User talk:Entirelybs

Vallejo, California
Can you please explain what I did wrong in my revision to the Vallejo article? I want to learn better what is or is not allowed. Thank you. Brad (EntirelyBS).


 * hey...welcome to wikipaedia! unfortunately, the way you posted your links to the Vallejo, California article is considered spam. it's one thing to list off-site items, but another thing altogether to provide inline links to them. e.g. California Maritime Academy takes readers off-site, whereas California Maritime Academy takes readers to the article in wikipaedia for that subject. this is a particularly sensitive matter when the sites are commercial websites. hope this helps...cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Vallejo, CA edits
ok, understood. but instead of simply removing the section (reverting), can the links simply be taken out of the new content? Or is it now for me to do as my next step (putting them back in but without the links). Thanks, Brad.
 * yes, you'll have to edit the content back in. if you try reverting, all subsequent edits will be lost. also, don't forget to sign your edits to talk pages by appending four tildes to the end of your communication. e.g. “~” . --emerson7 | Talk 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Barry Bonds
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Entirelybs! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

World Series
I added some of the deletions back, albeit hopefully in a more useful and/or clear way. The "Pittsburg" spelling item really belonged with the fake "1903" poster. The point of the 1919-20 situation was not so much that it had anything to do with the Soxes or the Cubs not winning, but merely that it marked a point in time after which many things changed in baseball, with or without the Black Sox scandal. Also made the All-Star point less wordy. I didn't like my sentence construction very well, as it was overanalyzing. Suffice it to say the AL has had home field for five years in a row (so far). The All-Star based home field edge began in 2003, but it just happened the AL also had it in 2002. Baseball Bugs 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Polo Grounds, Sportsman's Park, etc.
I'm not convinced that relabeling these now-extinct parks by Roman numerals really adds anything to the World Series articles. I've reverted a few of them, but not all yet. They each point to the same article anyway, respectively, and the Roman numerals are a retro-fit... they were never known that way in their time. Baseball Bugs 17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article on the Polo Grounds does reference the differences, and has them broken out by section. I wonder if I could/should be linking directly to that section? Can that be done?  Otherwise, your point is taken, although I've seen it done with/without so I was trying to standardize the formatting.  Also, I've seen the usage on others (such as at St. Louis, I think).  But, I'll defer on this to your point until a better solution presents itself. Entirelybs 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a link to a section can be done. I think it's overkill, but you're the one expending the effort. :) However, I'm not sure if a double-layer will work, and if not, you might have to tinker with the ballpark article itself until it works. Example: Polo Grounds. Baseball Bugs 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it took it to the top. A single layer might work. I have to "save" each time or I lose the contents when I link from a not-saved page: Polo Grounds. Baseball Bugs 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that worked, going to just the second level instead of three levels. Maybe the editing guide will explain somewhere how to go to three levels, or if it's even possible. Baseball Bugs 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * maybe I'll revisit that on another day when I have extra amounts of time. For now, I'll go generic and link to the main article, as you suggested.  Thanks. Entirelybs 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Boston Pilgrims
Thank you for the links to disprove what I saw. I saw the links for 1903-1907 said Pilgrims, so I could only base myself off of that. I will read the baseball-almanac article, and go ahead and remove all Pilgrims links. And, it may be meaningless, but I actually like Pilgrims more than Red Sox. Soxrock 17:58 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to read the SABR writer's investigation into the matter, which I think is linked from the Red Sox article. There was really no "official" nickname until 1908. "Pilgrims" was seldom used, but it kind of fit the early team, which wore dark blue as its color. Baseball Bugs 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To "rename" an article, there's a "move" process, so that the history will follow it. As far as the project goes, nobody's asked me. d:) They probably think I'm too ornery. >:( Baseball Bugs 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to answer your "Pilgrims" question. You see, I have a problem with the whole idea of using nicknames. I'm old school. It should be "Boston American League" for ALL seasons. It could be linked from a page called "Boston Red Sox", but the article should be more formal. I think that's how the Baseball Almanac site does it for the individual team years also. Anyway, that's my opinion. Maybe it would be good to see how the Toronto Maple Leafs handle indivual season, assuming such articles exist. They weren't always called the Maple Leafs, you know. And what about the New York Yankees, who were called both Highlanders and Yankees for 8 or 9 years? Baseball Bugs 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True - but the Yankee's season pages from 1903-1912 reference the "New York Highlanders" AND list them that way in the standings. I note that on the Boston Pilgrims seasonal pages (such as 1903 and 1904), they are listed as the Boston Americans in the standings.  This is my intent: to make them the same / standard (at least).
 * The problem is the attempt (by many sources, not just wikipedia) to retrofit the modern concept of team nicknames to a different time. The Yankees were called the Yankees as early as 1904, and exclusively (by the Times, at least) by 1908, while others continued to call them Highlanders, which was never an official nickname. Baseball Bugs 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Although, I still think it's more accurate than the Pilgrims, and from a standardization standpoint, having them be the same name (even within the same article page) is a good idea.  So, unless you think I should desist, I will move ahead with my suggested changes.  Thanks. Entirelybs 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late answer. They expect me to work when I'm at work. :) I don't have a problem with it, as "Americans" is more accurate than "Pilgrims". It sounds like Nowlin's investigation has pretty well done away with "Pilgrims" in general. It's always been valid to refer to a team as "Americans" or "Nationals" in the context of the league they're in. The Yankees are another obvious example. I've got a theory that's part of the reason "Nationals" never caught on as the Senators nickname in the early 1900s... because they were in the American League, along with the fact they were previously called the Senators (as well as the Nationals). It works now with the D.C. team because (1) they're in the National League and (2) marketing is better and (3) they don't want to be connected with the Senators, who were stamped as losers. Baseball Bugs 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Alcatraz Island‎
Thanks for the comment. I really have no say either way in the outcome of the Bird/Lily debate but if people just switch it back and forth without making any steps toward resolving the issue it'll just become an edit war. I, personally, won't revert an edit on the subject from you now. Ando228 (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea - I don't want to be in an edit war, so I posted the content with researched references, and will wait for some reply. Hopefully consensus will rule. I did see that about 3-4 other people said bird, and it seemed that only 1 other person had lily... but the supporting documentation was thin. Regards, Brad. Entirelybs (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

California
Thank you for your great work on the California article! -DevinCook (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Civilization IV: Colonization
Hi Entirelybs, thanks for your contributions to this article. If you intend to develop it any further, you might like to read through the Video game article guidelines. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mauna Kea elevation
The citation at Mauna Kea and List of U.S. states by elevation is an NGS data page, listing 13803 in the first few lines. See. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of longest-lasting empires
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of longest-lasting empires. 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 Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of longest-lasting empires (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unprecedented"
What is it that you have against the use of this word? It simply means something that never happened before, and is appropriate in any situation in which that is the case. BMK (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, since you decided to make mass changes involving the replacement of this word, did you discuss that anywhere before you began? I can't seem to find anything in your contributions that would indicate you did. BMK (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I can see no discussion authorizing a mass change, I'll be rolling back your edits which removed or replaced "unprecedented". Please seek approval the next time you decide that a word needs to be removed from Wikipeda. BMK (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel it needs to be removed from Wikipedia entirely. It should perhaps be replaced when it is being used incorrectly. The most common way it is misused is in sports - particularly when a new record is being set. Say someone beats the old record by 1 - oftentimes you will see the phrase 'unprecedented' in this context. That is the mistake. A new record value is not a precedent. When Maris hit 61 HR and beat Ruth's record of 60, this was not a precedent, it was just a new record. HR records were being broken before (Like Ruth's 54 and 59 then 60, and of course since then with McGwire and Bonds). New numerical value records happen all the time. The sporting world knows how to deal with them, even if they are amazed by the feats. Other records like consecutive times doing something - still not a precedent. It can be a record, but unless its the first time, its likely not a precedent.

Precedent really means something LIKE that has never happened before, to the point where its a new category of item, people don't know how to handle the situation, or it changes the way things are. For a precedent, there is no example or similar event that is like it, so this new event will often be used as the model for how to treat things down the road. Example: Discussing Curt Floyd and the advent of Free Agency. That is definitely Precedent. It changed things, there was nothing like it, and the Free Agency period came into baseball. Subsequent free agents, unless they have some special circumstance, are not unprecedented, even if the dollar amounts of their contracts seem outrageous.

Anyway, I didn't understand about the 'mass edits' policy. Sorry about that. It's just a pet-peeve from an English/grammar standpoint. Lots of words get misused (literally vs. figuratively, stuff like that).

By the way, Merriam-Webster defines Unprecedented as "without Precedent, novel, unexampled" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unprecedented

Entirelybs (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

ALSO, If you look at the definition of Precedent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent) - it has the following. So to be UN-precedented, the situation has to be where a Precedent does not exist. Key words are 'similar' or 'example'.







Full Definition of PRECEDENT 1  :  an earlier occurrence of something similar 2  a :  something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind  b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice 3  :  a person or thing that serves as a model

Entirelybs (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Word choice: "unprecedented"
Hi, Entirelybs. I've been watching your personal campaign against the incorrect usage of the word "unprecedented," and I approve of almost all efforts to improve the word choice, style and syntax of Wikipedia articles, including yours. The use of such hyperbolic phrases as "most unique" (!) in sports-writing is all too common, as young and not particularly good writers too often rely on cliches, and too often don't know the history of the sport about which they are writing. Most sports achievements are not unique or unprecedented. So when I saw this edit of the Megan Neyer article, I chuckled. The use of "unprecdented" here is the exception that proves the rule: no other American college diver has ever -- nor is likely to do so in the future -- won four NCAA individual national championships in both platform diving and springboard diving. The use of the word "unprecedented" is quite literally accurate: Neyer's achievement is without direct precedent. In fact, in those events, her achievement is unique. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence! But I disagree with you that it is unprecedented.  Simply doing some number of things is not a precedent, although it could be a record.  Rather, think what does it mean to the sport.  Does it invoke rule change, a new category of participation or some new award?  No.  It may be impressive and unique, but those are not precedents.  Lance Armstrong winning 7 tour de france was not actually a precedent (he won 6 before and 5 before that), although it was definitely a record.  However it would be a precedent if it caused racing body to change rules on participation, team rules, scoring.


 * A better example would be Babe Ruth. He was so popular that a rule change was made because of him.  Before him, when a player hit what we now call a 'walk-off' home run, the play ended when the winning run crossed the plate.  The batter was often simply given a single because the opponent didn't even try to get anyone out, the game was over.  But fans liked his home runs so much, that they changed the rule so that the complete effect of his at bat was recorded (meaning the full HR).  Something that causes a rule change, or guides how to address something in the future, THAT is a precedent.


 * We've become so used to the misuse of the word, that it becomes part of normal use, even if is not correct. Precedent is mostly used as a legal word. When a judge makes some ruling for some event where nothing LIKE that has ever happened before, it sets a precedent, and that precedent will be followed later.  Note that  it has to be something UNLIKE anything before, but not merely a new numerical value, but a new category of event.  AND it should involve some impact, some change of behavior or rule, or be some guide that is later referred to.


 * Anyway, I will not engage in an edit war. So if you really feel strongly about it, I will not intentionally edit this back. Thanks, Brad. Entirelybs (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I find that you seem to be on a quixotic quest to purge the word "unprecedented" from Wikipedia articles. While it's overused and sometimes deployed in a very wp:peacock manner, it's sometimes the most accurate and appropriate word choice. Your definition as explained above is extremely narrow and unreasonable. As used in most instances, "unprecedented" simply means that an event has no precedent, i.e. it's never happened before. Why say "that had never been done before" or some such phrase when you can say it with one word? Zeng8r (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Zeng8r, thanks for your input. Actually, I am reading the use of the word in every article, trying to determine if the word is appropriate.  My edit time-stamps may not indicate that, but I have been.  In most cases, particularly for sports references, it is not the best.  Either another word is better, or just removing it would be probably be OK.   It is a mistake to think the word means "that had never been done before" - which is the main offense I find.  (By the way, the definition listed isn't my own. I cited my sources from a major English language dictionary).


 * I've tried to come up with a good list of reasons this word is overused and not appropriate (some discussion above on my page, and I'll post more here):


 * 1) it is misused more often than not because people don't understand the word's meaning and therefore how to use it,
 * 2) it is used as sales/marketing hyperbole, as in to make something more appealing - akin to WP:Peacock,
 * 3) it is often used incorrectly in place of record-setting, as in sports - where records are broken by even the smallest of margins,
 * 4) it is often used in a way that is unverifiable, where something's impact is open-to-interpretation, and
 * 5) it is often unnecessary in an encyclopedia (unless something is truly unprecedented).


 * The best use of 'unprecedented' would be a situation that causes precedence. So we have to consider the root of the word... Precedence means that something LIKE that has never happened before - so much so that this incident is used as a model for things to come, a new law or set of rules/guidelines is created to deal with the situation next time, etc.


 * In most cases, simply using 'unprecedented' when discussing something containing a numerical value (sports record, streak of consecutive dates, large salaries or sports player contract values, etc) is an improper use of the word (see #1 - #3 above). If an item is an actual record, then say that.  Otherwise, it's often used in an weasel word way to sneak something in that doesn't belong.  For an encyclopedia format, it's generally best just to state facts and move on. Entirelybs (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Examples of things that are unprecedented vs. records
Related to the above discussion about the use of the word 'unprecedented' I am listing a few examples of what is or isn't unprecedented. This is for information/discussion purposes.


 * Records - but not unprecedented (every new record is not a precedent, but things that cause rule changes can be).
 * most home runs (Bonds, 73)
 * most consecutive hits (DiMaggio, 56)
 * highest salary (Alex Rodriguez, $25 million)


 * Unprecedented (a model or guide for how to deal with things going forward).
 * Curt Flood suing to get out of his contract, thereby bringing about the Free Agency period in baseball
 * Babe Ruth home runs, after which MLB created a new rule about walk-off home runs
 * Players from the White Sox team involved in the scandal, resulting in them being banned from the hall of fame.
 * Steroid scandal, causing MLB to write specific rules and punishment levels for players.

Brad Entirelybs (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about Unprecedented
Further talk about these changes was held here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors Entirelybs (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Almost unprecedented...
The term was used in the SIU Edwardsville Cougars' "Success and scandal" subsection because, with the single exception of the University of San Francisco in 1981, no other school has voluntarily shut down a program due to violations within that program, making it somewhat more than merely "rare"...

—As an aside, the move also halted the school's move towards becoming a Division I school in all sports, a move which the did not recur until 2007–11. It also brought about the installation of an athletic director who, after being installed, became openly hostile to the university's successful coaches and programs, regardless of reason or cause. Those programs suffered repeated budget cuts that brought about their decline. When basketball returned after a one year hiatus, it was more successful than it had ever before, but it then also fell victim when its budgets became smaller each year, despite its successes. GWFrog (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. Part of the issue is that phrases like "almost unprecedented" are awkward at best. Like trying to make something better than it really is, because it would be a violation to say its actually unprecedented, so inserting "almost" (or "nearly") makes it ok. In a way it is used as WP:Peacock.   If its not really a precedent, we should just leave that out.  Also, its subject to interpretation anyway - how close to being unprecedented do you have to get to qualify.  Finally, the word is grossly misused.  As an example, most sports related facts/feats/streaks are not precedents anyway.  The litmus test should be, "so what changed because of this?".  Or, "is this the gold standard referred to every time after this".


 * Maybe this is OK. I see you edit this article a lot, so it must mean a lot to you.  I would rather have a better choice of word here.  But if you feel strongly about it, I won't start an edit war.  Thanks.  Entirelybs (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you drunk, irish... Or both? 172.56.4.186 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)