User talk:MisfitToys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hello M.T.

Thank you very, very much for your continuous advice and help. It is greatly appreciated.
I hope 2008 will bring you everything you wish.
Sincerely,
MusiCitizen (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's always my pleasure to help out; your contributions are generally excellent. MisfitToys (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppe Falsone

Why did you change it in the first place? The manual of style says something about the dates, nothing on how to go about with places of birth and death. I never had any problem with this in all the time I have been contributing to Wikipedia and with previous DYK nominations. I think it is important to put the place of birth directly at the top and with members of the Mafia that is particularly important as it defines to what Mafia family they belong. Please refrain from making unnecessary changes. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Frost (pilot)

As you probably know, Afrikaner has a specific meaning. His name suggests to me that he was British South African. Do you have a source? Grant | Talk 03:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All I did was rearrange the cats and some minor punctuation/redirect edits, so I'm not sure what you want a source for. MisfitToys (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My bad, sorry. Grant | Talk 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Illinois District (LCMS)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Northern Illinois District (LCMS), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Baseball Year

I responded there.   jj137 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey thanks for the edit you did to Robert Loughridge the other day, it was greatly appreciated.--Cal (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; as I noted in the edit summary, it needs work to revise some of the 1890s language. MisfitToys (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cliff Keen

Thanks for copyediting of the Cliff Keen article today and on the George Jewett article yesterday. If you care to do the same to any of my other recent articles, e.g., Willis Ward, Thomas Trueblood, Ralph W. Aigler, Anton Zamloch, John Maulbetsch, Paul G. Goebel, Newt Loken, Ralph Heikkinen, Scott Shafer, Bob Timberlake, Harry Newman, that would be great. Thanks again.Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format for dates

I noticed that you changed dates in the Dorothy Canning Miller article—

—but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking format works such that the differences are visible only in the editing window: display is set in individual user preferences. I thought you might like to know. — Athaenara ✉ 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but date preferences only work for registered users, and not casual site visitors; US date formats should generally be used for bios of Americans. MisfitToys (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point which hadn't occurred to me. I'll keep it in mind myself now. — Athaenara ✉ 12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thing (which I don't think was relevant in this case, but is useful to remember) - always make sure that whatever date format is used is consistent throughout the article; e.g. don't use [[6 February]] at one point and [[April 23]] at another. MisfitToys (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bypassing redirects

Please do not bypass redirects; see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. Thank you. --NE2 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason not to, as long as other editing is being done. MisfitToys (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Summers

Hi! I notice that you've repeatedly (using different justifications each time) changing Ken Summers (Colorado legislator) so that the article begins:

Kenneth Guy Summers

instead of:

Kenneth Guy "Ken" Summers

You note in your latest summary that "familiar nickname need not be emphasized;" however, referring to the name Rep. Summers most commonly uses (see [1], [2] vs [3], and [4] vs [5] for evidence of this) both makes the article more informative and more useful for instance, to readers doing a news search or a google search, either to find information on him in the first place, or to find more information on him after reading the article.

Furthermore, there is no dictate in policy that the commonly used nickname must be removed; in fact, the policy at [6] gives John Edwards as a good example of a case where precisely what you have removed is done and is useful.

I'd like to re-add the commonly used name, and would like to ensure that it isn't removed. Would adding additional citations for the use of the nickname (as is done in John Edwards) a viable compromise, or do you have other objections? I'd like to think that we can reach a workable solution rather than simply reverting each other. Thanks! -- Sethant (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please slook again at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names, where the example for Bill Clinton presents his name as William Jefferson Clinton, clearly omitting "Bill"; the section below that, on common names, elaborates that the intro and article title need not match precisely, as in cases where the subject uses a more common form of their name. The situation with Edwards is very different, in that John is (unusually) not his real name, whereas his real name (Johnny) is often misconstrued as a familar form; the reference is needed there because of the confusion, not because he simply goes by a different form of his name than his real name. Furthermore, the article title is specifically the place where the most commonly used name for a person wil be presented; the fact that Summers generally is known as Ken is apparent from the title, and does not need to be emphasized in the article itself. MisfitToys (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You're correct that policy does not demand that the article name and intro name agree precisely, however, it does not mandate that information such as a common name be removed from an article introduction, either. I believe there is merit in including reference to the common name within the article text. Specifically, I believe that many readers (specifically those not versed in the subtleties of Wikipedia naming policy) may be confused as to what name is most commonly used when they see different names in the article title and article intro. Including the common name in both places emphasizes and confirms the individual's most commonly used name.
I'd obviously prefer: "Kenneth Guy "Ken" Summers", but I'd also offer up "Kenneth Guy Summers, commonly known as Ken Summers" — the style used in Jimmy Carter — as a possible compromise between our two positions. What do you think? -- Sethant (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought it's rather silly to specifically point out that someone is "generally known as", when the Bio policy already flatly states that "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known" but that "the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph." (And indeed, this is why the next section points out "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name." That's the relevant point; it's not necessary to explain the different name, or why the article conforms to that policy. If the article title is Ken Summers, then it's obvious that he's commonly known by that name (which is why I suggested moving the article in the first place). MisfitToys (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of Dwarf irregular galaxies

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dwarf irregular galaxies, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dwarf irregular galaxies is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dwarf irregular galaxies, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Gossage

Your changes to Goose's page were both awkward and grammatically incorrect.

That have been undone and will be again if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.214.36 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted again, as there's nothing grammatically incorrect in saying that "data was becoming available" by a certain point, or that a certain total was starting to be regarded as a similar standard. Your revision changed the text to "By the 2005 election, more substantial data regarding saves became available," which suggests that it happened all at once rather than gradually, which is inaccurate. You also revised to say that 300 saves "was becoming regarded" as a "likely mark for election"; that makes no sense, as the phrase "mark for election" doesn't seem to have any discernible meaning. My version - that over a period of several years a total of 300 saves was "starting to be regarded" as "a likely reason for election" - is much clearer. MisfitToys (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

Hi there. It is very helpful when editors make use of the edit summary box as well as marking the edit as minor. Also, single years (i.e. 1945) should not be wikilinked per the MOS, but December 19, 1945 should. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't link just a year, but rather a year following a date. MisfitToys (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your excellent copyedit of Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll. The most common recurring error was the date (eg. May 3 -- 3 May); at one point the date would always show by default the month and then the day, whatever was entered. I'm glad that's been changed. It's the MoS issues that are closely watched by WP:FAC, so I'm pleased there are now less of them! Anyway, thanks very much and best wishes, PeterSymonds | talk 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter O'Malley

Thanks for lending a hand

This user helped promote the article Walter O'Malley to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects and piped links

Are you aware of WP:R2D? There is no need to change a re-direct eg Companion of Honour to [[Order of the Companions of Honour|Companion of Honour]], it just makes future editing harder. David Underdown (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons I dislike that guideline is that it tends to oppose the guideline for diambiguation pages which discourages piped links (because the reader should see at a glance where the link goes); i.e. in dragging over the link on a redirect, the reader doesn't see exactly where the link leads. MisfitToys (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well it makes sense on a disambiguation page because you'd otherwise see a great long list of otherwise identical lookinga rticle names. In an articleit reallyd doesn't matter, and eae of reading and editing are more important. In some cases, where redirects actually have the potential to become a standalone article in time, hard piping the link could actually be damaging in the long-term as it will reduce the number of incoming links to an article once it is created, and make the reader jump through more hoops to reach the best information. David Underdown (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spink Award Winners

I noticed that you changed the years for many J. G. Taylor Spink Award winners. The years you have put it do not match those listed by the baseball hall of fame's website ([7]) nor do they match other sources I have seen ([8]). Why have you changed all of these dates? Wickethewok (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The years listed by most sources reflect when the award was announced in December (I've also revised the article for the Spink Award to clarify the difference); the award is actually presented the following year, and I believe you'd want the navboxes to reflect who was honored at the same time. You'll note that the Hall's announcement yesterday of the Frick Award recipient mentions Larry Whiteside being honored with the Spink Award this year rather than last. (I also noticed that the Hall link you included features a notation that the Hall revised the most recent award year to reflect the presentation year rather than the announcement year.) Also remember that the award was established following Spink's death in December 1962, so he couldn't really have been honored with that year's induction class (Bob Feller, Jackie Robinson, etc.). MisfitToys (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok, that makes sense I think. Still, it does weird though to have Wikipedia articles disagree with most contemporary sources and the HoF's website - as they seem to say they skipped 2007, rather than retroactively changed the years. Would you mind if I brought this up for additional input on the Baseball Wikiproject? Wickethewok (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't mind - so long as it's clear that this regards the navigation boxes, which I'm sure everyone would want to reflect who was being honored simultaneously. MisfitToys (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tsering Chungtak

Thank you for the constructive edits you did for the article Tsering Chungtak. I would like to ask a big favor from you, if you can please keep an eye with the article since I'm not always available to check its status against vandalism. Again, thank you!--Johnsoul (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's decidedly not my field of expertise, so I'd suggest you instead ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants, where I'm sure there will be editors willing to keep an eye on it. MisfitToys (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Pierce

Thank you for expanding this article. He's a player I have a great amount of respect for, and it's good that some of these players can have an expansive history. I have a few cards he autographed through the mail from 1960 and 1961. The guy's still dedicated to the fans, which is more than you can say for most MLB players these days. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still working on it, and obviously a lot of detail should be added for the 1950s; but it's certainly much better than it was a couple of months ago. MisfitToys (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, looks great. Anyway you can find a pic of him that's not a baseball card to use as fair use though? I point that out since I'd like to nom this for GA status, but I know that that image will be a point of debate when it gets reviewed. Wizardman 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I know the pic is an issue; if a better picture can't be found, there's always the possibility that someone could get a photo of the statue at Cellular Field, but ideally that would be just one of several photos in the article. I've just found some old notes regarding some additional articles, and I've got a few more things to add now, perhaps a few quotes. I think it'll still be a couple of weeks before I'd put this up for FA status. MisfitToys (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for corrections on Šerefudins Mosque article. I know i have many mistakes, but my English is not best. Regards --HarisM (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Those kind of mistakes are the easiest to correct (especially for new contributors), so you shouldn't worry too much as long as it's clear what you're trying to say - someone will likely fix the errors before long. MisfitToys (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of current United States Governors

Hello MT. The Seat up says - The year a Governors leaves office or the election date (which ever comes first). Ex: Rick Perry of Texas' current term end January 2011, not November 2010. Please re-read the article's section concerning 'Seat up'. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've removed that odd line 'which ever comes first'. Obviously, a gubernatorial election is gonna take place before the current gubernatorial term expires. Ex: A gubernatorial term is fixed, no matter how many Governors serve within that term. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The term 'seat up' indicates that the year is when the seat is next up for election - not when the term expires. MisfitToys (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a WikiProject that covers this? I feel the article (as you prefer it) is misleading. PS- This isn't personal for me. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've revised the section intro a bit, as I agree the wording of "whichever comes first" was a bit awkward (I think it was intended to cover the brief period between the election and inauguration, when the next election is actually later; better phrasing/notation can be added when the situation comes up again). MisfitToys (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's much clearer now, thanks MisfitToys. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

[edit] James W. Washington, Jr.

You changed his birth date, but you don't give a citation. The cited source that I used definitely says 1911 (I just re-checked it). This essay from the usually reliable Deloris Tarzan Ament also says 1911. What is your source? - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Social Security Death Index lists James W. Washington, SSN issued in Mississippi, last residence Seattle, with those dates of birth and death; that's the only James Washington residing in Washington who is listed as having died in 2000, and the November 10 birthday matches his own statement quoted in the essay, which also specifically points out that he was somewhat sketchy about the year. There's a James H. Washington (born in 1911, died in 2000) whose SSN was issued in Mississippi, but his last residence was in St. Louis. There are two other James Washingtons from MS who died in 2000, but they were born in 1927 and 1954. If the date of death is indeed June 7, 2000 (and that should be relatively easy to check), then it seems pretty clear that the 1908 date is accurate in the absence of evidence that the federal records are in error. MisfitToys (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember that he was vague on the date himself, and was in any case born decades before SSNs existed, so they presumably wouldn't have any better information than anyone else. I'm really more inclined to trust Deloris Tarzan Ament and the NAAM, who would have some reason to have given thought to this, than a federal bureaucracy that probably would not.
In any case, though, the right thing would probably be to cite the conflicting sources and note the discrepancy, as we do for many other people whose DOB is uncertain. Any problem with that? - Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
SSNs were created in the 1930s when he was in his 20s (and perhaps not yet so likely to be fudging about his age), and proof of birthdate would have been required to receive one - with strong federal penalties for deception; it certainly seems to be the most reliable record. I'd have no problem noting both dates and explaining the discrepancy. MisfitToys (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd District

It's clear that you wish to portray South Shore as a community of Black Muslims with no whites or African-American Christians, but this is an encyclopedia, not how you wish things were. You must leave it as is, including the fact that the neighborhood is mostly African-American Christians, the information on the Christian churches in the neighborhood, and the fact that gentrification is occuring in the neighborhood which is bringing about diversity. There is no reason to remove this information as it is all true and gives an accurate description of the neighborhood. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've very clearly pointed out that Black Muslims represent a minority in the district and the neighborhood, and I can't see how the text suggests that they form a majority. I noticed also that you've been busily deleting material relating to atheism and religious minorities on various articles (with various editors quickly reverting your work), so it strikes me that perhaps you're trying to delete info you find unappealing. Many of your talk page comments seem to accuse other editors of anti-Catholic bias, so perhaps backing off a bit would be useful. Pointing out that most residents in the area are Christians is unremarkable and unnecessary, as that generally applies in every congressional district - it's like stating that most residents are U.S. citizens, in that it's taken for granted; what's remarkable about the area is the presence of an unusal religious minority, which is why I included it - especially since the Nation of Islam HQ is in South Shore (that is certainly notable, although you've deleted it a couple of times). If a Catholic cathedral was in the district, that would also merit mention (I'll note that my work on the 3rd District article included a lot of material relating to the large Irish and Polish population, from which many readers will likely infer a large Catholic population). I've not discussed actual percentages of Catholics in the population, simply because I've not run across any figures documenting it (the Census Bureau doesn't ask that); if you want to say that a majority of residents are Christians, you're going to have to find a source (the fact that the Nation of Islam HQ and Mosque Maryam are in South Shore clearly indicates a notable Black Muslim presence, although not necessarily a majority - which I never suggested). I've also noted that the white population in the Chicago parts of the district tends to be concentrated in a few far south side neighborhoods (the Census Bureau map, reference #7, indicates that the areas around South Shore are generally between 10% and 28% white; the white population doesn't really start to go up until south of 83rd Street, and particularly south of 95th). Yes, there are whites in South Shore, but they're not close to a majority; there's no point in trying to document the specific racial demographics of every neighborhood in the district, as that's better saved for articles on the neighborhoods themselves (such as South Shore). Also, this discussion would be much easier if you would register for an account rather than use anon addresses. MisfitToys (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If the majority of residents being Christian is not notable because they are the majority, they you should not mention the black middle class, they are also the majority and therefore not notable. You mention the Black Muslims as a notable minority, yet you say we can't include the growing white population because they are a minority? Your argument is not consistent. If you are going to mention the Black Muslim minority as notable, why not mention the white population as notable? The reality is this is the #1 issue in the South Shore neighborhood now, gentrification. The neighborhood is changing and that is notable.
As for removing material on Atheists, there is a strict guidance for inclusion into the Roman Catholics category, I took this same guidance and added it to an Atheist category and removed those in the category who did not fit the guidance. This was quickly changed. In light of this change, I then tried to remove the guidance from the Roman Catholics category to be consistent with all other religious group categories, however, the guidance was quickly readded. I was only attempting to make all religious group categories have a uniform guidance if they are to have any. I now would like to see the guidance removed from the Roman Catholics category, as it is the only religious category with additional requirements beyond being the religion. It's a discriminatory guidance. You can't really deny that it's out of anti-Catholic sentiment, the arguments they are making for the guidance should apply to all religions, yet they only seek to limit inclusion in one religious group category. I know you are a reasonable editor and hope you see how biased this is and help me in getting the guidance out of the Roman Catholics category. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood my point; the fact that the majority of residents are Christians (again, their being a majority would need to be established with references) is not notable because that is typical of all districts (and most neighborhoods), not simply because they are the majority. The fact that South Shore is a middle-class black community is notable, both because that is not typical either nationally or within the district and because of the preceding statement that it was formerly a major Jewish community; the statement establishes a contrast, rather than pointing out something that's generally true everywhere. Your argument is that if we mention the Black Muslim minority in one neighborhood, we have to mention every minority in every neighborhood; that's nonsensical. Now that I've taken another look at the map, the Census Bureau actually places the white population of South Shore at under 10% (rather than 10 to 28%), which increases only once you reach South Chicago; whether the white population is growing in South Shore is something that would need to be established with references, and not simply because you say so. And the fact that Black Muslims represent a notable minority in the area is something particularly unusual; the fact that whites represent a minority has already been established in pointing out the racial makeup of the district. South Shore (approx. 3 sq. mi.) probably has a population of about 30,000, so I suspect readers will gather that at least some whites live there. Your comparison between Black Muslims and whites in general is not appropriate; one is a specific group indicating both race and religion, while the other is not, and the fact that South Shore is home to a major center of Black Muslim life is especially important. Is there a nationally notable black Christian church in the district? If so, that would be worth mentioning, I suppose; I checked Trinity United, but that's a half mile outside the district. The gentrification issue is something more appropriate for the South Shore article, and if it's the top issue facing the community right now, then it belongs in that article and not this one; this article discusses general demographic issues related to the district, and not particularly local economic issues (this article's discussion of the local economy is limited to how local businesses impact the nation and surrounding region). I'm sure every district has some areas which are gentrifying, but this is the only one which is home to the Nation of Islam.
Also, the guidelines for various well-established categories have been established by various editors, and are not necessarily identical for seemingly similar categories; if you want the guidelines to be identical (as you seem to), then you should discuss that with other editors, as they have encouraged you to do, rather than simply changing them yourself. And frankly, I don't believe that the difference is due to anti-Catholic sentiment; I suspect it's more likely because the vast majority of Irish are Catholics, and the category would become almost identical to the category for Irish people - in other words, Irish people are generally presumed to be Catholic unless there is a category under Category:Irish people by religion indicating otherwise. (Feel free to ask the editors over there if this is accurate.) The frequent editors of those categories have the right to establish the guidelines they believe are most appropriate, and the desire to keep categories as uncluttered as possible is a reasonable one. (For the record, I've added articles in tha past to the since-deleted categories for politicians and sportspeople by religion, including Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople, but I won't argue with the deletion of the categories.) MisfitToys (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The whites of South Shore that are notable are not whites in general, they are unique because of how it ties into gentrification. You mentioned contrast with the former Jewish community, I believe by mentioning the Catholic and Protestant churches, that also shows contrast. I don't think everyone would assume that all the areas of the 2nd District are mostly Christian, someone who has never heard of Christianity could read the article and they wouldn't know what the religious situation was beyond a Black Muslim minority and a former Jewish population. It's up to you though, I won't try to add any of it into the article again.
As for the religious categories, singling out one religion and creating a ridiculous standard for inclusion is hard to deny as anything but discrimination. Again, as with the 2nd District, you may assume that all Irish people unless otherwise noted are Catholic, but someone who has never heard of Ireland won't assume that. However, if all Irish people are to be considered Catholic unless otherwise noted, then the Irish people category should be made a subcategory of the Roman Catholics category.
The problem goes beyond just the Irish Roman Catholics category, though, the guidance is applied for the main Roman Catholics category, but no other religion. Wouldn't it be presumed that a person from India is a Hindu? Yet there is no guidance for Indian Hindus. The guidance applied to Roman Catholics has been used to keep even devout Roman Catholics out of the category since it was not what they were most famous for. I think that a Pakistani Catholic is a pretty unusual occurence, yet the same rules apply for Pakistani Catholics as Irish Catholics. So that presumption argument is not what is being used to justify the discrimination.
The current guidance as it is written, only warrants Roman Catholics who are famous for being Roman Catholic to be in Roman Catholic categories. This is not a reasonable standard, don't you agree? 99.141.69.65 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, the gentrification issue is a purely local one which belongs in the article for the neighborhood, as it doesn't have any significant impact on the nation or the region. I've already pointed out why I think the guidelines are in place for the Catholic categories, and I don't think they're either ridiculous or discriminatory; if you want to see them revised, you're going to have to discuss it with the editors there. You can't make the cat for Irish people into a subcat of Catholics, as while most Irish are Catholics, not all are. Also, you refer to "the whites of South Shore that are notable"; who are they, and why are they notable? I don't dispute that there are whites in South Shore, only that they have any wide cultural impact on the nation. And again, I'd recommend registering for an account; it would make it easier for other users to recognize that your various comments are from the same person. MisfitToys (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the Catholics that aren't obviously Catholic? And what about the people that have never heard of Ireland? If Catholic was elected president of a country like India, wouldn't that be notable? Yet, if you tried to add that person to the category for Indian Catholics, they would be removed on grounds of being notable for being president and not for being Catholic. The guidance is discriminatory, I don't understand why you won't acknowledge that. Reread my last comment, everything in it, the stuff you didn't respond to and then maybe you will understand how it is discriminatory. 99.141.52.7 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Are there people that have never heard of Ireland? If there are, I doubt the issue of whether its residents are Catholic or not is of limited importance to them. I believe you're mistaken on the India issue, as Category:Indian Roman Catholics features no such limitation; indeed it would be notable if a Catholic was elected president of India, as Catholics represent less than 2% of the population. I would also suggest that the majority of the people editing these categories are probably Catholic themselves, so accusing them of possible anti-Catholic bias is somewhat odd. I realize you've been involved in the discussion at Category talk:Irish Roman Catholics, but please ask there for an explanation of the reasons before jumping to the conclusion of discrimination; you're only creating an atmosphere of accusations and defensiveness. MisfitToys (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The Indian Roman Catholics category is a subcategory of the Roman Catholics category, which has the same guidance on it as the Irish Roman Catholics category, a guidance non-existent for any other religion. 99.140.164.99 (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE discuss this at category talk. I'm not interested in the issue, as I rarely deal with these cats. As I've noted (repeatedly), those maintaining the category are likely Catholic and not biased against the religion, so they will probably be as receptive as anyone to your point of view. MisfitToys (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty Girl Bullshit

I don't think Pretty Girl Bullshit was released as a single. As far as I know it only appeared on the two albums mentioned in the article. Change category? - House of Scandal (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The change was fine, as far as I can tell. It just needed a cat, and I thought that one was the most appropriate. MisfitToys (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mario Winans' album is classified at point-of-sale as an R&B album. The song in question in basically an R&B song interupted by Foxy doing her bit. You might consider adding back the R&B category you deleted. It's not something I feel strongly about, however. Thanks for your interest in the article. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Category:Rhythm and blues songs is already there if you want to add it. The new category title was just misformatted. MisfitToys (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Deaths in 2008

An editor has nominated Deaths in 2008, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in 2008 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. BJBot (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination was snowballed rather quickly. MisfitToys (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization of people

Is there some official guideline as to how the categories are sorted in an article (i.e. the birth and death category should be the first ones)? --Eleassar my talk 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been discussion of the topic in the past, but no agreement one way or another. Some editors prefer alphabetical order, arguing that it's more objective; but if there are numerous categories present, I (and a lot of other editors) believe that grouping them by area (education, military, awards) assists reader, rather than jumbling them together alphabetically (particularly if the reader isn't actively looking for a specific category). I'm of the opinion that birth/death year cats should always go first, as they're completely standard to all bio articles and (if listed list) often get stuck in the middle when new cats are added at the end. As I noted, there's been no guideline established on the subject. MisfitToys (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] League of Nations at WP:FAR

League of Nations has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Testing times (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fritz Shurmur

I am trying to get some comments on the Fritz Shurmur article and I have seen the high quality work you perform. Comments on this article will suffice. Thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia.Alexp34 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone over the article and done some revision for formatting, etc. Obviously, various quotes would help, as would more complete coverage of Wyoming's play while he was there. Otherwise, I think the most useful thing would be to back off a bit from some of the more effusive phrasing ("the love that his parents showed", "revered by peers for defensive genius", etc.). Multiple quotes will be necessary to illustrate things like that. MisfitToys (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Though at the same time I dread finding out how many typos I've made, it's always comforting to see your name pop up on my watchlist on articles like O. P. Hoff. Keep on with your bad copyediting self! Katr67 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Smith (photojournalist)

Hi, MisfitToys. I see that you moved Daniel Wakefield Smith to Daniel Smith (photojournalist). You're right that he generally goes by Daniel Smith (or Daniel W. Smith — his website is danielwsmith.com). I used the middle name as a disambiguator because he's not just known as a photojournalist — he's also known (in Connecticut, at least) for his radio drama recreations and his music. (Notice that the main New York Times citation used in the article is about the radio dramas.) Do you know whether there's a disambiguation guideline or standard practice for when the same individual is notable in multiple areas? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the title should reflect how he's generally known. I'm not sure if there's something else you might use in parentheses instead of photojournalist (perhaps Connecticut?). I'd suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people); there's a section on disambiguation using parentheses, including difficult cases. MisfitToys (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer — the James Stephen Smith example would seem to support using the middle name as a disambiguator, but I'll ask for opinions at the naming conventions talk page. I did create redirects for Daniel Smith (radio drama) and Daniel Smith (composer) as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the James Stephen Smith example deals with two men named Steve Smith who are both NHL hockey players born in 1963 (and both were defencemen, ruling out position as a divider) - a particularly difficult case. In contrast, there seems to be only one noted photojournalist named Daniel Smith. MisfitToys (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello, MisfitToys. Just wanted to thank you for your careful copyedits and top to bottom reading for Jonathan Zittrain the other day. Thanks a lot. Best wishes. -—SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit request

J. R. Richard is currently at FAC. Laser brain requested that the article be copyedited by someone who has yet to see the article. I've seen you copyedit articles on many occasions before, so I was wondering if you could comb through the article for prose issues and grammatical errors? Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did a long copyedit of it last June, and added one or two good quotes. But I've gone over the intro again. MisfitToys (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right! I remember that now! Well, could you take a look at the article again? There have been some changes to the text? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Illustrated Archives

Hello, I greatly appreciate your work on Billy Pierce, and just want to see if you know that Sports Illustrated now has a web archive set up that may contain every page from the last 54 years. I noticed that you had only one reference directing to SI, so perhaps this vault can help add even more information to the already extremely high quality article. A search on the exact phrase of Billy Pierce yielded 104 results.

I do not actively edit on the mainspace anymore due to lack of faith of the articles staying up for more than two years (Missouri Valley Conference College Basketball Season and Tournament articles), but you are still a great inspiration. Thanks-- SashaNein (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Copyeditor's Barnstar, for copy editing quite possibly every DYK on the main page within living memory. You deserve this. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've moved the barnstar to my user page. MisfitToys (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merci beaucoup

Thank you for your recent copy edits on the article Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film). Your input is greatly appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the copyedit

here. I definitely cannot proof my own work. And I also had to smile at you username, brought me back to Christmas in the 80s with that one. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buzzie Bavasi‎

Did you want to chime in on the note I left at Talk:Buzzie Bavasi‎??? ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the answer; I remember that after his death I noticed an article somewhere discussing the discrepancy, but I don't recall where I read it and couldn't easily find it online. MisfitToys (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Year in baseball

Hi there. As one of the first editors to this template I would like to see what you think of my preposition on the templates talk page. Thanks ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· Talk 21:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conscript Fathers

I just wrote a new article on Conscript Fathers. Your input and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Doug talk 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)