User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 30

=May 2009=

2003 Afro-Asian Games
Hello Mr. Candlish.

I had created an article - 2003 Afro-Asian Games - which I enlisted under WikiProject Sports. But no one has reviewed or assessed it.

I request that you take some time to read my article, and rate it on the talk page.

I would appreciate if you would respond to me on my talk page. I am a little busy, as I have several articles in the making.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Assessed it as C class, and Mid importance (which may be too high). Also merged it with parent article, which was only a tiny stub. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:CUEGLOSS; "duck egg" and "rubber match"
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stanton: I have made CUEGLOSS/cuegloss redirect to the article; even easier to type and no cross-namespace issues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I !voted to keep the "WP:" version, but don't really care all that much. It wouldn't surprise me if someone MfD'd those two new redirects. I sure hope not, since I really, really don't want to have to type "Glossary_of_cue_sports_terms" in the URL bar again and again. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As they say, "redirects are cheap". WP:R has an express problem with cross-namespace redirects, but I see nothing there that could implicate "Cuegloss." Note point 5 under WP:R. If they try to delete the ones I just created I'll have to get medieval on their asses;-) By the way, I added "duck egg" as part of the new entry for in response to your note on the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "No-o-o-obody expects the Spanish Inquisitio-o-on!" Cool beans on "duck egg". What do you think of "rubber match" (= hill-hill)? I think that term was borrowed from baseball, but I'm not sure. I hear it several times per week in APA play, but haven't found any sources yet for its applicability to pool. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 12:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's borrowed from boxing. See this and Rubber match. I've heard it used for many years and never knew its origin (I played APA myself many moons ago, but I got so frustrated with almost never getting to play; it's easier to be a 3 or 4). There is some ambiguity though. People use it the same as hill-hill in my experience but, thinking about it now, it really should be rubber "game" even though it isn't. The normal usage in other sports is apparently for a deciding match, and apparently always the third in a best two out of three situation. I was just looking for a source and even found it used in that manner for pool. See here and here, and for snooker, see here. I wasn't able to find a reliable source that uses it in the manner I, and I think you, know it. Regardless, if you are going to add it I suggest you do so with "fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "[A]nd nice red uniforms." —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

List of WPA World Nine-ball champions
Hi, in reference to to the grand argument here, why is this page allowed to have capitalization? I would also like to see an effort in trying to find the missing information in the eight-ball champion page. Sandman30s (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They are different. "World eight-ball champion" isn't an official title. "WPA World Nine-ball Champion" (like "WPA World Eight-ball Champion") is. The eight-ball article has a broader scope. It should probably be fixed anyway; "blackball"/"eight-ball pool", British style, is not the same game as "eight-ball" per se, so they article should not be mixed like that. As for the missing information effort, I'd like to see that too, but I'm not in a position to fix it myself, as I am not a member of any of those leagues, and do not have ready access to printed British sources (assuming WEPF, et al., actually produce printed materials such as champion lists and yearly stats).  Their websites might have some information we could use, but I have bigger fish to fry. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass changes to snooker player articles
I have some concerns over multiple changes to the snooker articles. Can you please let me know what you think at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded at WT:SNOOKER. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maximum Break
Hi Stanton, I don't take myself too seriously but, by the same token, don't like being called "bighead", deliberately, as done by user "Kaiwhakahaere" on that page's talk. Perhaps you might care to issue whatever reprimand is appropriate for personal abuse? I would differentiate between saying (as I did) that the edits made by that user show that s/he doesn't know that they're talking about (which is clearly the case) and adding some humour about chilling out, and being called "bighead" in response. Thanks, bigpad (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't very civil, but I don't think it quite rises to the level of a personal attack. He/she is being critical and obviously irritable, and while it is extremely childish, poking fun of someone's name (or in this case e-pseudonym) is an age-old way of expressing such feelings and usually not taken very seriously. Few if any people like being told that they don't know what they are talking about, and usually react negatively and sometimes retaliatorally, even if not effectively.  Be a duck; let water flow off.  Here, at least, there are better-than-direct ways of suggesting that someone does not know what they are talking about, such as demanding reliable sources, and citing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR at them, as applicable (often at least 3 of the 4 are applicable), and if questionable sources are provided, insisting that the would-be edits be justified under WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE if they are skewed or trivial. If the latter, WP:NOT is also often useful ("Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information", etc.)  Actually, WP:NOT is also a good backup if WP:NPOV seems to be violated, e.g. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Kelly pool
Remember the problem with the GA nomination on Kelly pool? No history, no etymology. Well thanks to you, I found something. It's not much but using Ancestry.com (yeah I signed up again, using a different email; apparently they don't track who they've given free trials to before very well) I found... Well I'll email to to you. Look at the lower right hand corner. The full name is fairly unclear but with the death date and partial name I was able to track down the person and got the exact spelling from the Cook County Illinois death index using ancestry again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Victory is ours! Yeah, the surname was hard to read the first time, but it was repeated later more clearly (I think the blotted character was "i", if I recall correctly). This also settles an age-old dispute within my own mind, namely whether the game is properly "kelly pool" (as a retronymic alternation of something else) or "Kelly pool", named after a person or other proper noun. It is clearly the latter. If it had been the former I would insist on lower case.  By way of comparison, the drink known as the "martini" is martini not Martini, because it was not named after any person, place or thing by that name. Rather, it is a corruption of "Martinez cocktail", named after its bartender inventor, and which should be capitalized when used.—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At your suggestion, I emailed Shamos this morning (good idea!). His contact information is provided here. The spelling issue issue was initially for me whether it was Callstus or Calistus. The death index cleared that up but has him at Colistus. ("Co" not "Ca"). I'm not sure where to go with that. Unfortunately, using his name I have not yet located any further information. What I really hoped for was corroboration that the game is actually named after him. The article strongly implies it but is not definitive on the issue. Specifically, when it says "and better known as Kelly Mulvaney than Calistus" that could mean he was known as Kelly because of his association with the game by that name, rather than that he was known as Kelly Mulvaney, separate and apart from the game, and the name bears the title Kelly as an eponym. Certainly the latter interpretation is the implied and more natural meaning, but it's not written with the clarity I would like.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I have cleared up the name. It is Calistus, as the newspaper has him. The death record is for the same person (exact date of death as listed in the obit) but they have the first name wrong. See the 1910 Chicago census record I just emailed you with his name handwritten in. Note his occupation position and description: "keeper, billiard hall emp" (the same for his brother listed below his entry as part of the same household). I really do get a thrill looking at these ancient records.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (lots of research later) A complete-as-I-can-make-it origins section is now posted with additional sources found.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Might need more proof that he's the inventor. Three points to consider: It is not always spelled "kelly pool", but sometimes "keily", etc. It was also popular in the UK (and remains more so there than here; American style stripes-and-solids ball sets are still called "kelly pool balls" in the UK).  Timeline will probably be important: What is the first evidence of the existence of this game, and how does that compare to Mulvaney's life?  Anyway, I will go look at the new material now that I'm back from the VNEA Championship in Vegas. >;-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found not a single other mention. Shamos, by the way, wrote back, and enthusiastically said it was an important discovery after I sent him the initial newspaper image. Unfortunately, I definitely annoyed him with a follow-up post where I enthusiastically told him about the additional material I found. You have to remember that what I found in a matter of hours, once I had the name, would be impossible to do without online databases that can search text; technology only a few years old. Imagine what a task it would be to uncover what I did without such a capability. It might be impossible to find it all, and if not, it could involve literally years of reading thousands of things to find buried nuggets to slowly piece together a picture (as I imagine the task of writing the encyclopedia was on a grand canvas). So after my initial message, when I wrote back so quickly that I had found all this additional material in one day of research, I was not sensitive to this—at least that is my take on the particulars of his rather affronted reaction. I can understand it. There's some irony in that to find more may take in person legwork—going to Chicago, talking to his family, looking for personal memoirs—tasks that Shamos might do, that I will not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What'd he say?!? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to have a gander at the article now; a lot of new work, on both the gambling and behind the eight ball sections. I've got it pretty much sewed up I think. The main thing left is to harmonize the lead and expand. Check this out: 1890! Can't trust it though; the text is not visible. False positives in these searches are not infrequent (they are just based in character recognition software after all). However, I do find it intriguing. Were this to pan out, it would push back the date of first appearance of the idiom to not just before the advent of eight ball but before kelly pool's invention as well. It's a good article now. I plan to take this one to FAC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

George Balabushka
By the way, you might want to wander by George Balabushka which I've completely overhauled and expanded. I'm not done quite yet, but I think it's on its way to a good article submission.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! Will do. I consider that a very important article. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)