User talk:HuskyHuskie/Archive1

Stubs
Thanks for marking articles as stubs. If you can, please use a specific stub instead of the general stub. To help there is a list at WP:WSS/ST. If can't find the stub you need then stub is ok. Thank you. Ksbrown talk 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Life on Mars
Hi, thanks for your edit, but the section in the Life on Mars article is about *liquid* water - the presence of water *ice* on Mars has been known for a long time, kind regards sbandrews (t) 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please give your opinion at talk page of Controversies about the word niggardly
Hi HH,

Since we share (at least some) interest in the "niggardly" article and I respect your opinion, could you take a look at the Talk:Controversies about the word niggardly discussion at the bottom of the talk page about deleting the little episode about the Ohio newspaper guys? It's not a big thing either way, but I think it shows how some people get offended, so I think it's worth keeping. Please add your opinions/ideas if you have any. Best, Noroton 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE
Hi! You appear to have recreated a WP:OFFICE-deleted article in your user space. Is this something that the "office personnel" should check that it's ok, or are they maybe aware of this already? Weregerbil 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. Could you explain? HuskyHuskie 16:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now I think I'm getting a little bit clued in about this. I meant User:Unlearned hand\Glass .45; now I see there is a deletion review on it. I was concerned something that was deleted by WP:OFFICE was getting recreated in user space; but the DRV explains it. Never mind, sorry. Weregerbil 04:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Spam barnstars
Why is it important to belittle the barnstars which were awarded to people. Even if you are right, I think this does more harm than good. This might have been someone's first or only Barnstar. It probably seems silly to you, but I think that your efforts to be truthful may end up being hurtful. I ask you to delete your comments on people's talk pages before they read them. --Kevin Murray 15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, HuskyHuskie. It was quite a few months ago, and the good doctor has already stopped. Let's assume Dr.Spam meant no mockery, and let bygones be bygones. -- PFHLai 07:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Kevin, you may indeed have a good point. It was not my desire to hurt people.  Of course, some of the comments I have read since my post indicate a sincere upon appreciation learning the truth.  It is not a black-and-white issue, and if I had thought about it the way you have, I may not have done it.  It was simply because I knew that, had I been such a recipient, that I would have wanted to know the truth.  To me, it's a bit like having someone point out that your pants are unzipped.  It may be a bit embarrassing when it happens, but the longer you walk around with it unzipped before it's pointed out or you make the discovery, the more embarrassing it becomes once you do learn of it.  So as a child I was taught to impose the quick embarassment on someone to save them longer-term greater emotional pain.  But . . . that's not the only way to look at it, I realize.
 * As to your suggestion, PFHLai, to assume good faith, that's a little hard to do. After writing my piece, I not only found a number of these posted to editors with only one edit, but I even found a barnstar awarded to an editor with zero mainspace edits—all he had done was to create a user page. I think that the mocking intent was reasonably clear. HuskyHuskie 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, HuskyHuskie, if we can't assume good faith, we can't assume Dr.Spam's intent, either. I agree that some of Dr.Spam's barnstars were given in a peculiar manner.   It seems to me in some instances Dr.Spam might be mis-using the barnstars as a way to break the ice and say 'Hi!' to fellow Wikipedians.  It appeared as a nice gesture and IMO should be taken as such.  I have no clue why Dr.Spam awarded barnstars to contribution-less editors.  Maybe Dr.Spam personally knows the contributor and is aware of anonymous edits worthy of a barnstar contributed under an IP address.  Maybe (s)he meant to give the barnstar to someone else listed in the edit history of some article and mis-clicked on the adjacent line.  I don't know.  Not everyone in Wikipedia knows what (s)he is doing, and maybe Dr.Spam, a newbie with less than 50 edits at the time, is one of them.  Or maybe not.  I don't know.  Dr.Spam has already stopped giving out barnstars quite a while ago.  Let's give this fellow Wikipedian the benefit of the doubt, and leave things as is.  Your concern about the apparent 'smudge' on my userpage is appreciated.  I'll probably revamp my userpage in the near future.  When the time comes, I'll think about this again.  Thank you.  Happy editing. --PFHLai 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing better to do with your time but to dig through the history of my user page? HOW BOUT THEM APPLES, BITCH?! Mr. Vitale 00:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since User:VitaleBaby forgot to leave his signature, I thought I'd be a nice guy and put it there for him. Anything to help. :-) HuskyHuskie 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, do you by chance live in the Quad Cities, or would be interested in helping clean the city pages up?  C t j f 8 3  talk 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Left the area years ago. No major interest in the articles, other than to correct the misunderstanding of some young people about the history of the name "Quad Cities".  I've corrected that now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't stop positive edits! I also posted a reply on the QC talk page  C t j f 8 3 talk 18:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar and the note on my talk page. I don't think I've contributed the most to Illinois related articles, but I have edited quite a few of them, hopefully for the better. Thanks for noticing. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UIUC edit
Bvjrm, With all respect, the word "prestigious" does have a dictionary definition, and UIUC, in this context, meets it. Without doubt this word can be used a weasel word, but it can also be used properly, as it is in this case. UIUC is the only campus within the UI system to be listed on any of the national rankings, and in fact it ranks high on all of them. The other campuses don't even appear. Please understand, this isn't grandstanding; I'm not even a UIUC alumnus, but I recognize the reality of this. Yours truly, HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to make it clear that I am not questioning the quality of UIUC at all. The school is world renowned and is no doubt among the best in the county.  However, if you look other flagship school pages, they do make an effort to avoid terms and phrases such as "highly selective" and "prestigious" simply because they are hard to define.  I've seen people here on Wikipedia argue that MIT isn't prestigious and only the Ivy League should be considered so.  Of course that isn't my opinion, but you can see my point.  It's a fluff term which cheapens the article and really should not be used in cases like this, especially in the opening paragraph. Bvjrm (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I understood your point; as I said, the terms do have the capacity to be used as "fluff" terms. I myself at one point deleted the term "highly selective" as clearly being subjective; come to find out that it is one of a continuum of terms used by common college ratings services.  (I'm not sure that that is still sourced, however)  No, I respect your motives, I think where we disagree may simply be that I think that the term "prestigious" is not inherently POV.  For example, I think it's more prestigious to be a US Senator than a member of the US House of Representatives, I think it's more prestigious to play Major League baseball for the New York Yankees than it is to play Double-A baseball for the Carolina Mudcats, and I think that anyone who would call these claims POV is simply being ridiculous.  It is similarly ridiculous to question that UIUC is more prestigious than the bastard off-shoots in Springfield and Chicago.  HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point and I do agree that UIUC is the most prestigious campus in the UI system (and I always have). Its just seems that the opening to the UIUC article goes out of its way to use the term "prestigious" rather than "the flagship campus of the UI system".  If you take a look at other college articles that are comparable to UIUC, for example UVA or Berkeley, you'll see rather than bombarding you with a bunch of subjective rankings and statistics about admissions they open up with a brief history and then mention a few well known achievements. In other words, in the opening you should let the school speak for it's self and then deeper in the article back it up with rankings and other outside recognition.  It just seems like the article is putting heavy emphasis on rankings and fluffy terms (specifically in the opening) to justify calling itself a top school, when in reality it is not a no name school and has plenty of accomplishments, enough so that you don't need US News to tell you its a good school.  The whole opening should be rewritten, but I really don't know enough about the school to be able to do that.Bvjrm (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I now see your point. I would be open to a rewrite, but as it is now, I doubt the people who "own" the article would allow it.  Thanks for patiently making your point. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for leaving a comment on my page instead of simply reverting what I edited. Let me first preface what I'm going to say with the following. I am a student at Illinois, and I naturally am concerned about its reputation and how it is regarded by the general public. With that in mind, I feel that it would be in bad taste to call any school "prestigious", no matter what kind of rankings and awards it has. I think that even Harvard, obviously the most prestigious college in the US, should not mention "most prestigious" in the opening paragraph. Sure, prestige is something that can be measured to a certain extent. Also, there's no doubt that Illinois is the best school in the University of Illinois system. However, I think it's just tacky to pin that on the opening paragraph like a medal for everyone to see. The article would then move from being plainly informative to being boisterously informative. Paerra (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect your reasoning; it is similar to that which Bvjrm makes above. I only brought it up because I do disagree with some POVniacs who think that any adjective that can be subjective in a particular context must be expunged.  I shall leave it as it is, and I thank you for sharing your thinking. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: President still living...
There was absolutely no content on the deleted talkpage. Yours, east. 718 at 14:57, April 13, 2008
 * Okay, thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobel edits
Please stop This is the sort of disruptive editing that WP:POINT was written to stop. If you don't think this should exist, find consensus. Without it, you're likely to get blocked or banned for mass deletions like this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it would certainly be helpful if someone would tell me where the consensus was reached that this particular violation of WP:NPOV was okay. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just a quick note--while I applaud bold editing, please do be sure that you follow it up with good discussion leading to consensus. I noticed that your changes have already been reverted by other editors, so please take this as an opportunity to start a conversation about the inclusion of the Nobel symbols.  Thanks! -- jonny - m  t  05:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure My guess is there was never a discussion to implement it in the first place, but since there is Template:Nobel icon, posting there would be a good place to start explaining why you think this is a violation of WP:NPOV (which I honestly don't understand.) You could also try the community pump or WP:RfC. Thanks for posting on my talk; please let me know if there's anything else you want from me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have opened a discussion on Template Talk:Nobel icon. For what it's worth, I agree with HuskyHuskie. Zaian (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Check Template talk:Nobel icon for a reply of mine to your last comment. « Diligent Terrier    (talk)   23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobel icons
We're working on developing a consensus on the future of the Nobel icon template. Your opinion is welcome at Template talk:Nobel icon. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier    (talk)   16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * May I make a few gentle points?
 * First of all, the entire talk page was started in the first place as a direct result of a warning that I received for removing the icons. I've contributed several times to that page already.  So you might have realized that I'm well aware of the ongoing discussions.
 * Secondly, the consensus question you speak of is in direct response to a point that I raised during that discussion, so yes, you might guess that I'm aware of the ongoing discussions.
 * Thirdly, while I have not seen whom else you have contacted on this matter, I certainly hope that you have taken into account WP:CANVAS. My concerns that you may be in violation of this are magnified by the fact that you have apparently not written to me personally, but rather, have just posted a cut-and-paste comment to my talk page, as is evident from the fact that your post indicates no knowledge of my first two points.  So, assuming that you are a new editor, and are unaware of this policy, you may want to read it, before you get both of us into trouble and you damage the cause for which we are apparently on the same side.
 * Thank you for your enthusiasm. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Nobel icon
Template:Nobel icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Eustress (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know...
I have indented your comment at the discussion regarding the use of nobel icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. « Diligent Terrier    [talk]   20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Northern Illinois University shooting
Hi, I am currently engaged in a heated editing dispute in the article 2008, which lists notable events that took place in the year 2008. Knowing that you have been a significant contributor to the article Northern Illinois University shooting, perhaps you could provide an alternate opinion. Even though it wasn't the first or deadliest school shooting, I still believe it was a very notable event that affected the nation and world in many ways in the year 2008 (gun politics, higher education, mental health, journalism ethics, video game politics, emergency preparedness, etc.). I even backed it up with three international sources (from Australia and the U.K.), which I felt demonstrated the event's global importance. Unfortunately, people disagreed with that. Mind you, the event had been listed in that article all year, and only did it become a problem when I tried to add an image on the article recently. I stopped trying to put the image on there, but then they outright deleted the text entry about the event, which I thought was very uncalled for, and utterly ridiculous, considering it was perhaps one of the biggest media events of the year. Perhaps you could help revert this senseless deletion of a notable entry and provide some input on the talk page. Thanks for your help! Abog (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, I feel that this simply demonstrates how inane it is to have articles on years and decades. I agree with you that it was a noteworthy event, but such things are infinitely subjective, and (I feel) not worth the effort needed to wage the battle.  I would rather be Don Quixote and take on the existence of the article 2008.  I mean, what makes this year particularly noteworthy?  I think that 1989, 1848, and 1776 are all exceptional years, and more worthy of an article than, say, 1922.  We don't provide every author an article just because he wrote a book, and we don't give every American mayor an article, even if he is re-elected three times.  We are supposed to touch upon the noteworthy.  The NIU shooting is more notable than many events in 2008, but 2008 is not worth the time of day to me (at least, not yet.  Decades from now we may know better).  Good luck to you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The notability of the shootings (or any other event) also depends on the magnitude, which is simply not present here. Backing it up with international sources in news does not equate to notability. "'(gun politics, higher education, mental health, journalism ethics, video game politics, emergency preparedness, etc.)'" If you were using this analogy, then many things would simply go on to 2008, including Barack Obama party nomination as it was very inspirational to people around the world, and was the first time by any major political party, but still it didn't make it into 2008. Still, we have asked you to add it in 2008 in the United States. By-the-way, on calling it "inane", there are over 16,000 visits to 2008 a day. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Orion, what the hell are you talking about? Is English your first language?  I sure hope not.  HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, as to your point that 16,000 hits a day somehow disproves that that article is inane: That comment demonstrates at the very least that you don't understand what the word inane means, or it just may show that you are an idiot not playing with a full deck.  The TV show Big Brother, in my most humble opinion, is quite inane, yet its website assuredly gets tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of hits a day.  Popularity does not contradict stupidity. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Hi. Please check out Civility and No personal attacks. Certainly dealing with certain editors can be frustrating, but please resist name calling. (Note that that editor is already indefinitely blocked anyway.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If he's blocked, what do you care? HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit
First of all, do not be offended what so ever. I simply erased the "chalk" comment, and added the main article title. Relax.Topgun530 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you blind and illiterate? Did you read what I said?  Did you review what our edits did?  Look, buddy, in your version of this article, the chalk comment was still in there.  It was me, not you, who deleted it.  That's the whole friggin point!  You accused me of vandalism, when I was the one who removed the vandalism.   You STILL owe me an apology, but I don't know if you have the intellectual wherewithal to recognize the fact. You are proof positive that anyone can edit Wikipedia. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you're so insulted because I accidently messed up your edit is down right comical. You seriously need to chill out. There's no need for insults. This is over. Don't ever post on my talk page again.Topgun530 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I do need to "chill out". But does that preclude the need for you to acknowledge your error?  Your edit summary has permanently labeled me in the records of Wikipedia as a vandal.  While you cannot, perhaps, undo that error, it would at least be helpful if you would acknowledge it.  You claimed you erased the "chalk" vandalism, whereas the record clearly shows that I erased it.  And you reverted my edit, calling it vandalism.  Okay, so maybe I've overreacted.  But the tone of my first post on this matter was perfectly civil, what pushed me over the top was that it became clear that you demonstrated no evidence that you even read it, which I took as rude.  Anyway, are you civil enough to admit when you've made a mistake (as I have now done twice)? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Water under the bridge.Topgun530 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent name change of article to Controversies concerning the word "niggardly"
I'm not sure how much this matters to you now, but back in '07 you commented on the name of this article from Controversies about the word niggardly (previous discussion here and two sections down as well). Someone just unilaterally changed the name, and I'm objecting, for now, at that person's talk page. It's not a bigggie, but if you have an opinion and think it's worth it, please chime in at Talk:Controversies concerning the word "niggardly" and maybe we can settle it easily. I expect it'll be amicable. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm a bit late to the party. Did you get what you asked for? HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You deserve......
Thanks for the Barnstar :) And happy that I could be of service. Never think you articles are small or not good looking. Remember Every grate journey starts with a single step, so too a article will start as a little one. I happy to help out, so tell me know if I can pitch in anyway. Happy editing. Cossde (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
Plaese stop your edits to maize as you are very close to violating the WP:Three revert rule and getting an automatic temporary block. Please you the talk page to work out the issue. Rmhermen (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been on the talk page, as well as providing reasonable and helpful edit summaries. WTF? HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fine editing
Many thanks for the award. I have to say that I do not go looking for such articles, but every now and then when I click on Random article up comes some US village/town/city where the section on demographics (itself a lousy word!) is worded identically. I presume that someone at some point wrote the section for one place and it has cut and pasted across the whole of Wikipedia, without any thought. So I alter them as you've seen. I think it's for the better and it seems you agree. But not everyone does. I once almost got into an editing war with someone who thought the changes were wrong and he reverted them. I re-edited, one change at a time and explainibng why each ws correct. No good - total intransigence. (See Ismay, Montana) Oh well....

Again, thanks for the award - it's much appreciated. Emeraude (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you've come up against the Ismay cartel. Emeraude (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of notable Illinois State University alumni
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of notable Illinois State University alumni. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Illinois_state_university. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Illinois_state_university - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Moogwrench (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

strangers in the night
Once again, our edits pass as strangers in the night. Moogwrench (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Heya HH!
I took notice of some of your recent edit summaries for articles like Metea Valley High School‎ and Batavia High School (Batavia, Illinois). I am pretty sure that these summaries are not violations of the civility policy, but I could see that there could be some editors (involved or not) who could take umbrage with them. My strictly friendly advice is that you may wish to be more careful with those edit summaries. Editors can make mistakes, and my experience in school articles is that sometimes younger students do not have the best grammar/spelling skills. It is a consequence of working on an encyclopedia that everyone can edit, as you know. Both younger kids and older adults can make mistakes (goodness knows I have made many of them), but I am not sure that the comments you are making necessarily help the situation. I am glad to see that the list of ISU grads was not deleted. IMO, it had grown sufficiently long to warrant a split. I will try and work to get some references there to strengthen the case. Happy Holidays, and happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NEA placement

 * As a teacher, the NEA is a union, plain and simple. Its primary role is as a labor organization.  The word "education" is strictly because their primary (though not exclusive) role is to assist educators in labor negotiations.  As an organization, they have virtually no activity in terms of helping with teacher education, teacher preparation, offering support for teachers in the classroom, or other professional teaching activities (ie, they don't offer workshops on helping with classroom discipline, using technology in the classroom, or better ways to teach history).  The article on the NEA itself states that it is chartered as a "professional organization" in a few states, but in most states is chartered as a "labor union".  For the moment, I won't change anything, but I would like to engage in discussion regarding this. You can respond here ... I'll catch it.LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, your POV is showing.


 * Nonetheless, I am going to grant you that what you say is quite true, simply because it is. Nonetheless, for better or worse, the NEA is also an educational organization, and they have exerted influence on curriculum, as acknowledged both by supporters and detractors.  I mean, I actually considered merging instead of dividing your categories, having one section for Politics, Labor, Business and Education, since that is the only single category into which the NEA fits.


 * I grant you that it's a problem. I'm not going to fight over it; I've had my say and now will leave it to you.  Happy editing. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

ISU notability requirements

 * I just noted that you deleted a person who met the general notability requirements, and has an article .... I agree that a strong search probably turns up more such legislators, but even by your own header on the list: this is a list for people who meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.  Are you sure you want to start getting more selective than the notability requirement?
 * I guess for now you can put him back in. I would suggest that when the list reaches a half-dozen state senators or a dozen state representatives, that the problem will have been duly manifested and we would then be warranted removing them, irrespective of the notability guidelines (I would then modify them, I think). HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words .... I guess our messages crossed electronically. LonelyBeacon (talk)

"Opposed to the pitch count"
That is a direct quote from Blyleven, though I can't find any source of it in the few moments I can write this at work. If you watch him call games for the Twins much of his color speaks to the state of the game today, and the fact tat the scoreboards post the actual pitch count. He's stated many times that doing this gives the pitcher on the mound a false sense of security knowing that "I only have to pitch 10 more" or "My job's almost done". Blyleven has stated on the air several times that he believes the pitcher's job is to pitch that day's game and not just for 6 innings. His 242 complete games and 60 shutouts probably conditioned him to think that way. He doesn't like the "specialized" pitching system of today's baseball, and agrees with Nolan Ryan's plan in Texas to get kids in the minors off a pitch count and used to throwing more. Both Ryan and Blyleven believe that it is better for the pitcher's arm in the long run. You may not be aware, but nobody tracked pitch count until 1988, very late in Blyleven's career, and he always felt it was a mistake. That is what was meant by "Blyleven disagrees with the pitch count." Rapier1 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it's a direct quote or not, what matters is, what did/does he mean by that?


 * Taken literally, it's a moronic statement. The pitch count is not a new phenomenon, it has existed as long as baseball has.  What has changed is that now people actually notice (i.e., keep track of) it.  I assure you that if you had a time machine and could go back and watch Walter Johnson pitch, you would be able to count his pitches, even though that was not being done by anyone else.


 * So as it can be asserted that the pitch count has always existed, what would it mean to say that someone is "opposed" to it? Well, I guess it would have the same significance as someone publicly stating that they were opposed to the moon.  Sure, they can say it, but it's nonsense.  In fact, being opposed to the pitch count is even dumber than being opposed to the moon, because one opposed to the moon could always aspire to develop the technology to someday blow up the moon and thus get rid of it.  But the pitch count will exist as long as there is baseball, unless of course the game is amended to eliminate the pitcher (Major League T-ball, anybody?).


 * My guess is that Blyleven is not as stupid as you seem to think he is, and that what he meant when he said he was opposed to the pitch count is that he is opposed to tracking it, and that he is opposed to managers using it to make decisions.


 * Sorry to be so pedantic, but I think everything I have just stated could be induced from the combination of my edit summary and my actual edit. I have only undertaken this entry to illuminate for you what I obviously failed to make clear before.


 * Happy editing. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I was rather clear as to what he meant by it. He is against the practice of keeping track of the number of pitches thrown in a ballgame.  People are not stating that Blyleven is "against the reality that pitches may be numerically ordered (counted pitches)", he has stated he is against the idea that "the pitch count (as a metric in judging how well a pitcher is doing)" is a valid way of measuring mound presence.  Suggesting that "'the pitch count' has always existed" is silly.  As I stated in my original post, this was simply not done before 1988.  Yes, you could travel back in time and count pitches, but why would you?  I could travel back in time and measure Babe Ruth's body-mass index too, but nobody would know or care what I was talking about, because the metric at the time had no meaning.  The phrase "The Pitch Count" only obtained meaning and significance after it was used as a metric to measure a pitcher's performance in the late '80's.  Before "The Pitch Count", the manager would simply ask the pitcher "how do you feel?", ask the catcher how he looked, or observe for himself from the dugout.  If you like check out http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/08/blyleven.php, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-171249678.html, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E3D9103FF936A25757C0A9619C8B63, http://www. statemaster .com/encyclopedia/Bert-Blyleven and maybe a few dozen other sources so you can get a better idea of what people mean by saying "Bert is against the pitch count".  In the future, rather than attempt to ridicule editors (what the hell is that supposed to mean?  Think before you write people), I suggest that you maintain civility and actually do a little research into the topic you want to comment on so you can become acquainted with the issue.  Either that, or simply ask a polite question.  Doing so will result in a much more helpful response and a better experience for all editors. Thanks Rapier1 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You've completely missed my point, which I guess means that I was unclear. I'll try again.  Look, can you imagine an economist, or even a politician, saying that he was "opposed to the GDP"?  It would sound stupid, because a) it's just a number, and b) that number is going to exist regardless of whether one takes note of it or not.  What one might mean is that they are opposed to using the GDP to make policy decisions, or maybe just opposed to placing what they consider to be extensive dependence on it.  But it makes no logical sense to be "opposed" to GDP.  Blyleven is not an idiot, and he does not oppose the existence of the number, which is what was implied by the wording of the article prior to my edit.  Now it reads as it should, not that Blyleven is some idiot that desires to banish a number from existence, but that he would like to see that number not used the way it is being used, or better yet, that people in the game not pay any attention to that number. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

UIUC move
Thanks Thank you for posting on my talk. I moved the UIUC page from a hyphen ( - ) to an ndash ( – ) per WP:DASH. If this is still confusing, please post on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Point
There is no point. Someone suggested I was motivated by the table - it was a suggestion I could make go away by doing that, returning the discussion to the matter in hand, so I did. Rich Farmbrough, 07:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

Re: Kobayashi Maru
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have replied to the user on his talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Villa Park
Hello. When you moved Villa Park to Villa Park (stadium), and then redirected the old title to the disambiguation page, you may have overlooked the fact that hundreds of other Wikipedia articles contain links to "Villa Park". This included several redirects (now fixed) from other titles that clearly referred to the stadium. The remaining links are now pointing to the wrong page and need to be fixed. As this guideline notes, if you change the page to which an existing title links, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right--I didn't think about that at all. How do I go about fixing these links?  How do I know what to do?  Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can use Special:WhatLinksHere/Villa Park to find articles that contain these links. Then search through the text for the link, make sure it really is referring to the stadium (although almost all of them will, there may be a few references to one of the other places called "Villa Park" as well), then insert "(stadium)|" at the end of the link, before the double brackets; don't forget the "|" bar.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be best to just move "Villa Park (stadium)" back to "Villa Park?" --   Grant  .  Alpaugh  13:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What a mess. I note that the page has been moved back now to Villa Park leaving a lot of links in limbo. In this case a discussion was needed before any move given the history of moves with this article. It could be seen as controversial which is why a move discussion should have been opened up. If you still feel that the page should be moved then please see the procedures at WP:MOVE. Thanks. Woody (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology
Sorry about that mess. My intentions were good, I simply did not know what I needed to know. Sometimes BOLD backfires on you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:County Boundary Changes
This afternoon I actually finished making maps for all of Illinois' counties that have changed boundaries at all. 174 maps in all. I've thought about making more maps to show counties that haven't changed, but showing each county at the moment it took its present shape (Adams in 1829, and so on) - but that would be 102 additional maps, and I need a break! Fishal (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! Fishal (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. It was well-deserved. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Skokie, Illinois
No problem. To be honest, I didn't even notice the edit where you moved the link, I just thought someone stuck it there twice. You're right about the location, it was a strang place for the link to be added, but then again, when it comes to external links, nothing surprises me anymore. By the way, good work cleaning up the article. Cmr08 (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. See you 'round. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bronisław Komorowski
SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wesley Johnson (entertainer)
Thanks for your comment about changing from "musician" to "entertainer". I have now developed the page further with a clear section about his martial arts performances werldwayd (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

lol
good one! hah ;) --Львівське (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you have a sense of humor! That gives you points in my book! HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

QC
How do you feel about the disambig note I added to the top of Quad Cities, not sure it is worded the best. C T J F 8 3 chat 01:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good effort (and good idea), but yeah, it does fall a bit short of the crispness I seek in a hatnote. Feel free to play with it, and if I have time (more likely tomorrow) I will give it a whirl as well. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your edit has no foundation in fact; blogs can speculate, but none is reliable. This was clearly an inappropriate edit. Drmargi (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you as totally unhappy as you come across on these talk pages? HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You made a mistake. Insulting me won't alter that.  Drmargi (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough, my further investigations have supported your assertion that I was in error. And as soon as you pointed it out, I acknowledged it was quite possible I had erred.  But a mistake is not vandalism, and calling me a vandal was a mistake on your part, and from what I see here you're too haughty to acknowledge that you, too, have erred.HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake
I have posted a reply at Talk:Top Chef (season 7), apologizing to Drmargi. Turns out I was wrong, after all. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

HuskyHuskie to retire
I don't know what's wrong with me, but Top Chef snafu this weekend was my second major screw up in only four months. (The other being the move fiasco over at Villa Park in April.) I don't think I can take the pressure any more. I've tried to do good work, but I am just so embarrassed over these two incidents that I need to step back for a while. After Villa Park I stepped away for about three weeks, but it obviously didn't help.

I like doing this, but I've come to believe that Wikipedia is probably better off without me. Unlike many who leave feeling persecuted, I want to make it clear that in both of my screw ups, the people who disagreed with me were correct, and given that they were correct, they were remarkably civil. So no one is to blame for my departure but me.

I won't rule out coming back. But self-inflicted wounds take the longest time to heal. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll step back and re-think your decision. You made a mistake, nothing more.  We all do.  But don't pillory yourself for it.  Take a day or two away, forgive yourself (which I suspect you may not have done the first time) and come back swinging!  Drmargi (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)