User talk:Buster7/Archives/2009/March

Kewl as a Kucumber
Thank you the advice and the support. I appreciate your comments. Everything is okay. I am delving into some heavy research offwiki, which I always enjoy, which means I will be here less to make certain people angry :).

Based on historical editing graphs, Monday Tuesday and Wednesday should be pretty smooth here.

You may appreciate my comments here to a new editor: User_talk:Dcourtneyjohnson

Ikip (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yellow brick road huh? So, which one are you? The Wicked Witch of the West or East? ;) HAHA Shanem201 (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Good Witch of the North(side of Chicago)...Good Luck!--Buster7 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Singular or plural
Well, the singular or plural debate has been there for a while. People come in and often edit it one way or the other. I'm not an expert, but comparing the two sentences: The first one seems to be better. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Brazil, the only team to have played in every tournament, have won it a record five times. They are....
 * Brazil, the only team to have played in every tournament, has won it a record five times. It is....


 * Brazil is the subject word of the sentence in question. It is a singular word and requires a singular verb. Brazil, used here, refers to the singular team....one of many teams. For example, in order to use the verb "have' we would need to change the subject word from 'Brazil' to 'The Brazilians'.
 * He,she,it 'has'...Brazil, a single entity
 * they 'have' ......Brazilians, the members on the team.
 * I hope this explains why the second structure is the correct one. --Buster7 (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you consider "Brazil" as a entity, then singular. If you consider "Brazil" as a team, then plural. For example, we usually hear "Italy are the world champions", but rarely "Italy is the world champion". I don't know which one is the correct one, probably there's no "correct" one. I'm sure if we change it to singular, very soon we'll have some editor come in and say we should use plural. I just prefer some sort of consistency. Look at this from Italy national football team:
 * The Italian national football team is controlled by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC) and represents Italy in international football competition. They are the current World Champions, having won the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Italy is among the top teams in international football and the second most successful national team in the history of the World Cup having won four titles (1934, 1938, 1982, 2006), just one fewer than Brazil. To this tally they can add one European championship (1968), one Olympic football tournament (1936) and two (defunct) Central European International Cups.

So in four sentences they manage to use two singular forms and two plural forms! Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your desire for consistency. My desire is for correct ENGLISH GRAMMAR. I am sorry to inform you but your use of the verb is incorrect. The example that you provide has nothing to do with the Grammatical structure of the sentence in question. If some editor comes to change it to plural, he will be mistaken. Believe me, Chan. We can get into a discussion of past perfect (ie...the past perfect tense denotes action that is completed (which is the case here) which also supports the correct use of the verb 'has')...all that is really required is that you assume good faith. I speak English! It is not a second language to me. --Buster7 (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW...if you are hearing "Italy are the world champions", you can feel free to correct the persons English. --Buster7 (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me meddling in? Chanheigeorge himself has given "proof" that Buster is right when he said: if you consider "Brazil" as a team - team is and has always been singular. That ONE team consists of multiple members is an entirely different matter. Richard 07:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith, and I don't claim that you're wrong, I also know English grammar but I don't claim to be an expert. Most often I don't revert those changes, unless it results in inconsistency, which was the case after your initial edits. So if you want to change it to singular, you are free to change it. Although I'm sure somebody will change it back to plural sooner or later, and probably you can discuss with them. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
I think the consensus is to avoid trivia. Why only limit after the World War II? Does the finals before World War II not count? Seems arbitrary to me. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point.--Buster7 (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

re: "The Big One"
wasn't a reference to an editor, least of all you. It's just a huge topic. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

in case you missed the first major thread of this round — Ched ~ (yes?) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to grab a beer or soda - it's a long read, with many tangents. — Ched ~ (yes?) 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way - I've placed a tag at the end of our conversation on my talk page that maybe we should be using instead of the rescue tag. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?) 06:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks....Yea....Ive had that tag for a month or so....I just moved it to the top of my talk, yesterday. Your solution for ARS tag is great...very inclusionistic.--Buster7 (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline
Just did a little trimming on the timeline. I definitely agree that its utility is dependent on how little clutter there is, and I know I've been guilty of adding a bit too much here and there. I think if we stick to the main points discussed back in January (focus on Obama + major events among administration/cabinet) we should be able to find a good middle ground and avoid adding every blog post from Politico! Really feel free to remove things as you see fit (with the notion in the back of your mind, as someone mentioned on the talk page already, that we may end up with timelines for each year). I'll tell Aldux to look over the talk page. Joshdboz (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have an idea for an example that MAY make the point. I'll put it at the Timeline:Talk early next week. Nice workin withcha! (Chicago-eese)--Buster7 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama Timeline
Thanks for your edit to the subject article. I did a little pruning to keep it in accordance with some necessary guidelines that have been set-up regarding brevity.. If you consider all the people that are in attendance when President Obama meets a fellow head of state or high ranking foreign dignatary you can understand why I removed the aide. And, we are trying our best to keep away from the "why" of meetings, etc as they are very well reported in the media and other articles and only open the door for political comment.--Buster7 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's perfectly fine. I was tentative adding it at all because I had no idea what the guidelines were. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you agina for your comments and continued support on my talk page. I look forward to continuing to work with you soon. Ikip (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Server mystery continues
See: Village_pump_(technical) Someone else had the same problem that you did on my talk page. I mentioned your name. Ikip (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Please see Talk:Sarah Palin. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)