User talk:PAVA11/Archive 1

=2007=

Fair use rationale for Image:Psac map.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Psac map.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

BCS Championship Speculation?
What planet are you from? When Missouri and West Virginia both lost 12/1/07, it assured The Ohio State University a spot in the title game. I reverted back to my edit, so Ohio State was NOT speculation, they were number three in the poll before those games, and the two losses asured that no matter what happened, the Buckeyes would be in New Orleans. NoseNuggets 6:40 PM US EST Dec 2 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC) =January=

Pittsburgh / New Jersey ties
Greetings. I've noticed that you keep inverting Pittsburgh and New Jersey recently when both teams have had identical records. The NHL's official standings that is published at reflect New Jersey as owning the tiebreaker, and as such we have posted those records accordingly to what the NHL says. Ultimately, it does not matter what any other site says the standings are, whether it be espn or yahoo, the NHL has the final word. New Jersey owns a 3 games to 1 advantage over Pittsburgh and it looks like the NHL is ignoring the "equal number of home games" tiebreaker for now as they have played an even number of games overall. For discussion on this, please see WT:HOCKEY.

Also, it looks like you are not aware of this based on your edits. When a team wins or loses in a shootout, the game winning goal counts as a goal scored. Pittsburgh lost today's game in a shootout with a final score of 6-5. When you updated the Pens goals against, you only added 5 goals, but you should have added 6 goals to that total. --Pparazorback (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Dislexia
No problem. Actually I never noticed. How I update is I have an excel workbook that pulls the standings from ESPN. I have a bunch of sheets with tabs Atlantic, Southeast, Eastern Conference, etc... That has the Wiki code that all I do is Copy and Paste the data. I never even look at what is there, if there are no changes, it won't make a change, if there are, it will. That is why I can do this a lot faster then most, almost like a Bot. Check out my other examples for the conference template at User:Pparazorback/Sandbox. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I updated the Northeast conference template too, but it was the same as User:24.203.86.73 did it so it did not change. But had we had a difference, it would have updated. --Pparazorback (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw - if you have Microsoft Excel and are interested in the template spreadsheet after we get the conference templates resolved let me know and I can send it to you. I'm heading offline in a sec, got to leave for work (Coughing like a dog right now too...) -Pparazorback (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland and Hockey
It's amazing (the resistance), Belfast, Northern Ireland has been a part of the UK since 1801. In fact the whole island of Ireland was a part of the UK from 1801 to the 1920's. Truly, I'm flabergasted by the resistance to using United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the problem will be resolved soon. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what can a fella do. Ps- sorry about the delay in responding, I was signed out for three hrs. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Signing out for the night. I've got one more idea to try - have two sections: United Kingdom;  Republic of Ireland. See ya tommorrow. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've returned & have thrown in my old idea again. Your correct, if things don't end soon? we may have to do as you've suggested. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's this Irish buisness, it's making me looneyer then I really am. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ONIH doesen't seem to understand - the article wants listed the now country, not the then country. Example: Riley wasn't born in the RoI, but may have been born in what is now the RoI. He doesen't seem to crasp the article's criteria. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS- I'd tell him this personally, but he's barred me from his personal page. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I haven't posted there for awhile (ONIH's refusal to budge, discouraged me), I've been watching how things have been going & keeping hope for a resolution. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know how ya feel Grsz11. ONIH (who to my knowledge, never edited a hockey article before) is ignoring how the other countries are shown (ignoring the article criteria). I wunder how he'd react if the HHOF was against him? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PS- It appears the NHLPA has no worries about Northern Ireland & Republic of Ireland, concerning Owen Nolan. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

=February=

Rollback
You have been granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, because the rollback feature does not require fetching the data from the page history and then sending article data back to the Wikipedia server as the javascript requires, therefore you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [ rollback ] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful.Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism.
My fault. Sorry. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured, no problem. Grsz11 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up
Hey there... just a heads up. Simply adding a protection template does not protect the page. Only an admin can actually protect the page. To request protection, just make a request at RFPP. :) Jmlk  1  7  22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Zach Smith
Hi, thanks for writing. Unfortunately, Rowling never confirmed before/after the release of Deathly Hallows that Zacharias and Hepzibah were of any relation, especially since the former wound up playing a next-to-nothing role in the series. Upon finishing DH, I was a little peeved that that one little plot hole was overlooked.  Beemer 69  03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

z/s
I was under the impression that an article and its title were separate, along the lines of data versus metadata :/

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, the other articles I've edited weren't british at all.

Thanks for pointing out about seeking consensus on the talk page though.

Shentino (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Brook or Brooke?
Hi. I hope you don't mind I removed these warnings. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

High-five.
Let's tag-team against Mr. "Systematically-delete-from-God-of-War" entry. Casull (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He should be blocked soon; I reported Grsz11 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Victory! Grsz11 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page! &mdash; B o L 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

W. Roy MacKenzie
Hi, I'm curious why you think W. Roy MacKenzie should be deleted? Isn't saying he is known for collecting folk songs in Nova Scotia enough of an indication of his importance? --fnord (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spells in Harry Potter
The etymologies are labeled "suggested" because although the etymologies have been given by various sources it is likely that this is just speculation or synthesis on their part. None of the etymologies are sourced either from the books or confirmed by J.K. Rowling they are logical conclusions made by other people. It was decided by consensus that when a relibale source is provided for a suggested etymology then it should be included in the article but any unsourced etymology (one effectively suggested by users) constitute original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and so all unreferenced etymologies were removed. Placing a tag might have been an option, but having checked for sources I couldn't find any and given the history of the page I think that entries should only be added when there are sources to support them. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gopal bhatt goswami
Please tell me why articles like this get to stay. It's nothing personal, just really curious after seeing how terrible that article is. Grsz11 (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to put it through prod before it was tagged for db-copyvio. The reason why I did so was because the CSD did not apply, and because the author should probably be given a chance to fix the article if no CSD applies. The the point is moot now however. hateless 07:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

consistency
Ok, I have one last question about the iz/is and I think it will be the last one I need to ask.

If an article has mixed or inconsistent usage of iz vs is, is it proper to put the article into self agreement?

For example:

Modernizing the organisation of wisemen in the standardization of proper grammar and word capitalisation.

My toes start curling even thinking about it. Of course, this is an extreme example, but generally, seeing stuff anywhere close to this gives me a giant headache.

I'm assuming that WP:ENGVAR allows an exception for the sake of consistency of style. If that is not the case, or there are exceptions to this, please let me know. It is this assumption I have been operating under when I made my edits. I did a search and foudn that the majority of spellings in said articles were "iz" and not "is".

To be more specific, how do I follow "use the same form of English the original author used" when the original author mixed?

=March=

Vandalism of my talk page
Please stop vandalizing my talk page. You're really starting to give me a headache.76.199.9.176 (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is what you are doing. Placing warnings against disruptive behavior on your talk page however, is NOT vandalism. Grsz11 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Friendly request
Hello. Just wanted to drop you a friendly noting asking that you please remember to subst warning templates. Thanks for your hard work in fighting vandalism! --Kralizec! (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Xjstudios
I don't think they're related ... but it's promotional just the same, so I username-blocked it. Blueboy96 07:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette on Elrith
I've given up on the Ice Hockey articles (days ago). Elrith's refusal to abide by the WikiProject's compromise (which isn't written in stone, but he could show some good will in accepting it) & the refusal of Djsasso & Krm500 to 'hide/remove' the diacritics completely from the NHL team pages (i.e. current roster) has driven me away. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:InternalLeaf
Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors.

With all the actual spam out there, it's not necessary to worry about editors who put a message like "Hello, check out my website!" in their own user space. If such a message had been placed on the editor's own user page instead of her user talk page, it would have been perfectly appropriate there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. His edit here though, was spam to his website, so I felt inclined to delete similar instances. Thanks for the notice. Grsz11 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Who? Me?
I've turned down Camaeron's request to nominate me for Administrator. I'm not Administrator material. My hot-headedness on the Ice Hockey articles is proof of that (see my full reasons at Camaeron's page). GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've left the Ice Hockey articles (I even revoked my WikiProject Hockey membership) a few days ago. Why? Those diacritics that are still in the NHL team articles (i.e. the 'birthplaces' at the current rosters). See what I mean? I'm high strung. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics on the English-language Wikipedia
There has been a vote over whether to use diacritics on Wikipedia, and the result was inconclusively in favor (Naming conventions (use English)). Also, if you look at List of accented words in English language, you'll find that English does, in fact, use diacritics. Thirdly, there is a Wikiproject:Ice Hockey "compromise" at WikiProject Ice Hockey that says: "All Non-North American hockey pages: Should have diacritics applied (where required)." Therefore, you have absolutely no business reverting my edits to articles like the 2003 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships. Kindly stop trying to police Wikipedia, and if you're going to do so anyway, at least stick to what's been agreed on. Your |comment on RGTraynor's talk page is pure rubbish. Thus far, Wikipedia uses diacritics everywhere except on "North American hockey pages", whatever that means. Your impression that diacritics are not English and should not be used on Wikipedia is purely your personal POV. If you insist on reverting edits I've made to pages that legitimately use diacritics, you're committing vandalism, because you're the one pushing a POV in defiance of consensus. Elrith (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a student of both German and Spanish, I have nothing against diacritics other than the fact that they appear foreign to native English speakers who use this site and are not necessary the number of instances that you wish them to be. Your point of directing me to List of accented words in English language is weak, as a large majority of these words are loanwords, that are simply un-Anglized foreign language words. Also, I fail to see how this, |comment is incorrect. Furthermore, the vote at Naming conventions (use English) clearly states that the result was not a consensus, so you're stating that diacritics are protected by consesus is 100% false. But above all, your tone towards other Wikipedia editors has been nothing but rude and arrogant, unwilling to discuss the issue in a civil manner. Because of this, I kindly ask you to refrain from contacting me after this discussion. Grsz11 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's wrong of you to judge my attitude toward other Wikipedia editors if you don't know the whole story, as you clearly don't in this case. Your comment is incorrect in the sense that you are claiming English does not use diacritics. It does. Hence the list of words in English that do. If you ignore that because they're loanwords, well, Teemu Selänne is certainly not an English name. Also, your statement that Wikipedia articles "should not use diacritics" is your own POV, not a Wikipedia policy. You're not entitled to revert other people's edits because you believe Wikipedia should not use diacritics. Elrith (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have no response to your claims of consensus on diacritics. Grsz11 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that all you have left to hide behind? I freely admit I was wrong, and in fact, there isn't a Wikipedia consensus to use diacriticals. Neither is there one against using them. As long as the matter is unresolved, I don't believe you're justified in reverting my edits. In the case of ice hockey player pages, there is a Wikiproject "consensus" in place, and several of your edits violated that consensus. Your reverting of my edits to 2003 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships, for instance, was completely unjustified. I want you to be aware of that, and stop making those kinds of reverts. Elrith (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again with the arrogant and rude behavior. I think that your argument with List of accented words in English language is at best a small point, and you can't ignore the fact that very few (if any) of those words are originally English. Also, I think the fact that even the NHL omits diacritics, see here and here should be acknowledged.
 * I have stopped reverting (I only reverted a handful of edits), as it's clearly a hopeless effort. But that does not mean I still feel different about it. Grsz11 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Then we have nothing further to disagree about. Although you may not believe it, I fully respect your opinion on diacritics. I just believe you're wrong. In my mind, it's of paramount importance to give people's full and correct names on Wikipedia, and that's why I'm pushing for diacriticals. The proper place to have the discussion on whether to use them or not is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Elrith (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pressure Washer
Aye cheers, given the (very angry) comments in the edit summaries it seems that the user hasn't fully read the guidelines about EL. I will keep it in my watchlist. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 04:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit
You ought to answer my question before I remove your "legitimate question" again.-- S    TX   05:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: MiszaBot
Yes, at present it is set up correctly to put 30 day old topics into User talk:Grsz11/Archive 01. I could help you if you wanted it to be more fancy; say to put topics there and when the archive reached a certain size switch to putting them in User talk:Grsz11/Archive 02. If you want to take care of that sort of thing manually, then you're all set.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  05:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you tell me the maximum size you want your archive to be, I'd be happy to set that up for you. As for having a fancy signature, that depends on what sort of signature you want. Setting the font style, color, and background is all basic web coding. If you don't know how to do that I wouldn't mind helping you with it as well.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  06:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, your archive template is good to go. Yes, signature options are all in your preferences under the user profile tab. If you just want different text with the standard formatting of whatever you type in (talk) then just type whatever you want in the signature box. If you want to add fancy formatting and whatnot, tic the Raw signature box and add your code to the signature box along with all the wikilinks and text you want; keeping in mind all applicable guidelines on WP:SIG concerning format, length, and contents.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  06:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your quite welcome.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  06:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The code you had was correct, but you forgot to click the raw signature checkmark under the signature box in your preferences.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  06:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Have a good one, Joelster (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Adminship request advice
Hi Grsz11! You can see my Rfa Requirements here. As you can see there you have just reached my requirements and would only have to give satisfying answers in your Rfa to gain my "support vote". However it should be noted that most people have higher Rfa requirements than I do. The first thing most people will as you about is your relatively low edits on Talk pages. Other than that you are doing quite well. Your user page is Rfa-friendly. Most Rfa contributers look for "geeky" stuff such as "Pages I created" and "Ongoing contribs". Then there is the famous Kurt Weber (or something like that) who will object to any self nomination and say something along the lines of "I view a self nom as prima facie evidence of power hunger". You can run for adminship as many time as you like so you can enter yourself whenever you feel ready. The up side is: Even if you dont pass the rfa you will be given lots of tips on how to suceed next time! When you feel ready I will nominate ýou, if you wish. That should prevent Kurt from opposing! Also you can check the percentage of votes here. Generally only rfa's with over 75 per cent pass. Any more questions, dont hesitate to ask! hope I have been of some help. --Camaeron (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) PS: This page is also very helpful GRFA!
 * I'll have a look tomorrow. Hope you don't mind. :P Rudget  (?) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverse overshot water wheel
Please replace my new article rather than redirecting to water wheels. It is quite a different device and intended to be used for drainage, and not for power. It is a bit like the Noria. Peterlewis (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hagrid
Robbie Coltrane and Martin Bayfield both portray Hagrid. That information is required for a fictional character with film appearances. But information about Martin Bayfield being a stunt is not needed in the character's article. Another example could be Warwick Davis, the actor that portrays Flitwick: he also portrayed a Gringotts goblin, but there is no need to mention that in Flitwick's section. Information about Bayfield being a stunt should be placed in the List of cast members. --Lord Opeth (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I have just read some sources and articles, and he was not just "a stunt". He is "Hagrid's stunt", due to his size. I merely thought that he was an extra or a stunt playing a random wizard. With this information I think we can better create a section for "Film portrayal" with this information and that about Rowling imagining Robbie portraying Hagrid. --Lord Opeth (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Irving Broughton
Why the notability tag? I added yet more details and there is more than one reference.

Restoring Comments to my Talk Page
Please see this page before restoring deleted comments to my talk page. If you want to communicate, place a message on the page, I'll read it, and your purpose should have been served. To avoid clutter, I won't allow outdated comments (such as the one related to my Steve Nash contribution) to remain forever. Auto469680 (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Official Bracket
On the NCAA Tourney notes, the brackets officially list "Southern California", not USC even though they are the same iniaials used by the University of South Carolina. Also, Miami (Fla.) and St. Mary's (Calif.) are listed so that they aren't to be confused with simular named schools like Miami (Ohio) ot Mount St. Mary's. I made the changes to the official bracket in the article as a result. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:48 PM US EDT Mar 18 2008
 * I'm perfectly okay with that. As you can see, I left the Miami change when I reversed the others. I would however, prefer just the state's initials: FL and CA.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Some more help needed
To minimize the number of edits required, MiszaBot defaults to only archiving if there are 2 topics that are old enough. Last night, there was only one, as the one titled Rollback wasn't older than 30 days. Tonight, if I did my math right, the Rollback thread will be old enough and MiszaBot will archive the two threads. If you want to override the default and have the bot archive even if only one thread needs it, add minthreadstoarchive = 1 to your template.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your welcome.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My warning
You know there are two sides to an edit war. User:Mareklug has reverted my edits just like I've reverted his. Does he get warned too? --Tocino 05:09, 19 March 2008
 * Apologies that my fingers can't work at the speed desired.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been losing my cool a lot because of this article. It is an emotional issue. --Tocino 05:32, 19 March 2008

3RR
I am not reverting, I am restoring one huge edit from several sources, after reverts by User:Tocino. Please look at what I am trying to do in the revision history of International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence.

I was working on a long table in the article and made many small edits in many places, and Tocino, questioning the Brazil segment (wrongly), was throwing away all my edits made elsewhere, while describing his revert with edit summaries implying he is editing locally on Brazil-related fragment... Please see talk page for explanation of the Brazil part. I also left a plea for help on ZScout's talk page, since he has some knowledge of what is going on here. --Mareklug talk 05:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Wikipedia promotes civility, blah blah blah, you get the point. In other words, this is unnecessary and could be seen as inflammatory, please don't do it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Pitt Table
Great job on the Pittsburgh Panthers football page. Looks great!cp101p (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

MAHL
There isn't any story saying that they are leaving in any official website.

JaMikePA (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why revert my Tampa edit
I had a source, and like I said under the picture, it said "Just call Tampa "Upset City." For the first time in NCAA tourney history a site's four lower-seeded teams advanced to the second round Friday."

From 98.215.91.6
 * It already had a source. And saying "look under the picture on this page" isn't a source.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 14:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bagpipes
You know, Carnegie-Mellon University has the only Masters Degree program in bagpipes in the world. Supposedly because Andrew Carnegie, CMU founder and a Scotsman himself, wanted to keep part of his Scottish heritage in the Pittsburgh area. If you'd like to learn to play the bagpipes, maybe you can check them out. Sounds like you are still in the Pittsburgh area. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
For the record, "Wazzu" is a common nickname for Washington State University, Miami (Florida) is different than Miami (Ohio) and there are two schools that go by the name of Xavier University - One in Cincinnati and one in New Orleans, and yes, the Cincinnati one is a regional rival with West Virginia.

Why did I bring these up? Because users of Wikipedia are encouraged to be creative. Thank you. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:18 AM US EDT Mar 24 2008

Neither Miami Ohio or Xavier NO are in the tournament. And saying Miami Hurricanes is just as good, even better, than saying Miami (FL). As far as the "regional rival" bit, it's irrelevant. There's no such thing. It would be different if they were "conference rivals" or "state rivals", but where do we stop before everybody is each others "US rival."


 * Ohio and West Virginia are neighbors. Cincinnati and West Virginia are Big East conference rivals, as also are Cincinnaiti and Xavier (who plays in the Atlantic 10) who have the annual "Skyline Chili Classic". However, the argument that Xavier and West Virginia are regional rivals is legit because of the geographic border. I could argue all night but I'm not. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:31 AM US EDT Mar 24 2008.
 * So because West Virginia plays Cincinnati, and Cincinnati plays Xavier, Xavier and West Virginia are rivals? Who cares if they share a geographical border. It is in no way relevant to the article or tournament, or much of anything at all.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of Merlin (Third Class)
A reward for all your minor contributions to the Harry Potter Wikiproject.

Meatpuppetry solicitation
Balloonman protected the page and I read Tallicfan the riot act on his talk page, then issued a general warning that sockpuppetry will not be tolerated on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:lookinhere
Chrislk02 blocked him for one hour, hopefully this will get his mind straight. Momusufan (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt it.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm having second thoughts on that actually since it seems he thinks WE bullied him but we didn't. Momusufan (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Barack Obama's status as a featured article
Barack Obama 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. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Johnson (ice hockey)
Wow, I don't think I've ever received a "thank you" for such a minor edit before. :) Stuff like that is what I'm here for -- I'm not about to write a featured article any time soon, but I like to think I'm pretty good at catching the minor mistakes of others. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply re Barack Obama POV dispute
Hi there. Thanks for requesting my help on the Barack Obama dispute. Unfortunately, I'm really not very well versed in political articles and am probably not the best person to ask to look at this issue. I am very busy at the moment and do not have much time to devote to the necessary research to ensure that any action I take in the dispute is appropriate and keeping to policy. I would suggest requesting help at WP:RFC or WP:3O - this will hopefully attract a broader audience to the issue, and more people with a more varied set of opinions will be able to help you all arrive at a consensus.

Thanks, and good luck. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD of James Avery (captain)
I see you have nominated this article for AFD because of lack of sources or assertion of notability. Did you perform a google test or other test to see if this article had merit? Please be careful with newer editors that you do not Bite them, which may discourage them from contributing in the future. I have posted several references that appear to assert notability. If there is a problem with these or you still have comments, please add them to the discourse at the AFD nominiation. Thanks. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LINKSPAM
I replaced the links. They are links to personal sites, (not trying to sell anything). In this situation, removing them is going to be FAR more disruptive than just leaving them there. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lookinhere
If it's a repeated pattern (i.e., it's a long term abuse issue), take it to the incidents board of the administrators' noticeboard. The AIV noticeboard, however, is primarily there to deal with immediate problems with actual vandalism&mdash; not issues of civility. -- slakr \ talk / 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Penguins template
Oh, I thought they were just 'interims' (filling in for injured Roberts); sorry. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But there is a chance, the Penguins might just continue with Roberts & Gonchar as alternate captains (upon Roberts return). GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess is: When Roberts returns? the lineup will be C- Crosby, A- Gonchar, A- Roberts. But we won't know until then. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wright
Yes, that is much better.thank you. --Die4Dixie 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for taking it. We all know the only controversy is how people took it.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with factual properly cited, non original research to be included. MAny weasel words are being inserted and the article is a joke as it stands.Most of my attempts have been in good faith on this article, but the lying about syphilis addition was over the top. I plead frustration with the tireless white washing going on on that page. Don't worry, I give and get it from both sides as you would see from my old comments on the talk page of Sean Hannity. I do think that it should be highlighted that his statements about the syphilitic infections are false and i invite you to look at the discussion page about the real estate issue to weigh in.--Die4Dixie 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)
 * jones' edits appear to be disruptive. I have asked for a cite that these were "Imprecations' and not his original research. I want a hard source cited that this is what it was. Am I so wrong? I thought you agreed, since you took it out.--Die4Dixie 23:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Thank God JP showed up to fix that. I'll try not to drink and edit on Friday nights any more. Looks like we might could work this out. I think I might ideological agree with some of Carlos' thoughts, but I think he would, as we all would, be better served try to do this on the talk page. I see you are a good faith editor, although we won't likely agree politically, and I see no reason we can't work together in good faith on this article. What say you?--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so sure it's his perceived beliefs. I think that the controversy are his beliefs.Maybe we ought to cite perceived. I'm not sure what would be disputed that he actually believes what he says. What might be disputed is the implications that such a large number of a significant minority in the US don't find this shocking and what it means long term for race relations.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Haha
Beats me, people make the most strangest of additions to articles sometimes Jammy (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's an idiotic notion not even worth addressing seriously
The idea that everything cited must be accessible online is, in fact, an utterly idiotic notion. That would mean books and journal articles are barred from Wikipedia. If that is so, then Wikipedia's commitment to amateurism is more endemic than even I had thought. CyberAnth (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for addressing a policy I saw the other day. It's incredibly hypocritical of you go link to assume good faith and then make an attack like that.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 19:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's the idea, not you. ;-) CyberAnth (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * what an unpleasant user he is.BTW, do you think that everyone must find something to be controversial to acknowledge that a controversy exists. I'm trying to work this through, and I'm not the brightest guy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright
I did explain my editing on the Jeremiah Wright page. Please don't lie.-Schlier22 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Explaining doesn't make it okay to delete a large portion of relevant, sourced material no matter how much you disagree with it.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the material once, and then, realizing that this was not the best approach, added negative responses to the positive ones already listed. I hope you don't object to this.-Schlier22 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't, as long as they're very reliable sources. Policy requires that criticism of living persons be from incredibly reliable sources, like the Times, the Associated Press, etc.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 02:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You ight want to visit the talk page where a consensus needs to be built.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring question

 * Hey, how did you make the edit war warning go away.. I saw it in your history, and I'm intrigued.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some information to Jeremiah Wright's wikipedia page that you deleted. The edits I added pointed out that Rev Wright was quoting somebody as saying chickens coming home to roost not saying that himself. THERE is a huge difference. Please stop misrepresenting the truth.

Anderson Cooper the CNN journalist followed up this story with his own investigation and found that when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril. Also nowhere in this sermon did he say "God Damn America".

Your last edit to Animateobjects
It's a cut and paste job, so I've changed your tag to a instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama, FAR, Kossack, et al
Well what do you expect? I cannot imagine he is all that eager to own up to his own stunning ignorance. I'm finding it extremely difficult to remain calm when editing any of these articles or commenting. I am constantly amazed at how stupid people can be. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

=April=

Frustration
I completely understand your frustration. I hardly edited Wikipedia at all between last November and early March. It's a highly imperfect system, and requires almost superhuman patience. I think that this little spat with thegoodlocust was exacerbated by your assumption that he was a troll or sockpuppet — although I understand why you'd think that, it's always good to give people the benefit of the doubt and/or enough rope to hang themselves. Rest up and feel better. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pirates
Most of the good articles I could find listed them by the best ERA to worst, which looked good. Though, once we get deeper into the season there should probably be a minimum appearences set for the list, so it is fair. I agree limiting it to the top five would be good, although at the end of the season a full list should be added, we've got plenty of time until that comes up though. Leave any more questions on my talk page, this is my first baseball season as a Wikipedia member, I look forward to doing what I can; and if that first game was any indicator it's gonna be a hell of a season. Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wrote that. I figured that we should have some sort of worded summary of the season. I don't plan to include every game by any means; only major highlights (Opening day, home opener, how they were able to overcome the past and win the World Series (yeah, right), any big win/loss streaks) stuff like that. Blackngold29 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we're gonna rank the pitchers by ERA, should we rank batters by their batting average? And are the batters limited to the top 5 also? Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll definately be watching the Pens tonight, it's kinda conveinent that the Bucs aren't on TV. I'll probably get on and update their stuff anyway, if you haven't beaten me to it. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant the baseball. Most of my classes don't start until later in the day, so I'm usually on for a little bit at night. I've learned from the Steelers Project that the more stuff that you can do while it's happening, the easier it is. I admire those guys who go look through all the old newspapers to find out game results from 50 years ago. I've considered trying to start up a Pirates Project, but I don't know if it's really worth all the effort. Just like the Steelers, the Pirates seem to have a good amount of articles, but most need work. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I go to college in Butler, at BC3. I assume you're from around Pittsburgh too? Blackngold29 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to remove personal attacks...
...why would you leave in place a personal-attack section heading, now functioning as an anonymously posted billboard? With your intervention (which, might I add, removed a lot of ontopic discussion, which just happened to be in that section), you have made the personal attack on me conspicuous and hard to attribute. --Mareklug talk 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some work on it now, i'll be back in about an hour and a half. You may have had some relevant conversation, but you have to admit that most of it (and there was a lot of it) was quite unsubstantial. I'm also going to fix my post at the noticeboard. Thanks,  Grsz  ' 11 ' 14:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but having been on the receiving end of your follow-up "work", I feel compelled to include the following excerpt on your talk page, as you clearly need a little more practice and thinking about the consequences of your interventions, before policing on Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Begin quote from Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

Troll
< '''User:Grsz11 removed due to repeated personal attacks, etc. between User:Tocino and User:Mareklug. This talk page isn't for your discussion of who may or may not be a troll. If you insist on talking about it, do so on a User talk: >  Grsz ''' ' 11 ' 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not make any personal attacks, but participated here, forced to define what I meant when I declared the phrase "declare formal intent to recognize" to be an example of bullshit. I had to defend this, and my reputation, being unfairly characterized as having been blocked here before, and to illustrate what bullshit can and does mean, and to properly source this. This section, titled "Mareklug is a troll", was, however, started as a personal attack on me. I'd appreciate you learning first how to mediate and correctly remove personal attacks, if they are to be removed at all. You have botched this operation here, among other things, removing without justification substantial amount of meritorious ontopic discussion, as well as orphaning as anonymous the original section heading, which was a personal attack, so that it became impossible to see who made this personal attack. Now, many hours later, you come back and unfairly and ineptly characterize your earlier edit. None of this was terribly adroit of you, or fair, including your follow-up call on the Administration Noticboard for admins to "dish out punishment". I don't think I could vote for your Request for Administratorship, given these crude edits. Clearly you need to hone your skills, because this intervention of yours brings more harm than good and is more incendiary than the offending text itself. And personal attacks are not between users, but made by one user on another. However, meddling and mishandling them, while removing relevant discussion, definitely constitutes an in-betweenness of the most undersirable kind, not to mention, suppression of speech. Undesirable speech should be confronted with more speech. --Mareklug talk 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

-- End quote from Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence


 * I saw the post; it's clear that your attitude has never changed. Personally, I could care less what you think of me. Both of you have seemed to turn that page into your personal battle grounds. It states at the very top of the page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article." What's so hard to understand about that? Bitch at each other on your own talk pages as much as you want, but don't waste everybody else's space. I acknowledge that Tocino initiated the whole thing, but your continuous responses were inappropriate as well. This was unnecessary, and you know exactly what you were trying to do when you did it. Does anybody really listen to Tocino? I'm fairly certain you're integrity on the page would stay intact, no matter how many times he called you a troll. You just need to stay cool.  Grsz  11  05:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments after September 11
The edit was not intended to be biased. It is, in my estimation, cleaner and easier to follow exactly what was said by whom.

The edit I offered improves on the existing text in a few ways:

1. The Media Matters reference was eliminated as it is irrelevant in that does not provide the source comments. Instead it draws comparisons between the news coverage of Wright and Hagee.

2. It is clear, and verifiable, that Wright attributes his remarks to Peck. To assert that Wright "expands on" Peck, you would have to show the "base" of Peck's actual remarks from which Wright expanded. Wright does not say he "expanded on" Peck comments. My edit shows exactly what Wright said in relation to Peck.

3. Peck is identified for his service in Iraq under President Carter. Elsewhere, Peck's service under Reagan is noted, and thus the entry is incomplete to cite only Reagan and not Carter. 4. I show the direct Wright quotes, in the order that they are given by Wright in his sermon. The existing entry scrambles the order.

5. I note at the end that no evidence has been offered to show that Peck made the remarks. That is verifiable, not original research. If anyone has independent evidence that Peck said the remarks, let them add the evidence.

Regards Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Roland S Martin
You wrote "(rmv. wow is this POV and original research. nobody said the sermon took place the Sunday directly after 9/11. that alone blows your argument)"

Roland Martin said the sermon occurred on September 16. His own network, CNN, said with him on the air they couldn't find evidence of this.

Martin also wrote that Wright was quoting Peck. You seem to agree that is not correct, since you wrote "It's pretty clear and easy to determine that Peck did not make those exact comments ..."

For the Jeremiah Wright entry, I am not disputing the "shortly thereafter" language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngwarrenbuffett (talk • contribs) 03:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean CNN said they couldn't find evidence that it was the 16th?  Grsz  ' 11 ' 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please see the link, which I have excerpted. On March 21, 2008, CNN journalist John King interviewed Martin on Anderson Cooper 360°. King noted that CNN staff could not find any evidence of Peck making the statements attributed to him by Wright and Martin. 

KING: We went back and we looked for any appearances by Ambassador Peck during this time once you pointed this out to the staff, and can't find any.

MARTIN: Right. And I actually called the church to find out, first of all -- first of all, Reverend Wright is out of the country -- to find out, was that the actual date of the sermon? Was that actually right? Or did he make a mistake in terms of where he saw the ambassador, who actually was a Republican ambassador to Iraq under Ronald Reagan [sic -- Peck was in Iraq under President Carter]?

Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Peck's comments
You wrote:

It's clear that Peck put forward the idea that US actions brought forth retaliation by Al-Q.Italic text Here is various parts of Peck's various appearances on Fox. From this, I believe, Wright certainly took his liberties, but his main point (Chickens roosting) gave from Peck's statements that the US has certainly done things worth of revenge, etc. Grsz 11 03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The transcript you link is a discussion of whether the US should attack Iraq, which Peck opposed. There is no discussion of why Al-Q attacked the US. The reference to 11 years of emabargo appears in this sequence, and it's Peck's answer to why Iraqis are miserable, ie, not simply Hussein but also the embargo. Peck is not offering the embargo of Iraq as the chickens coming home to roost in the form on the 9/11 attack.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Peck says this: "He (bin Laden) doesn't think it's appropriate for the United States to be doing, from his perspective, all the terrible things he sees us as having been doing."  Grsz  ' 11 ' 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As shown in the transcript, Peck does not link the 9/11 attacks to US policy. He does discuss a commonality of interests between Al-Q and Hussein. Also, the transcript shows that Peck did not mention Malcolm X, roosting chickens, Nagasaki, HIrohima or various Native American tribes.  Thus, I think it is more appropriate to say Wright "attributed his remarks in part to the remarks of Peck" rather than say he "expanded on" Peck's remarks. "Expanded on" is really an editorial judgment which is not supported by any available evidence.Youngwarrenbuffett (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockage
That's funny. I actually do buy socks in Wal-Mart because I like them to be cheap and plentiful. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Farrakhan
Would you be against including the section if I retitle it? In any case, it isn't misplaced at all if it gets its own section, since it obviously directly pertains to the Rev. Wright and the controversy surrounding him.-Schlier22 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be okay to mention breifly regarding the award. It can't say Farrakhan is a controversial figure as that's a judgement. Just say that he gave an award to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and mention the quotes.  Grsz  11  01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Plague of Locust
I wish I had a giant can of Raid or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Falcons
Great idea about the Falcon article. A year ago or so, there was a fight between the original faclon and an intruder. It was caught on film which was rare and provided a lot of information on falcon behavior. Western PA Conservancy The Cathedral falcons are actually quite important from a biological science and conservation point of view. There are plenty of references to them in the media to justify its notability. Here are some links National Aviary Cathedral Falcon webcam, National Aviary press release, Pittsburgh Falcon defeats Cleveland falcon in Post-Gazette, Trib-Review article, Trib-Democrat article, Pitt Chronicle article, Pitt Magazine article.

I think the jump off point is probably the Cathedral of Learning article, where it could have a subheading which then does a main wikilink to your new article. Great idea. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama concerns
Hi there. As an editor who seems to watch the page closely, I wonder if I can get your comments on some of the issues I left on the talk page; it would really be appreciated.

I just find it appalling that not many of the concerns are even considered "concerns" by some editors. I agree with you that the GoodLocust has acted poorly, but I hope that his/her actions don't prevent you from working with myself and other editors on the real issues at hand. Thanks for your time. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm giving it a quick look now and doing some research. I'll give it more when I get back to my computer Saturday night and can actually see the whole screen. Thanks for the note.  Grsz  11  03:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response; please take you time. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted a response under Political Advocacy. Feel free to respond there.  Grsz  11  03:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I introduced my concerns in a NPOV manner, and they were largely tossed right out. I don't have any pro- or anti-Obama views, thus I am neutral. I was going to object to the article a few days ago, however, because I noticed from reading through once (and later again) that there was a pro-Obama tone to it, but didn't in the hopes that I could help it maintain FA status through giving editors a list to work on. Sadly, it was not to be because most were dismissed for largely ludicrous reasons of undue weight and "BLP concerns". Happyme22 (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge in the political advocacy section, which I responded to. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a problem, it was more for the other guy anyway. I'm sure he'll come back with some outrageous claim or another.  Grsz  11  05:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pitt deletion
A Pitt related page, Oakland Zoo (cheering section), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are important. Please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Oakland Zoo (cheering section) 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.CrazyPaco (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegates
Hi. First of all my apologies if I violated some policy by telling a user I was going to check if their IP could be linked to the Clinton campaign. It won't happen again. Please take a moment, however, to examine the merits of the dispute. That user is acting in a decidedly POV manner, and used my violation of that policy to distract from the substance of my complaint about their non-neutral actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.78.77 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to sound confrontational or anything but how about an apology for threatening to trace my IP address and location expose me as a biased political operative when I'm just a random chick in a Mountain West state trying to clarify the superdelegate issues and put them in their proper place (and please note my removal of a similar "pro-Obama" edit to Ted Kennedy's article. Threats of IP tracing and "real life" harm are, while you probably didn't indend them to be so, kind of scary in this new age of "cyberstalking."

Also, I'd love for you and others to help me develop this article. I've got to run to work but will be back tonight to work on it more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008

Smart Ways (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxine Waters Issues
Thanks for your involvement in mediating this dispute. I'm wondering what you'd think of the addition of some "Superdelegate Controversy" section to some article that I'm sure exists on the 2008 Democratic Primary or perhaps in the Superdelegate article. It seems a much more logical place for it than editing the biographies of upward of 700 Superdelgates to include whether or not they voted in accordance with their district.Smart Ways (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, better yet, if you have any guidance (or suggestions of who I should turn to for guidance)for me in the creation of my first article (done to attempt to diffuse this edit war, etc. I'd really appreciate it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008 Smart Ways (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Trinity
Perfect. Sorry about the bite. I have removed the tag--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
I invite you to take this issue with me jointly to dispute resolution if you feel there is a problem.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Personal attacks" policy
Howdy. I notice that you have the userbox "This user removes personal attacks because it's the right thing to do." I've tried to defuse a number of Wiki-squabbles, and I'm always trying to refine my understanding of civility. It is not obvious to me that removing personal attacks is the right thing to do. (Neither is it obvious to me that it is not the right thing to do.) It seems to me that if a person posts public personal attacks, there is an argument to be made for leaving said attacks visible, so that other Wikipedians can see what kind of a person they might be dealing with and form opinions about various users and controversies based on complete evidence. I'd be interested in your ideas on this subject, here or on my Talk page. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's appropriate for particularly offensive attacks to be left. If a person does make an attack, they should be warned (using the warnings at WP:UTM). This allows a user coming to the talk page to see that their may have been an incident in the past. I also make it known on the page that I altered what exactly happened. I've done this by just replacing the attack(s): , by  Grsz  11  00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head-up
Thanks for the heads-up. Your first reference answered my question.

I wrote to the canvasser. He is unrepentant.

I don't know what to do. I've never filed a request for comment. I think I might have to.

But, thanks for your help. Geo Swan (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is a last resort
Blocking should be used as a last resort, not the first. Wikipedia has tons of rules, and most new users end up breaking one or two of them, but we definitely do not need to block every newbie who appears to break a rule. I disapprove of you clamoring to block User:Taostiger.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wright, take 382
I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality board
People do check, myself included, but theres only so many edits you can make in a day. It's a newer board too, so not as many have it watched. Add in that those can be the harder nuts to crack problem wise... it will be a bit slower than others. Lawrence §  t / e  18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh it's really no big deal. I forgot I even had that there. Thanks though.  Grsz  11  18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Arenas
I recently did an overhaul on the PNC Park article, if you want to look over it and see if there is anything that you feel is missing or needs to be changed, I would appreciate it if you could either change it or leave me a message on my talk page. I put it up for peer review so hopefully it can be elevated to a Good Article soon, so I can move onto Heinz Field, which needs the same treatment. I did a revision of the New Pittsburgh Arena, but there's really not much to be added yet. If there are any other Pittsburgh fans who you think could help out too, let me know. Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Povertyneck Hillbillies
Just dropping you a line to let you know that I'm rewriting the article on the Povertyneck Hillbillies. I'm finding multiple reliable sources which seem to be sufficient to meet at least criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. (That, and I really liked "Mr. Right Now", so I'm especially willing to do some WP:HEY work here.) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. As long as the article asserts notability, which it didn't previously. In a brief search I had done, I could only find detailed information (passing #1) from the Post-Gazette, and other local sources. Thanks for the work.  Grsz  11  17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've rewritten the article. It still could use a few more sources, but I think I've taken care of any notability concerns (being the official band of the Pittsburgh Steelers, for one). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

George Faulkner
- Did you see George_Faulkner? And how exactly is notability not asserted? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't say how he's anymore important than the next Irish printer and bookseller. Be careful when you undo edits, as you restored peacock terms that I had removed.  Grsz  11  11:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...I wish I was Yomangan. "was one of the most important" (if sourced, which it is) "say[s] how he's anymore important than the next Irish printer and bookseller" (which you ask for...CSD only asks that it be said he was a cool dude that's worth talking about). So I'm not sure what you're suggesting. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Goaltender
My bad I totally was just copying and pasting from the Ottawa article to avoid having to retype everything. On the Pittsburgh article it should be Fleury as he was the goalie playing for Pittsburgh. On the Ottawa article it would be Gerber as he was the goalie who got the decision in Ottawa. Albeit not the win as he would have hoped. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL
Admittedly the variations section in this article was a mess, and probably best removed. Still, though lol is most often the variation used, lollerskates, roflcopter, and similar have become pretty popular and widespread in the online gaming community(which is a pretty gigantic community), and have the same meaning. Words like roflcopter redirect to "lol", but no mention of the word(or the rather popular flash game associated with it) is made on the page. It's awkward. By the way, I didn't make up lolocaust or lollercaust. It produces thousands of search results on google, and is defined 11 times on Urbandictionary.com as lolocaust, and 2 times as lollercaust. So instead of following me around and deleting my contributions, please try to work that stuff into the article as you see fit next time. By the way, how can you be a democrat and a libertarian? Lollercaust. thezirk (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, this is the free encyclopedia, is it not?  Grsz  11  14:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ONIH's retirement
Yep, he's thrown in the towel & has thrown a few profane 'edit summaries' around too. Very disappointing behaviour, on his part. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Steelers
We should get this back up to Good Article status; it was at one point, but has since been removed. The article was recently protected from annonomous users, which should help us some. Oakland Raiders is currently a good article, we can use it for reference. I have started a draft in my sandbox. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to help in any way you can, there is a to do list at the bottom of the page. Any suggestions would be welcome, I have no doubt that if we work together we can accomplish this fairly quickly. Blackngold29 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Malone
I removed the A from Malone at the varies articles, 'cause the Penguins are awaiting the Conference Semi-Finals. As a result, we're not certain of Roberts status until that series begins. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, we won't be certain of how the Penguins will handle Malone & Sydor (whom as you've pointed out, wore the A's for months, while Roberts was sidelined) until the playoffs have ended (thus they'll have their 'official team photo'). For example, the Montreal Canadiens in '85-86 had Captain Bob Gainey; alternate captains Larry Robinson & Mario Tremblay. Tremblay missed the latter half of that season (he retired after the season) due to back problems & Mats Naslund filled-in as alternate captain. The official team photo (after the playoffs) had Gainey (of course) wearing his C; Larry Robinson, Mario Tremblay and Mats Naslund each wearing an A. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm no longer certain of the Penguins situation. If you feel Malone & Sydor should be re-inserted as 'alternate captains'? I'll do the honors. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Black sermonic tradition
Regarding this, Wikipedians seem to have a terrible and endemic habit of writing decontextualized articles that fail to really elucidate a topic. In absence of a complete rewrite of Jeremiah Wright (which is on my list of things to do in vein of Trinity United Church of Christ), the link to Black sermonic tradition provides at least some important background knowledge to readers. Ewenss (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the link you placed on Jeremiah Wright is inappropriate in style and placement. In addition, this is not the appropriate place to have this discussion - bring it up on the article's talk page.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 16:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok
I don't want to have a protracted discussion with you about this. After staying of the Wiki for several days, I returned to steadfastly avoid any encounters with you. I had taken evey page that you edit off my watch lists and have made a point to avoid you. You complained that you were being stalked by me. This Would say that at the very least, you are following me. I'd prefer to disengage completey, as my experience on the project has been made poorer for having known you. You seem to be a bright enough fellow, and I rather imagine that you might be intrested in administrative responsibilities on day. Guess what I'm saying is that I would appreciate it if you would find some other corner of this massive project in which to entertain yourself.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So wait, you're telling me I can't participate in an RfA, one of only five at the time throughout the whole project, if you did first?  Grsz  11  15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. One time of voting for an admin. nom. of an editor that you might not ever have interacted with, and finding a comment by me that you felt moved by the Spirit to comment on might be a coincidence. I devoutly hope that that will be our last interaction and my last coincidental encounter with you, and that you likewise will now remove my contribution list from the list of things that you watch,as well as my talkpage, and if it is not too much to ask, not develop any ""new found"" interest in any other subject that I might choose to edit.I will definitely do the same. It's a big project. If you goal is to create an encyclopedia, then this will make certain sense. Nothing good can come from further interaction between us on this project. Happy editing.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet you keep commenting. And just a note, you can't watch a contributions page. I don't even know why you're making such a fuss about things. We originally worked together towards consensus on some things, until you started attacking me.  Grsz  talk  21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

David McCullough
Hey, I appreciate the edits, but just to warn you: I am working my way down going chronologically so don't waste too much time formatting the things at the bottom. I'll probably be changing it again when I get there anyway. One thing that I can't find a ref for that's in the article right now is that his first job after Yale was at Time magazine, if you can find one let me know. Most of the info is good, but I like to use as many sources as I can. Thanks!  Black  ngold29   23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, just spotted it reading through (I started at the bottom for some reason).  Grsz  talk  23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've finished the first few paragrahs, you are welcome to proof-read them. I'll get a peer review eventually, but it couldn't hurt! Thanks for the link change a few days ago, it was more what I was looking for.  Black  ngold29   04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem user
Yeah, he seems like a hot head. I've dealt with other users like this, too, so I'm somewhat prepared. But if he acts up and starts warring, we report him and hopefully it will be resolved - and done with. I've used my 3RR on the page for today, so no more editing for me (at least there). Thanks for you help! My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please let me know what you think of the edits I'm making. On that talk page or here . Thanks,  Grsz  talk  02:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think we need to hound him on 3RR.  Grsz  talk  03:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hounding" people is not necessary, productive, or in the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, it was poorly worded. I meant that we need to watch that the editor doesn't break 3RR again, as he's done so in the past and has ignored warnings to stop.  Grsz  talk  03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying -- glad to see that was the case. Unfortunately we do get people who try to bludgeon their opposite number with policy. Carry on... Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:A question on attacks
No that doesn't classify as a personal attack. Its a bit of a blunt criticism. Sometimes that type of criticism is tough to take and at times a little on the snark side but it is not scruntinizable under WP:NPA.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Draft
Well, couldn't hurt to have a back-up for Willie, to bring on for later downs. I don't know a lot about him, is he more of a fast guy or a Bus?  Black  ngold29   21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:Steelers2008DraftPicks It's official now! lol  Black  ngold29   21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, a lineman probably should've been first. It won't be worth paying Ben all that $$ if he gets the snot beat out of him every week. I'm sure they'll pick up one of each before the draft is over. I suppose a trade is possible too, but it would be a suprise coming from the Steelers.  Black  ngold29   22:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems they knew what they were doing. That quarterback will be good, but he'll take a few years. I'm still waiting for our Offensive linemen, I bet he's next.  Black  ngold29   16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Links
I disagree. We don't have links in each section for the positions. Also the 2007 NFL Draft article just has the universities linked once in the entire article, instead of once each section. -- Tocino 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty annoying when there are repetitive links. We are following precedent here. --Tocino 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright
I haven't looked at that page (or any of the Obama-related pages) since last night. I'm finishing up an AfD nomination right now, but I'll take a look at Jeremiah Wright in a bit and let you know what I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there was POV-pushing and BLP issues there, and in my editorial judgment you were right to revert. However, there's a bit of a grey area, and some editors might think that your reversions were inappropriate.  Specifically, some folks might consider the New Republic article to be a reliable source, in which case the appropriate action would have been to cut everything except that bit, rather than revert all.  Since there is that little bit of ambiguity, it's probably a good idea to hold off on reverting on that page for the next 22 hours or so.  If the material is re-added, I personally wouldn't object to a reversion (I might well revert it myself), but there are enough editors watching that article that you don't need to fight it off by yourself.  And sometimes it's good to avoid the appearance of a 3RR violation, even if it's technically defensible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season
Sure thing, just let me know when you want a review and I'll do my best to accommodate.-Wafulz (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed Malone (again) as an alternate captain. See my reasons at that article's talk page. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Pgh sports...
I left a message about a project I've been thinking about here. Figured I would let you know, since you seem to be one of the most active users when it comes to the subject. See what you think.

Ready for Game 3 tonight?  Black  ngold29   20:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

=May=

Correction
A change should be made to the introduction of the article, Trinity United Church of Christ. It states that the church is predominately Black, whereas it is actually exclusively Black. Predominately implies that the majority of members, but in reality if you are not Black you cannot become a member of that congregation. To verify you are welcome to go to their website as well as find the information on CNN. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk • contribs)
 * Ha, if you can bother to find a source that proves this, you go ahead and add it.  Grsz  talk  06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That one is easy, it actually says it on the TUCC website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh really, where?  Grsz  talk  06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I will do a small search, but here is a small quote from their webisite (TUCC.org)

"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land,"

I am not sure how someone that is Caucasian, Asian or anything but black could be part of a congregation that is "unashamedly black"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that say "We are a congregation that is exclusively black"? No, it doesn't. Is the Roman Catholic Church composed only of Romans? I'm positive you cannot find a source that proves the church only allows, and is only composed of black individuals.  Grsz  talk  06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a few definitions of "exclusive" one of those is a place that caters to a specific type of clientel. If the statement that "we are unashamedly black" and "we are an African" people does not suggest that they are catering to a certain group of people, then I am not sure how much more clearly that should be stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most meanings of "exclusive" mean that the organization "excludes" people. As Jeremiah Wright said at the National Press Club yesterday:"We have members of other races in our church. We have Hispanics. We have Caribbean. We have South Americans. We have whites. The conference minister -- please understand the United Church of Christ is a predominantly white demonstration. Again, some of you do not know United Church of Christ, just found out about liberation theology, just found out about United Church of Christ, the conference minister, Dr. Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman, and her husband, not only are members of the congregation, but on her last Sunday before taking the assignment as the interim conference minister of California, Southern California Conference of the United Church of Christ, a white woman stood in our pulpit and said, 'I am unashamedly African.'"Trinity is unashamedly black in the same sense that many Catholic churches with strong ethnic ties are unashamedly Polish or unashamedly Irish or unashamedly Hispanic.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The words, "we are unashamedly Black"....and "we are an African people" makes me think that it includes only those that are Black or of African descent. In contrast to that statement, I have included the statement of another Christian organization, the KKK (with whom I strongly disagree), "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!". That is their banner statement from their website and it sounds to me like an exclusionary statement. I suppose you could say that both "religious organizations" are open to all, but I think a majority would feel they are both "exclusionary" groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.64.170 (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that Trinity UCC has more white members than the KKK has black members. Your interpretation of "unashamedly Black" is incorrect — it's not about excluding whites, but about overcoming black shame.  And although Jeremiah Wright has emphasized past injustices performed by white Americans on Black Americans, I don't think he's ever lynched anyone or burned a cross on their lawn. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with anything even related to saying something nice about Rev. Wright (I say this least the "other side" of this argument tries to accuse me of being a Rev. Wright apologist, I'm far from it) but I have to agree with you about the edit about being TUCC being "exclusively black" is not accurate. The "evidence" provided from their website don't qualify as somehow saying they have a ban on white people becoming members. Smart Ways (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

please
please restore the AFD on Cate Edwards.

We should treat all equally. Having them considered at the same time helps. Otherwise, we risk killing a black person's article and keeping the white person's even though both people's claim to fame is exactly the same.

Also, you are not suppose to remove AFD's. So please put it back. Watchingobama (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya know, I am not even sure exactly how this Cate Edwards vs. Malia Obama thing got started but I find it incredibly offensive to say that someone is somehow trying to "kill a black person's article and keep a white person's." That kind of racial polarization is very unnecessary.  And, for the record, the difference between the two is that Cate Edwards is an adult who campaigned for her father and John Kerry in 2004 and has been quoted as having opinions of her own.  Malia Obama, on the other hand, is a 9 year old who, rightfully so, has not been on the campaign trail alone nor has been quoted by the press.  So, their "claims to fame" are different.  A better comparison, if this is really that big of a deal to you, would be between Malia Obama and either Emma Claire and/or Jack Edwards (neither of whom have articles).  Smart Ways (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I only just got your message about Children of American Politicians. Looks like it's been integrated into the Malia Obama AfD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For this revert. Frank |  talk  19:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. He has a habit of that.  Grsz  talk  19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Working together on Wright
Since there's recently been a lot of edit warring at Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy. I know that your focus is mainly on Barack Obama, but I'd appreciate any feedback you have there. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honestly, I won't be editing that article much anymore, atleast for the time being. I started my summer job and will very soon be working 12 to 15 hour shifts. When I do make time to come here, I'll probably only make small, odd edits.  Grsz  talk  22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a solid realization and a dispensing of naivety about something, namely, that there is a highly vocal group of two or three people there with a lot of time on their hands whose interest in the article is to get it into a form that is as damaging as it can possibly be out of, transparently, political purposes. Every edit, every argument given, and every action they take is toward that end, and you should assume that by now and that all other ethics like fairness and neutrality are far second considerations.  They view the article as a battleground and play by whatever "rules" will reach that politically-driven end.  You don't "work with" such people; you overcome them.  This is simply realistic and hard facts given the nature of the article, the current political context, and the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia. What I would like to do is replace the article with a highly scholarly (and readable!) article that draws solidly upon the rather large body of biographical material about Wright that was published pre-controversy, none of which is included in the current political "battleground" article (!), while also withholding no punches in explaining the sides in the current politically-driven controversy.  Ewenss (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Removed implication of multiple drafts"
Your edit summary isn't really accurate, since it doesn't imply that. But I forgive you.► Chris Nelson Holla! 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR report
Just as an FYI, it is unlikely that anything will come of your 3RR report. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so since the article is under full protection right now, it is not possible for Talicfan22 to continue the edit war, thus negating the need for a block. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Steelers head coaches list
Hey, I've re-nominated the List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches for FLC. I would appreciate it you could look over it and leave a comment here. Thanks!  Black  ngold29   22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Hi. I understand the temptation sometimes to post comments like this, but in cases short of blatant vandalism, please try to observe Civility and the practice of No personal attacks. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Pens
Hey, I heard on the radio that the Pens seventh straight home win in the playoffs is an all-time team record. I think that would be adding if we could find a source, it'll probably be in the Post-Gazette tomorrow. They've also won 15 straight at home.  Black  ngold29   03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to follow the players example and not get cocky, but it's getting more difficult. Anyway, since I have to go to my Uncle's house to watch the games now (I don't get Versus), I can't update the game stuff right away. I just wanted to let you know that just in case, I've already made the game log for the Cup, you can find it here. If we are partying on Thursday I didn't want you to waste your time typing it up again, so copy and paste away. Thanks!  Black  ngold29   04:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How do we have home-ice over Dallas? They had more points than us.  Black  ngold29   00:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I was reading too quickly and saw the P in Philadelphia and assumed it was Pittsburgh. I'm not so sure I want to play Dallas, if they come back to win four in a row, that would be a lot of momentum.  Black  ngold29   16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about starting a Penguins task force, for the WP:HOCKEY? As it doesn't seem like my Pittsburgh sports WP idea is getting much response; do you think it would be worth it? I just wanted to see what you thought because we seem to be the two users who contribute the most to their articles.

On a related note, I've been going back and creating articles concerning the early Penguins seasons. I'm up through 1973-74 with all stats, standings, and draft picks. You are welcome to help if you're ever bored, it's pretty easy, but very repetitive.  Black  ngold29   03:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) =June=

Jeremiah Wright controversy - title
Hi Grsz11, I wanted to thank you for backing me up on my edits on the Wright articles over the last couple of months and let you know that there is currently a proposal to change the existing title "Jeremiah Wright controversy" that I supported, to a title that includes Barack Obama's name. If you could "Oppose title change" on the talk page [], it would be appreciated. Thanks, IP 75 75.25.30.215 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC) =July=

Re:Wednesday
That's awesome! I still haven't been to a game this season, but I'm sure I'll get to one soon. I was hoping it would be during the Tampa Bay series, right after the Yanks leave. I think this'll be the first time the Yankees have been in Pittsburgh since the 60 World Series. I saw the Red Sox when they were in town a few years ago, it was turn-back the clock night (to 1909) so they didn't use the scoreboard or anything, pretty cool to see.  Black  ngold29   04:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, do you think we should try to get the Pens 2007-08 season up to a GA? I'd be glad to help if you want to.  Black  ngold29   00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just got random tickets for Thursday. What would happen if they swept the Yanks? I couldn't even imagine.  Black  ngold29   21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were some big trades for the Pens...Robets said he was leaving anyway, so that was a good trade; but Malone surprised me. I hope they can find a few solid free-agents.  Black  ngold29   03:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pens better get moving, guys are leaving all over the place. I was hoping Hossa would stay, but oh well. They were talking about Jagr coming back possibly on the news last night, that would be interesting.  Black  ngold29   22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagr got a 3 year/35 mil tax-free offer from Avangard Omsk in Russia, the team he played for during the lockout. I dont think his supermodel girlfriend would like to move to Pittsburgh.  Grsz  talk  23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I go here...
I'm the one who created the article Alternative Learning Center and somebody redirected to edmonson county high school. I want an article only about the ALC, not for the whole edmonson county high school. How do you undirect a page? He is the teacher here, I go this place, and how do you know he isn't a teacher here, in which obviously he is. Happy editing!

Hairy Perry  15:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care if he's a teacher there or not. In order for a page to be on Wikipedia, the subject needs to be notable, see WP:BIO. I assume that the page was redirected because the Alternate Learning Center is not notable.  Grsz  talk  15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... why you getting an attitude, simple question...simple answer would be just fine instead of your rude sarcasm. Now if ALC would have not been notable wouldn't have just been deleted instead of redirecting to a notable page making ot less notable. Have patience while I try to learn policies man I'm kind of new you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HairyPerry (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to let you know that the biography of one individual teacher does not belong on that page.  Grsz  talk  15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll pass that along to my teacher here then because he made us do it for him. Well it is much appreciated for the info. Thanks and Happy Editing!

Hairy Perry  15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:IReceivedDeathThreats
Hello, following your report at UAA, I would support a thread at AN/I, especially since his reasons appear to be suggesting that the admin User:Gator1 was the one that was sending him death-threats.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 05:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just did: ANI  Grsz  talk  21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me on UUA etc? You have a problem with my username? What is it? All you actually complained about (and then edited) is content on my user page.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, perhaps it started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TronixCountry&action=history! --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC) I also see we both edited Sarah Palin recently.

(Coming here from Smashville's page) So he was editing constructively until his username was reported? John Reaves 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I had nothing against his editting. He says otherwise. I brought the article TronixCountry to AfD, that's where I came across his username. There's a difference between problems with a username and problems with editing. I brought up his username, not his editing.  Grsz  X  18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying (with the opinion that the name is just fine) that his disruptive editing was a direct result of him being hassled about his username. John Reaves 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He got mad about it, yes. Obviously if someone is accused of something, or they come up in something, they're going to get defensive and in some cases start being disruptive. We can't just stop filing reports because the person might get pissed, ANI would be empty. He was blocked for 24 hours for his disruptive editing (obviously I didnt do it). There's not much more I can answer on that.  Grsz  X  18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Abuse
Why are you attacking me on UUA etc? You have a problem with my username? What is it? All you actually complained about (and then edited) is my user page.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, perhaps it started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TronixCountry&action=history! --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC) I also see we both edited Sarah Palin recently.

No, you'll see that the deletion nomination was first. Then UAA, where the consensus was to take it to ANI. Nothing personal, it's just about your username.  Grsz  talk  22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You're asking that I be immediately blocked, but you say it's nothing personal. AFAICT, you are attacking me for political reasons. Though I don't get it. You say you're a libertarian. So I'd think you'd appreciate an informative, NPOV article about a controversial topic, not try to censor it! '''I ask AGAIN: You have a problem with my username? What is it?''' --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never asked for you to be blocked, and I'm not sure how or why you think this is political.  Grsz  talk  00:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I seem to have created quite a mess... The edit I reverted was not in fact vandalism, as I later realized. The vandalism warning on IReceivedDeathThreats should be removed, as he has not vandalized. Thanks. D ARTH P ANDA talk 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He has been editing my edits to my talk page, labeling them as vandalism using Twinkle. Yes, that's vandalism.  Grsz  talk  01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about that, but as far as I can see on the history, he mistakenly reverted four of your edits and then undid that revision. While I would be understandably annoyed if someone reorganized my talk page, I don't see how this qualifies as the type of vandalism that you labeled him with and a threatened block. D ARTH P ANDA talk 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Grsz11. Has the username of IReceivedDeathThreats already been discussed at WP:UAA? I don't see it listed there now. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ed, it was last night. I just posted a diff at ANI.  Grsz  talk  01:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Palin
A before the fact reference for an interview is inappropriate after the interview has occurred. You deleted my text for the Gibson interview, which accurately described what was in the reference, and substituted a piece published prior to the interview that did not mention the actual content of the interview. Please be more careful before you delete material and use less relevant references. --Zeamays (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't replace a reference. Take your whining elsewhere.  Grsz  talk  14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no you didn't replace my reference, you deleted it, and replaced it with an old one that didn't substantiate the text that I included. Please do no use language like "whining". That is inappropriate here. --Zeamays (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor did I remove a source. I changed the wording of the text to go along with the source that was there. Get your facts straight.  Grsz  talk  14:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my edit by the way, in case you couldn't find it and realize I didn't remove or in any way change the source. Thanks,  Grsz  talk  14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Careful
Hi there, you deleted a whole paragraph and called it a 'slight reword' in the edit summary. Careful there, this kind of thing has consequences. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was a mistake. I only thought I was editing the foreign policy paragraph, and didn't realize I got that other section in there too.  Grsz  talk  19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My turn to get whacked for nuthin', eh? That's ok. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gravina
You are using an improper usage of the 3RR warning. I am reverting clear vandalization of the article, and have consistently warned the party every time. He has already exceeded 3RR and is in repeated violation of blanking, OR, and NPOV, per my and other persons' reverts and warnings. I have also previously posted in the discussion page about this. Duuude007 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No absolutely clear vandalism. This isn't vandalism at all. Just pointing out the rules. You don't have to do it all yourself, you'll get help.  Grsz  talk  15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request
Grsz, could you please explain your reasons for reversion at Talk:Sarah Palin, so we can reach consensus on weighting of the Wasilla speech? Thanks. Kelly hi! 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.  Grsz  talk  18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I have to agree with Kelly here that that material is totally UNDUE. Moreover, and on a completely separate level (I do NOT come to wikipedia to be blindly partisan) I think you are hurting our cause. It is patently clear that the reason for including the section is to raise doubts that she is a fanatic (and as an atheist myself, I have such doubts). Anybody who is sympathetic to religion, however, will just see the section as an unwarranted and clumsy attack on religion. Like many attempts to add POV to wikipedia, that section will only backfire. Homunq (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR
Barack Obama 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin
Trolling? looks like relevant discussion material to me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, wrong again. Article talk page is for talking about the article, not it's subject, like you're trying.  Grsz  talk  03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject matter is being discussed in the context of its inclusion in the article after the material was removed. The edit you removed gave background context. I don't think the inclusion of the material on the talk page was turning the talk page into a forum (or a tabloid).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The manner you're presenting it in isn't to initiate a discussion on if the information should be in the article.  Grsz  talk  04:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. Fixed that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: AAHA
Yeah I just found out a few mins ago, Who knows if they'll survive. Until low level hockey is more organized and affiliated (much like minor league baseball) we can expect big changes from year to year. It will be interesting to see what happens to the MWHL now that they're down to three teams. I suspect they might put the season on hold until they gain new frachises for next season or fold completely. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season
Hello Grsz11. Wouldn't ya know it, the Penguins go and trade Malone (ironically, along with Roberts) to the Lightning. Remember, we were gonna wait to see if he'd get the A with the Pens in '08-'09? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I can't stop the article from being declared a GA (with Malone & Sydor included)? I'm frustratingly on the loosing end. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I do remember, now it's back to Gonchar and Sydor.  Grsz  talk  01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've checked up on the 1985-86 Montreal Canadiens season article. You're correct about including Malone. However, I still suggest leaving out Sydor. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

re: AN/I discussion
You will be accused of inciting Kelly ("pushing her buttons"), so be careful. You are considered "involved" now, and therefore will not be considered to be unbiased and logical about this matter. Really sorry, but that's the way it works here.

Oh, and welcome to the IDCabal. :D Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh goodie, it's what I always wanted.  Grsz  talk  05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn
I appreciate you're acting in good faith but it's best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. This way they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar with the sources to make any suggested improvements. Someone who hasn't worked on the article can't provide this input, so the FAC rumbles on until the opposes become so overwhelming that the article is failed, taking a lot of reviewers' time. While the University of Pittsburgh article is reasonable, it is not yet FAC quality, and principle contributors need to be consulted before nomination as required in the FAC instructions. I suggest you first work an article up through peer review and good article to prepare for WP:FAC. Gary King ( talk ) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So only involved editors can nominate their articles for FA. Seems stupid and own-y. Though I may not have been involved in editing the page, it's not as if I don't have any knowledge of the subject and would be clueless in responding to the review.  Grsz  talk  04:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite, you can nominate the article, Grsz11, but FAC instructions require that you first consult significant contributors to see if they concur the article is ready. Otherwise, they might show up and oppose on comprehensive or some other grounds because they still had work to do on the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary contributors usually want to nominate the article at FAC themselves at some point; in this case, User:Crazypaco has over 400 edits to the article; the user with the second-most edits to the article has only 30. Gary King ( talk ) 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On Palin, read the source
I'm not sure what "consensus you're referring to, but there cannot be a wiki-consensus to make up a quote and attribute it to a source that doesn't support it. The source says what I said it did.  Could you please read the source and undo your revert?  Thanks!  06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Read a source? Ah man...ha, yes, I'll look into it.  Grsz  talk  05:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, which source?  Grsz  talk  05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, the spinmeister source. (http://www.gannettnewsservice.com/?p=2448) There's a reference on the talk page. Right now the reference doesn't back up what it says in the article. It mentions the "spinmeister" quote but not the "nowhere" insult.GreekParadise (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My Edits!
I happen to think my edits are really brilliant! I've noticed that the wikipedia entries are normally either incoherent or just really bad. I'm trying to ramp up the quality with rigor and determination! Just help us make it a nifty space for full real information.24.14.33.171 (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try harder then.  Grsz  talk  05:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tryin' Grsz !! You know, however, some crazy dude blocked me!! It was really bad! We are just trying to make this the best Wiki we can! I mean come on! We should try to be friends, but there are a lot who don't want it! Anyway, if there are any entries that need editing, just let me know!!!! 24.14.33.171 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Frederick III
Thanks for the suggestions to the Frederick III, German Emperor article. I think I addressed your concerns, but I wasn't quite sure. I wrote a response on the review page, but basically I'm just asking if I did what you wanted for the article, because I wasn't sure. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the quick reply, the intro is always the hardest part. I explained a bit more on the review page and I think I edited the intro adequately.  Also, did I do the name change thing that you suggested properly?  Thanks. --Banime (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats what I meant for the names.  Grsz  talk  22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

new proposal
Well put!--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Grsz  talk  22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I have replied to your question about access dates on my talk page. Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another reply on my talk page. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

=October=

Acknowledged...
I understand, and could easily read the "personal POV" in the post, I merely wanted to clarify that an uncivil edit on any page (be it a Talk page, an AN/I, etc) is still an edit, and is still uncivil. That's all I was saying :) BMW  (drive)  13:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

victoria skating rink
I have worked on the article a bit, on the dates and some of the cites. Please take another look. Alaney2k (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, take another look. BTW, thanks for the sharp eye. Alaney2k (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin's continued support for Knik Arm (Don Young's Way)
Based on our recent discussion on the talk page, would you be willing to undo Collect's two changes? I fear if I do it, we'll enter an edit war. I don't believe Palin's continued support for the bridge, or its official name, are reasonably disputed.GreekParadise (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. You put back in a false statement as a WP:BRD. The source says Palin supports the bridge. It says it twice. You said her support is unclear. Do you have a source for this other than Collect's say so? This source -- and I can find you a dozen others if you want to see them -- say she continues to support the bridge. Did you make a mistake? I think you did because you have come down on the talk page as saying that "support" means "support" instead of Collect's idea that "support" really means "unclear." You have to undo Collect's changes to fix the error.GreekParadise (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Troy Davis Case
This page is inaccurate in many ways and in need of much editing. yet when I try to contribute my edits are undone without explanation. I intend to make more edits, so please let me know why you are deleting my edits. Thanks, Justiceisaboutthetruth (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On Obama
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. --  Grsz  X  21:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the info. I'll try and behave.  Grsz  X  21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pens roster
WP:HOCKEY decided to make all rosters one template so one update covers all of the pages it's on. Should make it simpler.  Black  ngold29   02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true, I was gone for awhile. But now how do we denote IR, as we need to for Gonchar and Whitney?  Grsz  talk  02:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. I didn't have your talk page on my watchlist, but it looks like you figured the IR thing out. The roster looks good, as well as the season article. I figured we could do a month-by-month recap kind of thing like the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season did. Hopefully that'll give the article more of a narrative feel than last season's (not that it's bad, it's very good actually, still waitin' for that GA pass) but we can always try to get better. I'm chompin at the bit for the season to start; FSN just announced 49 HD games, I need a new TV!  Black  ngold29   22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got a 18 inch LCD, so it's a good picture, just small. Also got tickets to Jan 6 Thrashers game. It's the best I could find, even though I tried when they went on sell.  Grsz  talk  22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any idea on how to work this article into the season page? It's a good story, but I don't know if it's notable enough. I didn't realize the Pens' fanbse is as global as the Steelers'.  Black  ngold29   14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ba, Ba, BarnStared!
Hey, thanks! I didn't do much until the playoffs, but it's cool to be part of a Wikipedia first. If everything goes as planned 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season should be a GA soon after the season's over (hopefully that'll be in February). The 2009 Pittsburgh Pirates season is off to a good start, perhaps we could be the first city to have a GA season for all three sports.  Black  ngold29   23:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move (List of female state governors in the United States)
Very sorry about that. I didn't see a lot of activity on the talk page so I didn't think anyone would mind. It appears I was mistaken. I'll be sure to check next time. SchutteGod (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

SchutteGod is disruptive and silly. The word “female” is a completely acceptable adjective. The word “woman” makes a better noun. For example: first female president, or, first woman to serve as president etc.

Please knock it off SchutteGod. Hello4321 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: MAHL teams
It's a tricky issue but I support you idea, also maybe making note in the MAHL section about the merger that these teams were going to be expansion teams but the league disbanded before the season... Technically theDetroit Dragons and Chelsea Tornadoes are notable enough to have their own articles. Basically as a member of Wikiproject Ice hockey I've gone off of the WP: ATHLETE and I've used similar criteria of notable athletes for teams as well. It states that athletes who compete at pro or the highest amateur levels (Junior ice hockey) and college ice hockey are notable. The thing that makes this situation tricky is WP: ATHLETE says, "competes" and these teams did not compete. Also many defunct teams have wiki pages but most of those teams competed for many seasons, won championships, had notable athletes/coaches, etc. and these two teams have had none of those things even though they are defunct. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football October 2008 Newsletter
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MAHL
I agree since they never played a game.JaMikePA (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin
Your edit summary is very brief, so I'm unclear about why you edited the article the way you did. Would you please explain at the talk page? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean there was no consensus for the edit, though you cited the talk page. The discussion there is you and Greek going back and forth. There needs to be a more thorough discussion before you can label it as "consensus."  Grsz  X  03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know which of my edits you're referring to. GreekParadise has for weeks insisted on repeatedly reinserting material into this section without consensus, and he has explicitly said that he doesn't need any consensus to insert disputed material.  So, now it's a fait accompli, and nothing can be removed from this huge section without consensus?  That doesn't make sense to me.  Anyway, cheers....  Good  night.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you get a chance, would you please indicate which edit of mine you're referring to? Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit that changed the bridge section.  Grsz  X  03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Many edits have changed the bridge section.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly I didn't even revert as far as I intended. This edit should be undone. You cite this as discussion on the talk page, but this is far from consensus.  Grsz  X  03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not sure what I meant. I'm gonna step out of this one for now.  Grsz  X  03:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but my main point stands. Greek Paradise has spent weeks jamming stuff into this section without consensus.  My objections have gotten me nowhere.  Just to take one small example, the last sentence of the section is extremely POV: "The Alaska Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration state that the contract could have been cancelled at minimal cost and that the federal money could have been returned to Congress for other uses."  It's cited to an unreliable source, and is extremely misleading.  Palin could have indeed cancelled the road when she took office, but she did not even decide to cancel the bridge until nine months later, so there is no reason to expect her to have knwn when she took office that she would cancel the bridge.  The whole section is clogged with POV nonsense like that, and I will try again to straighten it out.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the current volume of quotes is sufficient.  Grsz  X  04:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue of how many quotes there should be was the only real difference between me and Greek Paradise. He was willing to accept everything else.  Therefore I've caved regarding the amount of quotes.  He wanted more and I wanted less, but I've agreed to more quotes.  I assume that's what you support too.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz, why aren't you discussing changes at the Palin talk page before making them? For example, you deletd this statement: "During 2008, Palin’s decreasing support for federal earmarks was the leading source of friction between herself and the state's congressional delegation." The cited source says: “One thing is clear: Palin has increasingly distanced herself from earmarking since she made her first trip to Washington D.C. to lobby Congress for money in 2000. And over the past year, it has been the leading source of tension between Palin and the state's three-member congressional delegation."

I will reinsert this, and I ask you to please discuss at the talk page. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR board
Hi - I am too busy to do a quick count but you should be careful not to go over 3RR yourself in an effort to clean up the 3RR board. If you can't quickly tell you might want to self-revert until you can be assured that your most recent removal of CENSEI's disruption was not your fourth revert on the board. It would not be the first time someone accidentally stepped over 3RR when dealing with one of the problem editors. Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as a follow up, I've found that if one or two removals of disruption on a meta-page don't stop an editor, they're unlikely to be stopped by warnings, reversions, etc. . . as you can see the more people are warning and reverting CENSEI the more disruptive and uncivil he is becoming. This is really something the administrators have to deal with probably.  Also, revert warring to deal with long-term tendentious editors opens you up to a gameplaying accusation that you and not they are the problem.  Unfortunately his attempt to blow smoke by accusing everyone else of things tends to sour the uninvolved administrators on the whole problem, an unfortunate thing.  Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Though my first were just restoring a deleted report.  Grsz  X  04:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama
What did I do? --Megapen (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * . Also per WP:BLP and WP:TERRORISM it is inappropriate to label individuals as terrorists.  Grsz  X  20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the Ad section? I do not believe it but an add did come out and people need to know all. I think that we should write something about the fact that it is false since my notice may not of have done the job. --Megapen (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pretty non-notable. Groups display ads untruthful ads about stupid things all the time, and as far as I can tell, this hasn't received much more attention than any other one.  Grsz  X  20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a quote! Lets not put that in but let other things remain!--Megapen (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was actually featured on the news on a veraety of channels so it seams important and notable. --Megapen (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of weatherman actions
Hi. I've removed the merge tag you added to this article, and I'd be glad to explain this to your satisfaction. I just created this last night as a child article to try to deal with the excessive length, citation problems, etc., on the main weatherman article. This article seems to have been sourced a long time ago without line by line citations. The material needs to be checked. I assume good faith about its creator, who did not seem to be partisan, but there is a lot of stuff. It's also in a list format that isn't really conducive to editing. It has remained unchanged for a few years. The list also circulates widely on the internet. If you do a search on some of the language you will find it many places. So even though its's susceptible to being a decent list I think it's an impediment to shaping up the Weatherman article overall.

As soon as I created it a new SPA editor simply reverted with a misleading summary (look at the weatherman article history). As such, I don't think there needs to be a proposal to merge it at all. Rather, the burden is on me to propose that the article exist at all as a child article. If i convince people, then that means it should stay. If not, there is no merging to be done - rather, it would simply be deleted. I've only added a couple sources so we could easily just add those to the main article instead.

Hope that's clear. Not being contentious, just trying to avoid yet another possible line of discussion/drama. Thanks for your attention to the article, for sure. Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Thrashers
For the third time, Kozlov is a candidate for the Thrashers captaincy. He was (IMHO) passed over for it 2005 (with the appointment of Mellanby) & 2007 (with the appointment of Holik). I got this feeling, he's gonna be passed over for it again, with the likely appointment of Schneider. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they didn't pick Kozlov. Actually, they didn't choose anybody. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making a deliberate attempt
To hide both your and wikidemon's unacceptable behavior. We have given your reasoned arguments, and in return you quote policy or insult us - neither of you have ever ENGAGED in rational debate. There is no reason to delete the conversation other than to cover up your obvious bias and inability to have a rational debate. The debate was moved to wikidemons page since he abused his admin rights to close a conversation on the Barack talk page. Is this the "strategy?" Constantly delete and move conversations until people get fed up with trying to reason with you people? TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon isn't an admin.  Grsz  X  05:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah so he just gives subtle threats to people to be quiet as if he had some authority to do something. I understand now.TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And what rational argument? He and I were discussing on his talk page before you butted in.  Grsz  X  05:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh did you own that little section of the talk page? There were 5 total editors involved in the discussion. Apparently you just wanted to have someone tell you "You are right Grzz" instead of showing you how Ayers can quite accurately be called a terrorist.TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've offered what you claim to be neutral edits at multiple articles, Obama, Ayers, etc. Most of them are incredibly ladent with your POV and have been shot down not only by uninvolved users, but the occasional other who pokes his head in. To say that I can't engage in a rational debate is laughable, when it's you that edits, gets reverted, then cries that you're being repressed. Maybe if you actually made an effort to put forth some neutral, encyclopediac content rather than get your opinion across, you wouldn't be in this situation nearly as much.  Grsz  X  05:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is flat out false. The editors who've dropped in have supported me. I'm not the one whose been camping out on the Barack Obama article for god knows how long. You don't own it and you need to show a lot more maturity in your wikidealings. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, the editors that aren't throw-away accounts, single-purpose users or the random vandal IP. And please, "camping out"... in my last thousand edits, I've edited Obama once, and it was to revert vandalism!  Grsz  X  05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That one editor made it quite clear he was afraid of retribution from the "Obama clique," which is why he wasn't using his account, but whatever, thanks for fixing my un-archiving of the discussion.TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your accusations that I've been involved in abuse at the Obama talk page are illfounded and offensive.  Grsz  X  05:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If it comes down to it, I am willing to look at each of your proposal individually and we can discuss them.  Grsz  X  05:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, TheGoodLocust is either trolling or severely misguided about the purpose of Wikipedia, and CENSEI is one of the more disruptive editors around - so please do not take after them, even in objecting to their disruption. If you call them names you are sinking to that level, and bystanders have a hard time figuring out who is a legitimate editor and who is there for the drama. This is just friendly advice. It doesn't bother me either way....but there are plenty of corners of the encyclopedia where this kind of stuff doesn't happen. We really are here to edit articles, so once a discussion passes all hope of being productivity, it's often best just to ignore the provocations as long as they don't mess things up. And if someone is showing any sign of being willing or interested in productive editing it's best to explore that side of things. That's my POV anyway. Wikidemon (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolfeton House
There is no speedy deletion category for structures; you should have prodded it instead. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Sorry, thanks for fixing it.  Grsz  X  14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Double Standard
If I tried to insert anything as controversial as "Bridge to Nowhere" in Obama article then you'd all gang up and try to ban me. In case you haven't noticed, there is a consensus in the discussion section that there are serious problems with that section - because some people decided to gang up to insert their own biases into the article. Obviously, you haven't read that people should put far more thought into reverts than they do into edits - you revert with far too much ease and it betrays your bias. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't involved in much of the bridge section, it moved too fast for me. I've got no vested interest in it, I was simply given you a heads up. But whatever.  Grsz  X  22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for overreacting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman article
The section I added has the authority of numerous editors who came to a consensus at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Whatever else is in the article needs to make way for implementing that consensus. Don't get in the way. Make whatever other edits to accommodate that consensus that you think fit and I'll be very accommodating to that, but the consensus rules. Don't even think of overruling it without another, larger consensus. -- Noroton (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the section already there is almost exactly the same as what you added.  Grsz  X  01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, there was no consensus.  Grsz  X  01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused as to the redundancy. Please point it out on the article talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful
You are at 3RR on Weathermen. I know you're reverting a problem editor, but as you may have seen, they will not hesitate to file 3RR reports if you go over. So no more reverts for now, okay? Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I given Noroton a courtesy edit about the AN/I report you just filed about his recent edits. Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Blocked: You have been blocked from editing for 12 hours for edit-warring on Weatherman (organization). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in hostile editing behavior. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may appeal it by adding the text to this page. east718 //  talk  //  email  // 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
Thanks for the reasons you gave for reversing my edit, however, I don't accept the points you cite.

Firstly: "Undue Weight". This story is currently challenging the global financial crisis as the lead story for many International Newspapers and Websites. It would be difficult to conceive of a story with more "weight".

Secondly "Poorly added" - I have no idea what that means. Poorly written (no), poorly edited (no) ...

Finally, "Already addressed later in the article". This could be applied to every statement made in the lead. It is inevitable that items that appear in the lead (on every Wiki page) are discussed in greater detail elsewhere on the page.

Before I reverse your edit again, it seems fairer to give you another opportunity to say why you think your edit should stand. David T Tokyo (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's getting a lot of coverage right now maybe, because it just happened. It doesn't belong in the lead, plain and simple. Putting it there is a violation of WEIGHT and WP:NPOV.  Grsz  X  04:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be grateful if you could cite the specific text in WP:UNDUEWEIGHT or WP:NPOV that shows that it is a "violation of WEIGHT and WP:NPOV" - Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well? What exactly is the violation?  I've read WP:UNDUEWEIGHT several times now and I can't see it.  The line that sums it up for me is this one:


 * "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors".


 * You would be hard pressed to find any story with greater prevalence in reliable sources. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DENY
I know you and he have gone around quite a lot, but you really should stay off of User talk:thegoodlocust's talk page while he's blocked. He can't comment on anything that's not there, so this is a good time to leave him alone and let him figure out why he got blocked in the first place. Just some friendly advice. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to counter his off-wiki stalking?  Grsz  X  05:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've made a report at ANI, that's a good start. If you're worried, ask an admin to oversight the edits, then stay off of his page while he's blocked. If he continues (without provacation), an admin will protect his talk page for disruption. The whole point of being blocked is not to continue arguments in the interim, it's to provide time for an editor to understand why they've been blocked. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pens
We were discussing how to go about that over at Talk:List of current NHL captains and alternate captains. I think, as on that list, we should only put Orpik and Malkin as they are the only two who have actually worn the A during a game.  Black  ngold29   00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was hoping to work on Mellon Arena eventually, but sources will probably be harder to come by. Pens didn't look to good the other night, hopefully they can get better tomorrow.  Black  ngold29   16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ziggy
I don't know, I don't have Versus, I got Lange though. That certainly seems like an obvious mistake, the trade was on NHL.com's front page for two or three days. Stiegerwald (I can't spell) had an interview on WDVE this moring and he said Versus sometimes says stuff because they don't follow a team everyday like most announcers do. I hope they can pull this one out, these division games are big.  Black  ngold29   01:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably it. He was on waivers Oct 1 before he could go to the AHL. That was probably it. Either way, he's doing awesome.  Grsz  X  01:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These OT games are OK, atleast we get a point, but when it's against a division opponent even if we win it's like a half win.  Black  ngold29   02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not to knowledgeable about the various Pittsburgh regions, thanks for that. Good game last night eh?  Black  ngold29   22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply2
See my talk page for a reply. Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Second look at Idlewild
Congratulations on what at first glance looks like big improvements to the article. I'll take a closer look tomorrow (Thursday), and I may have more suggestions. I see some minor c/e issues such as missing en dashes in date ranges and page ranges that I can probably fix in less time than it would take to write notes about them. Since I'm taking an extended c/e holiday, I won't do a full c/e, but I'll probably fix a few minor things. More later. Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I couldn't resist doing some c/e. If you don't agree with any of my changes, please revert. In addition, I added a few more suggestions to the peer review page. The article is much more interesting than before. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that
I'm sorry that QuackGuru was giving you a hard time. See my message to QuackGuru here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Coppertwig. It was rather annoying. He was just going on about bad faith or something and then some other guy came in an asked for my rollback to be removed. Oh well, nobody is buying his story, so it's all good.  Grsz  X  19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Basque Country
Hi Grsz. I responded at my talk page. Please comment on the article's talk page or address me wherever the debate takes place, but, on the other side, please respect my reasons as well. I found your message a bit over-the-top provided the circumstances (move is based on google impacts, not on personal opinions and a notice was made prior to the move, without any comment from anybody). Mountolive  le déluge 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Grsz  Review!  03:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Block Query
Hello, I recently took notice of your warning towards the user AZT2008, and just recently I have had to move the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article and the Methodism article from vandalistic titles that were added by the user. So, I was wondering if either of these edits occured before or after your warning towards the user. If after, then I think you know what I'm getting at. Jason (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look, but hasn't he warranted an indef block anyways?  Grsz  Review!  01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced
Using fact tags is one option, but policy ("Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." emph added) supports removal as well, in fact before suggesting the option of fact tags, and so it is opinion that fact tags are a better option.-- The Red Pen of Doom  04:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How can cultural references in an episode of Family Guy be challenged? My point is yes it's obviously OR, but it's not like it was made up or damaging like say, unsourced portions of a BLP.  Grsz  Review!  04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be challenged to show that their interpretations of sources and targets of parody are valid and supported by a third party's analysis and not WP:OR on the part of a Wikipedia editor. "Challenge" is no where limited to BLP issues, although it is there where it MUST be enforced most emphatically.-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not edit warring to remove vandalism - which the removal of fact tags without providing sources is. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Though removal of sections of text that aren't vandalism is.  Grsz  Review!  03:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kennywood
It may well still exist, but I need a proper citation. I'm not really sure what to do at this point, I'll think about it.  Star fox  Roy  19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

apparent 3RR claim?
With as few edits as I have in Sarah Palin, and considering the nature of my edits, I do not feel that this is in any way an "edit war" -- note that I consistently post in Talk:Sarah Palin, asking for consensus, and ask the other party to post in talk, and also post on that users talk page to go to Talk. The new user in question (Speaker1987) is an interesting case now well past 4RR to be sure. Note the others who also reverted his strange edit. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (delayed)

Goodbye
I have just one question for you. Are you the anon editor from MIT who is logging out, commenting, then logging back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSW-red sox win (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I went to MIT, wouldn't I have better things to do with my time?  Grsz  Review!  19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say so. I just was curious. One IP traces back to MIT, and almost immediately you message me. So you see the basis for the connection. But, I digress.RSW-red sox win (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Looking off the page
It's not a big deal, just something that usually comes up at FAC. :-) Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

EntertainU's User Page
Why did you delete the video and gaming content on my userpage? I see no one else that has it getting tagged for it! I've seen at least ten users have stuff like that. I'm busy and finding this for you was the only thing I had time for. Click that, and tell me why he's not getting tagged. I would rather you have a reply on my talk page. Thank you and Happy editing. --i-am-entertainU (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Links to Wikipedia pages aren't the same as linkspam to YouTube.  Grsz  Review!  02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack
Hello. Normally, I wouldn't be concerned about a sandbox edit, but this should be brought to your attention. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks. What a funny guy.  Grsz  Review!  05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...I turned my back for one second and there he went again. As long as it got dealt with anyway, I'm glad :) ~ Troy (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR
That is only if i revert the same user adding the same stuff 3 times, not different users and different unsourced CRs.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're misinterpreting. "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material" (emphasis added)  Grsz  Review!  01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When and why did it change to what it is, from what it use to be "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."? Who decided it needs to be changed, I think the new stuff is crap!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean any different, you're just reading in incorrectly. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." This states that undoing an edit of one editor, and undoing an edit by another both count as reverts, and that right there would be two.  Grsz  Review!  01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well, if I get blocked for rvting the addition of unsourced material, then I get blocked...in my opinion, by a poor admin. I assume, again, you warned me, as to not get me blocked, thanks if that is the case.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a common misinterpretation, and people argue that all the time. The best thing to do now is just tag them and wait until things calm down. I'm sure you won't be given any trouble.  Grsz  Review!  01:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the page is protected, so there shouldn't be many problems.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rays
I actually kind of like the Sox, but they've won so much recently I was definatley pulling for TB and I will root for them in the WS. The fans down there don't deserve it, but the organization does. And anything to make Flyers fans angry, I support.  Black  ngold29   03:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems quieter tonight, I missed most of last night's game because of various discussions. Hopefully all will be OK for the rest of the series. Pens did well, awesome game.  Black  ngold29   02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Soccer174
Ack, why am I not surprised? Thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye on them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

=November=

Your review
Hey man, if you want you can just remove everything on your review. I haven't looked so maybe you already have. I'm just responding to the message you just left on my talk. I wasn't trying to cause you problems, and I'm sorry for cluttering up your review. I was going to list diffs, but I think you already know the comments I was referring to anyways. I'm not out to try and get you reprimanded by anyone, blocked, or scorned by anyone for anything. I honestly just wanted you to know that I felt you were rude with me. I guess for some strange reason I thought you may care. I know you said last night that you would really like to avoid me altogether, so I'll not respond anymore to this unless you directly ask me something. I apologize if I caused you any problems, or bothered you with this. None of the stuff on your review is really relevant to it, so I'd remove it if I were you. Anyways, nice meeting you and take care. Landon1980 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your latest comment on my talk page, what more do you want me to say about this? Why do you refuse to let it drop? All your "MY GOD'S" and many more comments are rude. You responded to a very civil comment of mine where I was responding to comments that have now been stricken out as personal attacks with "OH Please Landon, your I'm the victim ploy is BULLSHIT." You made many other snarky comments and you know you did. You called me a troll, you used rollback on an edit that was not vandalism in any way, shape, or form. You say I am whining and ranting, how is that polite? You attack virtually every comment I make with some type of hateful comment. You insist on trying to discredit anything I do or say. You repeatedly suggest that I am incapable of understanding anything. And please, if I Caps'd something that you did not, or did not quote you precisely spare me. You have been rude with me from day one. You know you have been rude with me. I'm going to ask you this again and I'd like an honest answer: Do you truthfully think that you have not been even a little bit rude with me? In the straw poll you put "I'm irate it's come to this, this is pathetic" I'd lay down a fortune that if I had said the things to you that you have to me that I would have received no telling how many warnings from you. I have tried being respectful to you, and I have tried dropping this. What more do you want me to do? I'm starting to get creeped out about how you obsess about everything I say. Just forget that you ever saw me on here, just ignore everything I say. Why will you not just leave me alone? Landon1980 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you denying saying the things that I just said you said? Do you really want the diffs? You know that you said all of that. Answer my question, do you think you have been rude with me, you keep avoiding that question. You are the person that won't let it drop, every time I quit responding you continue with your obsession of me. If you can't treat me with respect just don't talk to me. You don't have to agree with me, but you are supposed to be civil. Landon1980 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

World Series
Can I asked why you removed that info? It's been in the article since the beginning and is properly referenced. It was announced by MLB and by the candidate. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a set start time for every game? The article makes no such mention. Therefore you cant say it will be delayed if you dont say when it's suppose to start. On top of that, it's WP:CRYSTAL.  Grsz  Review!  03:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All games of the World Series, if there is no delay, start coverage at 8pm EST. Also, per WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  03:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, we had a discussion on the talk page regarding the numbers; if you'd like to participate, please do; however, I'm reverting that edit as well, per the talk page. Thanks. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your talk page discussions cant overrule a Wikipedia policy, thanks.  Grsz  Review!  04:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dicussion where? Talk:2008 World Series? I see three editors discussing, and two of them say spell it out.  Grsz  Review!  04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And one of them is me. I changed my tune. We are going to be taking this for a peer review in prep for GA, so if it's a problem then, we'll catch it then. Until then, though, the other editor in the "active" box and I have decided to follow the other postseason articles' conventions. In addition, talk page discussions and consensus can ovveride policy if there's a reason, per WP:IAR.  KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  04:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?
May I ask why you did this? A typo perhaps?  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than reposting, just trying to get an answer about your false accusations.  Grsz  Review!  03:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that I missed that. In regards to your question, I seemed to misinterpret the difs that I cited. Nothing to worry about, and I apologize for any inconvenience. Cheers!  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, P retzels Talk! 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: SJ
Tell me about it. If one team goes up big, I might go to sleep. For some reason I don't see that happening though. SJ is a good team, Pens better be ready.  Black  ngold29   02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Middle name
Hey Grsz11 - thanks for the revert and comment. I thought (wrongly) that Obama's middle name was being unduly emphasized for political purposes, but I see now McCain's middle name is here too, and there was a discussion about it in the Talk page (where I should've checked first). Sorry for the hassle, and happy editing to you! - Flying  Toaster  02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Grsz. In the future, consider leaving a custom edit summary when reverting established users. FT responded nicely, but I know of many, many people who will take your head off for doing that. Just a heads up. Cheers! J.delanoy gabs adds  02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You
For reverting the trolling on my talk page. A simple act of kindness in the midst of the daily brouhaha was much appreciated. ~ priyanath talk 15:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I tried to find what he was referring to, but obviously could not.  Grsz  Review!  15:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Belize
Now in your sandbox. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection of Candidate's Bios
Hi Grsz, Please express your opinion in the discussion at "Should the election bios stay fully protected through the election": [] Thanks, IP75 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008
You should know that what you cut from the United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008 wasn't OR. Your edit summary said "without polls, who knows it tightened." Did you even look at the sources? [Murtha Race Tightens After 'Racist,' 'Redneck' Remarks http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/murtha-race-tightens-racist-redneck-remarks/] cites a Susquehanna Poll, sponsored by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. So, we have a WP:RS saying that the race has tightened and has evidence to back it up. If you the poll is wrong, feel free to add a WP:RS. But, to be realistic, I am willing to let this slide until after the election, but we should work together on the article afterward. I also contested your prod of Lou Barletta and, per policy, placed my reasons on the talk page.--HoboJones (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would keep Thompson, simply because, barring some unforeseen electoral surprise the likes of which we have never seen, he is going to win. I don't know how much you follow politics, but this district is up in the T. There's no point in deleting an article that will (with 99% certainty) have to be recreated on Tuesday. I'm going to decline that prod and tag it with NPOV. McCracken, I can take or leave. He will (with 99% certainty) lose, but he might have notability as a county commissioner. I'll let that prod go, and if someone wants to, they can save it. Thanks, and I look forward working on the election articles with you.--HoboJones (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Vice president
Actually both are partly true. Abdulai Osman Conteh was the First Vice President and Joseph B. Dauda the Second Vice President. See Vice President of Sierra LeoneDr. Blofeld (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe Conteh was first in command, so officially it would have been Conteh at the start until he went into exile. Regards Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

rmv balanced budget bit. suffers from horrendous recentism and undue weight)
Thanks for the fix, I'm embarrassed. Didn't realize this was in error. --VictorC (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

re
Thanks for the note, I will read the reply, I have no 'follow up' or extra questions. Hobartimus (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack the comment not the editor.
I do not take personal attacks lightly and this editor has done so to me on other occasions. [|This edit] was an attack on me and my wikipedia knowledge. It was not constructive and I added a warning template to that users page. If that user attacks me again, I will add another and so on. I hope it never needs to get that far. Another editor has accused me of using the talk page as a forum, so I added the appropriate template to that user's talk page, since my use of the Obama talk page was solely based on whether or not the page should be locked, which was the heading of the section to begin with. Disagreeing with my template additions is your right. But I was not sure if you knew why they were added, so I am letting you know now.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't an attack. And WP:DTTR.  Grsz  11   →Review!  20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not have considered that an attack, but I did. I do not appreciate other editors using humor as a jest or to prove some point at the expense of others. It was not civil nor was it productive. As for WP:DTTR, I personally feel that wikipedia policy trumps essays that are not policy. And that editor has been told to lay off the attacks before, which makes LOL, are you new? sound even more like an attack, because he knows perfectly well that I am not.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, responding to an editor joking about you possibly not understanding wikipedia ettiquette by leaving him a message that doesn't really follow wikipedia ettiquette isn't really the best way to make friends and influence people. Dayewalker (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but this is a user talk page and not a discussion page. I was refering all of my comments to user Grsz11. If you would like to hold a conversation with me, please do so on my talk page, as it is not fair to this user whose talk page you are using to voice opinions about something you were not involved in. I'm sorry Grsz11 that that happened to you.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt Grsz11 will mind. Any editor can comment on anything on wikipedia. If you want to hold a private discussion with someone, see if they'll email you. Otherwise, everyone's comments are always available for discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing that discussion
I wanted to get a second opinion on closing the discussion down on the talk page. Usually, I'm very much against that type of action, however, it just wreaked of attracting trolls and further disrupting the article. Obviously, this article doesn't need anymore disruption. Anyways, I just wanted to get your opinion. Regards,  Digital Ninja  21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The one on interest groups? Closing it would be no problem.  Grsz  11   →Review!  21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. It has been closed.  Additionally, I'm going to be creating some articles this afternoon.  If you're going to be around, I might ask for some formatting help with pictures.  If your busy, no worries :)  Digital Ninja  21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing my help request. The citation I'm referring to his this one: ref name="CZUB">.  It is number 4.  The web address won't show up.  Also, under the "Safety Features" section, the "edit" button appears superimposed over the text.  I'm having a hard time with that as well.  Thanks!!  Digital <sup style="color:#20038A;">Ninja  01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You just didn't have the url field for cite 4.  Grsz  11   →Review!  01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, you fixed it! Thank you!! Do you think it is ready to be moved to mainspace yet?  Digital <sup style="color:#20038A;">Ninja  01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks good. I would say keep a copy in your userspace for the time being, but it is certainly acceptable.  Grsz  11   →Review!  01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Airlines
Many thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

 * I added more since the talkback tag.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you have my page watched...but do you IRC chat...It makes life easier!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 05:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you got the above post, with all the drama on your talk page.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Scarian has closed the report, and blocked the abuser for 12 hours, who accused us of being sockpuppets.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that he doesn't have other accounts to use.  Grsz  11   →Review!  16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, ya...and do u not use IRC or what?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 16:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't.  Grsz  11   →Review!  16:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Awww :( you should! lol  C T J F 8 3 Talk 16:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the master puppet catcher!!! I also responded to you on my talk.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 05:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you let people have their say at least.
Please let users have their say on the Obama talk page. The main page is locked, so there is no possibilty of any vandalism. As far as I could tell this new section [] was very differant from any other debate so far. It was a very valid question and was not a disruption. Please do not be so quick to dismiss all discussions. So that you do not think I am being biased, my response was this:


 * On the surface your request makes sense, but that catagory only applies to persons born in various countries. African American is justified in this case since Obama was born in the U.S. and not Kenya.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I was able to add it to the discussion after another editor placed the section back on the page.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's the same "Obama's not black" argument that's been throw out again and again.  Grsz  11   →Review!  01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Others, as it turns out, have disagreed with you, and it was reverted back for active discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, it was brought up by one more person. Are you serious? Can you not read the tone in which the IP posted? He did not post it to generate good discussion, he posted it to make a point. Don't feed the trolls.  Grsz  11   →Review!  01:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is still open to all users and belongs to the community. If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, then it is your right, but please allow the others to do so.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't been around long enough to realize just how disruptive it is when this same crap is posted all the time, again and again. It is perfectly acceptable and on the Obama page commonplace to simply delete these disruptive sections, as they will generate no constructive comments. Please see WP:FORUM.  Grsz  11   →Review!  01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can be disturbing to see the same questions over and over again, but we must be careful not to bite the newcomers, even if you don't agree with them. As for not being around long enough, I have been watching longer than you may think.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Baby Not On Board
No problem. -Wildonrio (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Steelers
I don't know, it wasn't even sold out (1000+ seats left). There were a ton of Steelers fans there, you could hear them chanting in the background on SportsCenter afterward.  Black  ngold29   05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of it, looks interesting though.  Black  ngold29   05:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any books about it?  Black  ngold29   05:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

La revolucion mexicana
Si quieres hablar acerca de este tema, pegame un correo un dia de estos. Es que estoy harto de las pendejadas por aqui. Aunque no uso ni acentos, si los hablo. Acaso podemos platicar. Suerte con tus estudios.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow lots of editors
Doesn't seem like there are now an avalanche of editors on Barack Obama now. It seems like we don't need to be watching it as much as we had to before. Hopefully we don't have to deal with the SPA's as we had to before he was elected! Though I will say it was semi fun, in a masochistic kind of way. It seemed like every day/hour there was someone trying to push one conspiracy then another. I enjoyed working with you and the others and hopefully we'll still get to have some kind of editing fun! (OH, long live the knights who say nee cabal!) Brothejr (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written
This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#CC00CC">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
As a relative latecomer to helping to keep the Barack Obama related articles neutral and not-nutty, I'm extremely appreciative of everyone who has been working on the article these last months. And to keep the Barack Obama article at Featured Article quality through the election was an impressive feat. Congratulations! ~ priyanath talk 00:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh
Good job contributing to the History of Pittsburgh article. It looks good. I just made small wording clarifications about Pitt, but I don't think it needs more coverage about it other than what it has, especially since Pitt has its own history article. I'm going to look over the article some more tomorrow, but it is in good shape. have a good night CrazyPaco (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your DYK submission
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 03:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh climate
Hi, please visit Talk:Pittsburgh and add to the discussion I started here a week or so ago. This climate information seems to get reverted back and forwards every few days and the facts need to be laid out and consensus established on this. Thanks. Mfield (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

PrimeFan - Del arte case
The evidence here is overwhelming that these are all the same person. I'm unblocking User:Del arte, which seems to be the real master, to time served with a warning not to sock again. I advise interested parties to watch the IP range and articles related to this case. I am also renaming Requests for checkuser/Case/PrimeFan to Requests for checkuser/Case/Del arte and retagging the socks. This decision was made in consultation with other checkusers and a member of the arbcom. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Obama
I apologize for the violation. One of the times I reverted was because the change had been swept up with vandalism reverted by another user. It won't happen again. »<b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama in Kenya
Please explain your deletion of referenced information on the Barack Obama talk page sub section I have initiated. Be sure to fully explain how you have interpreted WP:UNDUE, and how it applies in this instance. Glen Twenty (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wehrum
Sterling work on Wehrum, Pennsylvania. I've never been there, but I used to drive past Vintondale, Pennsylvania on my way to Penn State from Pittsburgh. You might want to expand on the Orthodox church. It seems that they moved it to Vintondale, and its founding pastor was later made an Orthodox saint, at least according to the Vintondale website. It might be worth verifying. Pustelnik (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I added it. Pustelnik (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Euryalus's talk page
What was wrong with this? Seems like a valid question. Master of Puppets <sub style="color:#7d7d7d">Call me MoP! :)  19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Holy
Jerks put it on Versus and I didn't see it! Lange was pretty excited though. I can't wait to watch the highlights. They should threaten to trade Staal more often, lol.  Black  ngold29   02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This user is not worth the trouble
Hint:. Just ignore him ;) .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya I came across those. Oh well, he's got a 3 week block to shut him up.  Grsz  11   →Review!  16:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indef. would be nicer, but I'm not the judge here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that if he keeps editing/commenting the way he has, then a much much longer block will happen. But like The Magnificent Clean-keeper said, just ignore him.  Brothejr (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Info
Thanks for the info. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK
To answer your question, anyone can review articles at DYK. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the rules before doing so though. You may also want to watch how seasoned reviewers respond to articles. Since you're new, don't be surprised if more seasoned reviewers shadow your comments to make sure you are being fair and/or not missing anything. Good luck and welcome to DYK.Nrswanson (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. In addition to the rules written at the top of the suggestions page, you should also read these User:Art LaPella/Unwritten rules, which are also applied as stringently by DYK reviewers as the "written rules".Nrswanson (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work
Good job with the recent conflict about President Obama on AN/I. I am an Obama supporter, but even if it were McCain, or especially a different, upstart, president that I didn't agree with, issues like that cannot be ignored. Those users do not seem to know what they are talking about, or they are biased. This really isn't a place to say if edits like that are credible or not, because you never know, an admin might step in and debunk a threat like that, but say on December 21st we hear that some terrible thing has happened. You just don't know when the next "not credible" threat will happen, so let's just try to prevent it from happening in the first place.  Jock Boy    ( t / c ) Sign 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

AN
I hadn't, thanks.--Tznkai (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about the "Spook"
I was just wondering when it was discovered that LukeTheSpook was socking. Was it when Rlevse ran a checkuser or before that? This may sound like an odd question, but I'm a very curious person. Heh. Thanks!  Enigma  message 04:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seicer discovered Luke was using the same IP as and Sum44, who was blocked as a sock of PeaceOfSheet, I think. I'm not entirely certain, as I was out undoing all of Luke's edits.  Grsz  11   →Review!  04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously there was some suspicions before the checkuser was run; the checkuser only confirmed the suspicions. The bigger problem is that he has admitted that he used his second accounts disruptively, including creating one just for the sole purpose of creating extra work for the admins.  He is also unrepentant about that action, so I see no reason why he needs to be unblocked at this point.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: That page you asked me about
Sorry, no... The deleted page contained nothing that would be appropriate even for your userspace. It was pure trash, and if you think a valid article could possibly be created under that title, it would be best to create one from scratch, because there really is nothing there worth preserving. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 12:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article was basically an attack on Leary using all the "He ripped off Bill Hicks" stuff, but laced with profanities. There was really nothing at all worth preserving there.  Go ahead and create the article again, if you like, with sources and references and neutral language and that will be fine.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama cabinet
The box I created for Cabinet members was much more organized than the already existent one. I'm sorry but the other one is such a mess! All names are in random order. Also, I stated my source about Napolitano and Pritzker (CNN). Please stop editing my contributions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inthefuture (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

edit removed from history
Hi. I just noticed your request to have an edit removed from your talk page history. If you could please let me know where you've seen this done previously I'm sure this should help your case. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Scottsdale
WP:Manual of Style (links): "Items in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic" (emph added} and further on the guideline "An article may be overlinked if ... Low added-value items are linked". Linking to a disambig page is clearly a low value add link, in fact it adds nothing to the reader other than adding confusion as to which Scottsdale was intended. --  The Red Pen of Doom  02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me,
Or are you also getting a feeling that this user has been here before? His edits, to others seem to be a bit pointy. Yes, he has reverted vandalism, but the way he's dealt with other users.. as seen before, past sockpuppets have tried to make a point by creating an account that makes constructive edits, because they knew it would be blocked because it was a sockpuppet.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh absolutely. The question is, who?  Grsz  11   →Review!  01:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. We may never know, if he doesn't straighten up and quit issuing ultimatums. Dayewalker (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Wise_dude321
Heya, you reverted some vandalism on the above page, but then you left a vandalism warning on the same user-talk page rather than the vandal's! Just letting you know, in case I missed something - the user in question was understandably confused. Thanks ~ mazca  t 19:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

=December=

International reaction to the 2008 U.S. presidential election
Regarding adding "categories" to International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008, I invite you to participate in a discussion on the talk page rather than blindly reverting. There is no consensus for your version and you have offered no legitimate argument against the edit I made.  Grsz  11  02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the talkpage where I long ago replied to you. Your version doesn't exactly have consensus support either. I ask you to please stop mindlessly reverting to a worse version. --Tocino 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no, you never responded to me. My version makes no determination as to what is a state and what some think is not one, so you're wrong in saying that it would call things states that aren't.  Grsz  11  02:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Listing unrecognized disputed territories side-by-side with sovereign nations tricks the reader into thinking that they are fully recognized states, when in reality they are not. --Tocino 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It in no way "tricks the reader" if the article is simply organized by continent. What's POV in the article is taking one side and saying this country is disputed when others say it's a state. I know you have a personal opinion in this that makes it hard to see it any other way.  Grsz  11  02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even those who recognize those disputed territories as states would acknowledge that they aren't fully accepted and that their status is disputed. --Tocino 02:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and my edit doesn't say they are states - you are wrongly attributing that to me.  Grsz  11  02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But as I said earlier just listing disputed territories amongst nations, without a disclaimer, leaves the impression that those disputed territories are fully accepted nations along with the others. --Tocino 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes and brick wall headbanging rituals
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the warnings. I'll try and be more careful next time.

According to WP guidelines, my user page was "utterly innocent." Whoever chose to see it as a personal attack, supposedly committed "the Great sin of Synth" - I was listing random combination of letters and words next to a picture of a douche. On an "unrelated" note, I'm tired of being pushed around by editors who seem to own Wikipedia and challenge every contribution possible using WP guidelines as an excuse. Let me quote an excerpt from a conversation between Alastairward and another user who (thank God!) backed me up on a certain citation:

Regents Park: '' [...] worry about something else. Plenty of other stuff yet to be done on wikipedia.''

Alastairward: ''I come from Northern Ireland, silly disputes are... a cultural reference for me ;)''

There seems to be a giant logical fallacy in the Wikipedia rule set: while editors that add material bear the "burden of proof," challenging seems much easier. Anyone could challenge anything with the most ridiculous "reason" and by that, shift the weight back to the editor that's been challenged. If you'll carefully examine Alastairward's behavior (without being blinded by the word "added" that shines so brightly in so many edit summaries), he challenges anything he can, thus forcing editors into long and exhausting threads of extensive proof. As far as I'm concerned, such users are nothing short of trolls, asserting their dominance on Wikipedia and making other editors (such as myself) feel like "they owe them an explanation as for every edit."

To further illustrate my point (and to end at least one "silly dispute"), please read this and tell me it's not straight our playing dumb on Alastairward's end. I'm urging you to do so because I really feel that an admin intervention is a must at this point. Thank you very much in advance - I await your reply. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't play stupid. They were usernames of editors you had disagreements with.  Grsz  11  16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the other issues? I already apologized for the alleged personal attack and promised to never repeat such actions. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please respond, I'm only trying to contribute to WP in a civil manner rather than engaging in pointless arguments over someone else's view of my cited references. Thank you in advance for your understanding and help. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Copy vios
Since I know you are a penguins fan you might be better to be the one to look at Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr.. -Djsasso (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look.  Grsz  11  20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
Likewise, the other person involved is in the edit war, it takes two. So I don't get why you single me out?--Levineps (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter
The December 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Climate
Hey I am currently defending the article again against an editor who despite being invited to join the talk page discussion multiple times, continues to change the section and Koppen classification on the basis of a single source which looks to be borderline reliable. I have explained on my own talk, their talk and via edit summaries that they need to discuss. At this point I am treating any continuing editing without a new consensus or even any engagement of other editors as an act of bad faith. I am well aware that this may get to the point of 3RR as it did yesterday and I would appreciate if you could have a look at what's been going on, confirm that I am not being out of line and lend support should it be necessary. thanks. Mfield (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Editor has now posted to article talk. Hopefully they will wait for discussion and answers before changing anything now. Mfield (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

rollback misuse
since you've been following around my edits for whatever reason, even after you were reported to ANI[] for doing so to other editors, i decided to check your contributions to see why you might be bothering me. i assume it's because of this []. regardless, you have misused rollback here [] and here []. according to WP:rollback,  Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator. so please try to only use rollback with cases of blatant vandalism, not in questionable cases involving content disputes, otherwise your rollback may be removed. if possible, i would highly prefer not to hear from you on my talk page for any reason, based on your previous uncivil tone with me. if, however, you want to respond to me, i shall check back on this talk page so that we can engage in a civil dialogue. if you don't care to respond, that is fine too. but i would prefer no messages from you on my talk page. so please stop following my edits to show up onto random articles you've never edited before, that i have been editing (such as [] and []. if you continue, i'll consider it harassment and stalking. just leave me alone forever and stop following my contributions. thanks! Theserialcomma (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Theserialcomma.  Grsz  11  17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One was a mistake, the other - other edits by that IP on that page were vandalism. This misleading diff doesnt show the vandalism that was there.  Grsz  11  03:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk : EagleScout18

 * FYI, He's removed what you've said, again. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw, I'm not bothering with it anymore. If he wants to whine and cry like that, let him. He's indef blocked and never coming back, so whatever.  Grsz  11  03:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * U go gurl !!! --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave it a week. I doubt he'll come back by them.  To protect only him from editing, I would have to revise the block.  He hasn't done enough to deserve an indefinite block without access to the talk page and I sure as hell don't want an expiring one week block on him.  I'm still holding out some hope that he's actually going to reform.  He seems to have been fine except for Obama-related articles.  I'll still going to defer to User:Ryulong if I see him again and I doubt Ryulong is as open-minded as I am.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I posted a note at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for watching over my talkpage for me and dealing with people like the anon. He isn't a sockpuppet is he? --Tocino 03:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably, or somebody logged out to hide.  Grsz  11  03:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK
That kind of article sounds fine to me; could you give me a link to the article to look a little more closely? (Or is it an article you haven't written yet?) Anyway, my intuition is that it should be fine, but if you have any other questions please don't hesitate to leave me a message. Thanks, &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that looks perfect. It may not be explicitly Christmas-related, but it's holiday-related in general (albeit maybe specifically for American holidays), which is probably even better. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:KCAC.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KCAC.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, now if only you could tell me if I fixed it correcly, ImageTaggingBot.  Grsz  11  01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arena
Yeah, we probably shouldn't move the page until the official word comes down. The only bidder I had heard of was UPMC, but CONSOL (that'll be weird if its always all capitols) seems like they've been a team sponsor for a while so that cool. Rough calls tonight, I hope they come back with Curry and Godard tomorrow; I bet Fluery is getting healthier a little quicker now.  Black  ngold29   02:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably just better to wait, although I'd be willing to bet that some random person comes along and moves it before the official announcement.  Black  ngold29   03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It'll be interesting to see what the bloggers come up with for their recomended names. By the way did you see this?  Black  ngold29   03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, awesome goal. I started working on an overhaul of Mellon Arena, so hopefully I'll be able to stop by the library tomorrow to get a few more books to use for that. I look forward to seeing the info on the players, I have a few books with player bios so let me know if you need anything. I was thinking of doing the Cup winning season articles at some point too. Anyway, they looked good tonight eh? BIG game Saturday, and I'm gonna guess Fleury comes back next Thursday. I hate to see Curry go, but at least he got the experience. Sabourin is good, but he can't seem to start consecutive games too often.  black ngold29  05:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Books re: Michael Z. Williamson
I quite honestly have never even seen the standards Wiki has in place for publication of articles when regarding books. I'll follow that link you sent me and read up a bit more when I have a lot more time.

I did not create the page about the Freehold book, only contributed. Quite frankly, if the book doesn't need its own page that's fine with me. It's the deletion of the author's biography article that has me quite perturbed. Cordova829 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found cite and press releases from 2004 mentioning that the author's book Freehold was nominated for the Prometheus Award. Link to press releases are at . Remember to scroll downwards to 2004. Included notability cites are available at and another book was reviewed here. Author also was a coauthor with author John Ringo, who is a New York Times best-selling author. He also has a featured short story in two Mercedes Lackey books and another one in an anthology from Baen, released last year.


 * Also available from Baen Books is an interview he has done for BlackFive television.


 * I'm fairly confident that the author meets the requirements as espoused by the Wiki guidelines.Cordova829 (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page
Thanks for the revert on my talk page. It appears that the edit the IP made has now been oversighted. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I saw your message on my talk page. I read the whole discussion, and you may now join in the discussion here. Radiopathy (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU
Perhaps, depending on the evidence. If you think there is sockpuppetry going on, your first stop should be WP:SSP. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A pleasure. Good luck! -- Avi (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One Day of Life DYK nom
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie
Actually, AGF doesn't enter into it. He's made it perfectly clear in his comments on the Obama talk page that he doesn't accept that Obama is a "real" Christian, but that he only joined a church for political reasons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was coming here to say essentially the same thing. As per the policy, AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."  This be one of those times, I think.  Cheers  Tvoz / talk 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, this loaded question: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

AGF on Barack Obama
Thanks for reminding me. I was dealing with a longtime vexatious editor posting against consensus, but my edit summary was a bit out of line. PhGustaf (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I now see that some other guys beat me to it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)