikipedia in protest statement, and I sympathize with and empathize with many parts of what it says. Kingturtle (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question...

Were you serious here? My own experience with this user was a deeply negative one. I made this timeline following my big interaction with him. And was able to produce it when he was the subject of an {{rfc}}. Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Why did you remove that AIV I am requesting intervention and no one has helped. Jdchamp31 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is for vandalism. User:Squiggleslash's edits were not Wikipedia:Vandalism. You may want to pursue Wikipedia:Editor assistance, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion and/or Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to get the assistance you are looking for.

The reasons I removed your request from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is because it wasn't vandalism and the alleged vandal was thwarted because the article in question was protected.

My removing your request was in no way a personal slap toward you nor was it taking Squiggleslash's side.

I am happy to assist you in any way I can. Kingturtle (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] StevenLeClark

Thanks for trying, but one can't seem to do much to educate/enlighten StevenLeClark. He appears to be a sockpuppet of Beh-nam. StevenLeClark appeared and edited the same article right after the previous incarnation of Beh-nam, AmericanAnthropologist01 was blocked. Just as AmericanAnthropologist01 appeared just after AbbasPeretz was blocked. See Beh-nam's statement at User talk:Number 57#Banned user Beh-nam. Is there a place we can list the new incarnations as they appear? --Bejnar (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] template talk:in the news

Hi Turtle, there's a discussion on your Bobby Fischer item and it would be nice if you gave your opinion. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

You're welcome! And thanks you for giving me the welcome to the project. Regards! Daniel dj87 (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If you're into creating policy by precedent..

You might consider undoing your promotion of Archtransit. I think it's pretty clear that there's no longer any consensus for him having the admin bit. Yes, I understand that such an action would be seen as an expansion of crat power, but then again, crats are chosen for their good judgement, right? I'd personally like to see us get to a place where crats are allowed to fix mistakes in promotions when they become apparent. And yeah, I further understand that crats don't directly have the technical ability to do this, but as you're a trusted member of the community, I can't imagine a steward would refuse such a request, coming from you. Anyway, just wanted to throw this crazy idea out there, in case you're feeling exceptionally bold. Friday (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot oppose this suggestion in strong enough terms. It would expand bureaucrat authority well beyond what the community has agreed to. The RfA in question was unanimous - how can Kingturtle have done anything other than promote? A lot seems to be made of the fact that this new admin has made two unwise uses of his admin tools - one block and one unblock. I have said that were I aware that he was planning to involve himself in controversial user conduct areas, I would have suggested more time elapse before that RfA. But my disappointment in how he has conducted himself aside, people seem to be very keen to jump on this guy rather than help him to learn. That aside, crats cannot unpromote users and I believe the stewards would likely and correctly reject such a request. If you want someone desysoped without their consent, take it to ArbCom - but I can't see ArbCom going beyong a strong caution (something the community has already delivered). WjBscribe 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, damn. This suggestion would have a way better chance of flying, if the crats were in agreement about it. I still hold out hope that there will come a day when we trust crats to do the whole job, rather than just half of it. Friday (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When I became a bureaucrat there were specific responsibilities granted to me for the role. I am not about to go beyond them, especially when there are already protocols in place to address admin misconduct. Simply put: It isn't my role as a Bureaucrat to remove an admin.

If you feel Archtransit has acted improperly against you or someone else, you should express your concerns directly to Archtransit, and try to come to a civil, orderly resolution. If you've tried that and things are not resolved, consider taking further action according to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. (For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges.)

Administrators can be removed by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation.

As an admin I can assist you in protecting articles; as an editor, I can assist you in simple mediation. Kingturtle (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitey Ford

Some guy added a blurb about a restaurant that "lasted less than a year". It sounded fishy to me. If it's true, why bring it up, except to knock Whitey? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I didn't read it as knocking Whitey. Maybe you can rephrase it to not sound like a personal jab. Kingturtle (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assuming I would even want it in there. Since it's unsubstantiated and seems to be vaguely insulting, why keep it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added a reference to the restaurant and removed the part about it closing. Kingturtle (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems good. I take it that it's still open? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is. We could always call the phone number, but that would be independent research ;) Kingturtle (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[Insert rimshot here] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologize

I humbley apologize for my mis-behavior. From this day on, I shall no longer make "joke edits". I'm so sorry for making them. I'll start doing good edits and making usefull contributions, okay? Best regards and no hard feelings, Yoshaibo (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User talk:Ioeth#Bagelboi

Hello, Kingturtle. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] Subst-ing

Oops, I'll go fix that. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth, Gehrig, etc.

Hey, come on, if it weren't for Ogden Nash, nobody would ever have heard of these guys. >:) Actually, I'd venture a guess that exponentially more Americans under the age of 30 have heard of Ruth than have heard of Ogden Nash. I wonder if someone wrote any poems "immortalizing" Nash? Meanwhile, I am chagrined that I didn't see that POV-dripping comment long ago. I wonder if you've looked through the (probably) 26 articles that the segments of that poem were posted in? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that "immortalize" is a poor choice of words, would you go along with saying, "Gehrig (or Ruth) inspired the poem..."? JGHowes ^talk - 06:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In Grover Cleveland Alexander it says "mentioned", and that's what I just changed it to in the Ruth and Gehrig articles. I don't think all 26 letters are covered in the articles. I didn't see it in the Cobb article, for example. But the Ogden Nash page indicates that it could or should be there. If the poem is going to be cited, it should be done uniformly across all the articles. One of the articles has it in a little box, which is kind of a neat way to do it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that Baseball Bugs' wording seems to cover all bases (pardon the pun). I didn't realize that the Lineup for yesterday poem quoted in Lou Gehrig is part of a larger poem mentioning several players. I used a centered {{quote box}} format for the verse at Lou Gehrig, which looks nice. JGHowes ^talk - 06:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An apt pun for any baseball reference. :) The box looks good. It should be extended to all the articles that reference the poem. One point to ponder: I don't think the poem is sourced, as such. However, it's all over the internet, and I'm sure someone could verify it in a collection of Nash's works. Here's one site with the poem. With his crazy puns, the one for Evers could also be added to Tinker and Chance's pages: [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put that on my to-do list, to extend to all baseball articles using the poem, properly sourced. (I hope Kingturtle doesn't mind our taking over his Talk page like this for an impromptu discussion!) JGHowes ^talk - 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I'm sure his "ctrl-x" keys work. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crosley Field

Since I'm here, would you mind giving me your opinion on my merger proposal on that page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

At Talk:Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries you asked about multiple uses of a single reference. Zntrip has answered your question, but if you would still like to look at a help page one is at Help:Footnotes. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly what I need! Kingturtle (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thx

I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?

Thanks for closing, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 on Monday!

I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet).

Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.