User talk:Trut-h-urts man/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK for And Now His Watch Is Ended

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for your work on the umpire pages. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And I thank you for the barnstar. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 02:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits

I almost always find myself agreeing with your edits. But please don't delete accurate information as to a baseball player's place of birth. If you don't like its placement, move it -- don't delete it. An infobox is not part of the article, or we would delete birth dates from the article on that theory. And especially when someone has been invited to be on a WBC team, their place of birth is highly relevant. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now moved the birth information to the "Early life" section. Hopefully this is agreeable to both of us. I will ensure the information is in the article before making similar changes in the future. Thanks. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 02:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FWIW, my understanding has always been that place of birth did not belong in the lead. WP:CONTEXTLINK would seem to agree with that. AutomaticStrikeout  !  C  Sign AAPT  02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


Thanks T. AS -- it a longer post than I have time for at the moment, but here are a couple of quick thoughts. a) It is better to move it than delete it if there is indeed any format issue ... that should lead to correction, not deletion. b) There once was a thoughtful discussion that went nowhere suggesting that it should in fact be in the first sentence as a matter of course, because as I recall most bios in encyclopedias treating it that way and it was of course inextricably linked to the date of birth ... the separation of date of birth and place of birth is both uncommon ITRW and non-sensicial. c) Where the place of birth is of import, though I can't recall where it says it I recall that it was appropriate to reflect it (as all matters of import) in the lede. Olympic athletes and WBC players who play for their place of birth would fall into the category of those where it would at least be sensible to indicate their nationality, and/or place of birth.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Iwan Rheon

Fair enough, although it is clearly Ramsay Snow (unless they make a huge deviation from the books), fair enough it hasn't been revealed in the show yet. Apologies. Bobfordsgun (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Colin Mchugh Repertoire

I don't get why you reverted my change in his page. I followed the instructions on placing reference, that is what he throws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1remains (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the reference you provided? Here it is just in case you didn't. That's why I reverted. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Non-free content

I have reverted your edits. Per the guidelines and policies for non-free content, non-free images must not be used for a purely decorative purpose, plus they may only be used on multiple articles when there is a separate rationale for each page that shows why it complies with the non-free content criteria. As such, these images may not be used in that context.

Thank you, ViperSnake151  Talk  00:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should look again. I did not restore the images. I only restored the Console design is yet to be revealed line to PS4. This edit by User:Soffredo re-added the images, and has brought them back again (as of this response). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey man thanks for adding the date to Edwar Ramirez I couldn't find the date to for the last game that he played in. It showed him retired on MLB.com but I couldn't find his last game date. Do you think that you could help me find the dates to some other retired players?Kingryan227 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course - I use the link to Baseball Reference for final dates. More often than not, it has the date. I'll have a look at what you've got, but for future reference, BR is an excellent resource. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I was using baseball almanac.com and it wasn't on there so I will start using Baseball Reference because if I see that hey are retired on MLB.com then I will put them on here but sometimes I can't find the date Kingryan227 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Something that I noticed yesterday is that there is so many old not updated articles I updated at least like 15 between yesterday and today just of retired players!Kingryan227 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the project up to date is a huge task, and if you have the time to give it is definitely appreciated. If there is a task you'd like assistance with, the talk page at WP:BASEBALL is a great way to get it. I and many others keep an eye on it and are more than willing to help out. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yah I can help now I have 1,146 edits so far and I have edited 18 baseball players articles today after making sure that they are retired which is an easy task for me because I love baseball and I'm trying to make Wikipedia more accurate by updating the retired players so people can get accurate information even on the no name guys like David Patton. Pitched one year in the majors and then never heard from again.Kingryan227 (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And could you also help me create my page for my profile?Kingryan227 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure - if it's userboxes you're looking for, check out WP:UBX. The thing about user pages is you can personalize them (almost) as much as you want (limitations can be found here). Personally I don't really recommend putting anything too personal up (i.e. real name, location, etc.) but your interests, hobbies, favorite teams/games/shows/bands etc. are pretty frequently seen on userpages. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 04:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey how do I change the color of my name?Kingryan227 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you click on "Preferences", scroll down to the signature heading and you'll see what your existing signature looks like, as well as a box underneath. Filling in this box (and checking the box marked "Treat the above as wiki markup") will change your signature to whatever you have written in that box. So, for example, if you wanted your name to appear green, you would type

[[User:Kingryan227|<span style="color:green">Kingryan227</span>]]

along with that, you'll likely want to include links to your talk page and your contributions page, so the whole thing together would look like this

[[User:Kingryan227|<span style="color:green">Kingryan227</span>]] ([[User talk:Kingryan227|Talk]] & [[Special:Contributions/Kingryan227|Contributions]])

if you copy/paste that into the empty bar, your signature will look like this - Kingryan227 (Talk & Contributions)
I'm really far from knowledgeable on this (I pretty much ripped off one of User:AutomaticStrikeout's signatures) so for more check out WP:CUSTOMSIG. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 01:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey thanks man I really appreciate the help but when I copied and pasted the talk and contributions one it said there was a problem with it. Also do you know how to make it multi colored? because User:AutomaticStrikeout had a green and red one at one time.Kingryan227 (Talk) 01:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a limit to the number of characters you can have in a signature. Let me try to design something that works, okay? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  01:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at User:AutomaticStrikeout/signature sandbox. The coloring needs some work (perhaps User:Technical 13 could help there), but I'd want to know if you like the use of "Decrees" for your talk page link and "Acts" for your contributions. I used those because your username begins with King. Like it? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I've toyed with the coloring a little. It might be good now. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I was echoed? Is this resolved or do you still need some help? Technical 13 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I actually don't, because I found the page with all the colors. Of course, if you want to double check the code at my signature sandbox, that would be ok. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  12:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done You actually left a span open... Technical 13 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Now ain't that surprising? (no)... thanks, Technical 13. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Santiago Casilla

But people that are in the minor leagues we change to not present it would make more sense if we did it with the DL as well.Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it you can always take it to the talkpage at WP:BASEBALL, but I don't think I'll be a supporter. If a player is in the minors (exceptions to rehab assignments), or removed from the 40-man roster, the "present" is removed with good reason - it is not known if they will make another appearance at the major league level (especially in the case of "cup of coffee" players). A 15-day DL stint is not a valid reason to remove it (and then replace when they return), in my opinion, unless there are reliable sources to suggest the career of said player is in jeopardy. For example, Ricky Romero (who coincidentally has just been outrighted) and his case of the yips. Is there anything to suggest Casilla's career might be over? I've looked and most estimates have him returning around the All-Star break. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Chien Ming Wang

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/chien-ming-wang-pitch-blue-jays-tuesday-yankees-184850872.html

Wang has already signed with the Blue Jays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1remains (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. The team has not made an official announcement, and most sources say he "plans on signing with the Jays". Please stop. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Assassin's Creed: Rising Phoenix for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Assassin's Creed: Rising Phoenix is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassin's Creed: Rising Phoenix until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Rains of Castamere

The DYK project (nominate) 08:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

John McDonald (infielder)

Although he was not officially "in the game" when I added Philadelphia Phillies to the list of teams for which he has played, he was on their 25-man roster. After the game, I logged into WP, saw your note, and reverted the edit, BUT not out of spite, but rather from the point of view that he was able to get into the game this evening (and get a hit, RBI, and run scored). Thanks for clarifying. Bob305 (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

I don't see anything in the article that says it should be 700 words or less. If you want it to stay the same you can ask an administrator.Epsilon8998 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

700 words or less is the policy regarding plot summaries on Wikipedia. Each section of the film is adequately summarized already. Your expansion adds a highly unnecessary level of detail to the plot, and violates WP:PLOT, specifically section 1. I do not need to contact an admin regarding this, however you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. I should add that continuing to revert will violate WP:3RR and may result in the loss of your editing privileges. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Taking a look at your edit history, you should note that your expansion to the plot section at Pineapple Express in May 2013 was undone for the same reasoning by User:Jamodalamo (seen here). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Those links contain no description that states any arbitrarily defined length of 700 words or less. Even so, I am wondering why you are not fighting against the descriptions of other movies which contain much longer plot summaries, such as Inception, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, or John Carter, to name a few.

However WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE says that "There is no universal set length for a plot summary, though it should not be excessively long." And that "Well-written plot summaries describe the major events in the work, linking them together with fairly brief descriptions of less important scenes." I maintain that my edits were not excessively long, and were attempting to better describe major events of the plot while putting them in greater context. They were also concise enough to describe the events and why they mattered without adding trivial details. I felt that the previous descriptions did not do this as well as they could have, and my edits were made in an attempt on good faith to improve them.

In addition, Cloud Atlas contains several plots, each with its own details and unique events. Because of this, shorter summaries would not be able to do justice to their respective stories, and readers could miss out on crucial details.Epsilon8998 (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I'm not here to "fight" - I'm here to contribute to articles which I am interested in, and follow the rules while I do so. I have little to no interest in the films you listed, and furthermore the argument that "you're not doing something over there, why are you doing it here?" is completely ridiculous (and to demonstrate this, I could ask you "why haven't you bloated the plot of every film page on Wikipedia?"). Second, the generally accepted limit to film plot summaries is 400-700 words, and has been since I registered over 4 and a half years ago. While it is true that there is no set policy regarding the length of a plot summary, ask WP:FILM and they'll tell you no longer than 700 words. Your edits to "better describe major events of the plot" only really affected one section (Sonmi), and bloated it to an unnecessary level of detail found mostly on Wikia sites (like this) or fan pages. You might not see your edits as excessively long, however I do, so third-party opinions are needed to resolve the issue, which can be obtained through a request for comment. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 04:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the beauty of Wikipedia isn't it? It's a virtual democracy in which everyone can participate. But when you don't like what a new person does, that means you can claim authority of experience and say that your vote is better? Why should your vote over what's "excessively long" matter more than mine? Can it really be said that my edits to (two!) sections should be revoked completely just because you personally didn't like them? And I did not plagiarize ANY other Wikia sites. I used some for fact checking, spellings of forgotten names, or what have you. But all the additions were my originals. Epsilon8998 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It is absolutely true that 700ish words is a guideline (and though I am a plot length spaz, I think way too many editors here take the number 700 as a rigid line and rather miss the point of the guideline) and that exceptions are made (and noted in the guideline) and that Cloud Atlas is a very obvious example of a film that will likely go over the recommended length. But the plot summary still should not be a scene-by-scene breakdown and some aspects of your edit were bordering on that (they just beat me to the revert). 2000 words is never going to be appropriate, even on a film this complex (and it certainly wasn't warranted on Pineapple Express). I could see this one landing at about 1000. May I make a suggestion? Make one of those collapsible sections (please don't ask me how) on the film's talk page to put your entire version of the plot in and get some input from the other editors about what details to keep and what to ditch and whether or not a different structure for that plot would work better, etc. I think you've got some good ideas in there it just needs some more collaboration in a setting outside the article's space until you and some others can hammer out the details. Millahnna (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against guidelines, but every movie is different and some contain more complex plots and others. A typical episode of Dora the Explorer should not warrant as much attention in its plot details than an episode of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. The latter two would warrant much closer attention to its particular details and events in the plot. The same is true of movies, and Cloud Atlas is just such a movie. I seems to me that 700 words seems a bit short in this case, and being that other movies of roughly equal merit also have descriptions that are longer (averaging 1000 words, give or take a couple hundred), this sets a precedent for further additions. (Epsilon8998 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh absolutely I agree that 700 is going to be short for this one. Like I said, I think a lot of people really go rigid on the 400-700 sometimes. I think of it as "700ish, most of the time". I'm not going to plot tag something that's 790 words and I probably won't even bother to trim one that's 720 words. Close enough, you know? I can think of plenty of film articles that in no way need 400 and we've got tons where 800 was about right and there's a handful that need 1000ish. All I'm saying is that I think you're going to get more traction if you take your edit (since it was soooo large) to the talk page in this case. I can't recall specifics but I saw some decent detail expansion in your ideas but a lot of stuff that didn't need to be as detailed as you had it. Hash it out on the talk page where all of us who track the article that are interested in the plot can work on whittling down the bulk while incorporating the best stuff from your ideas. Due to size alone it was inherently going to be controversial edit. You've been bold, it's been reverted, now let's go discuss the best way to collaboratively use your material WP:BRD. You might be pleasantly surprised (disclaimer:you might not). I think this film is going to land in the 900-1000ish word mark, but I'm just guessing. Millahnna (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I have a question that I hope you can help me with

Do you know how to add or change the color on like the team colors for example look up Chad Cordero and how are the team colors changed?Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish I did. As far as I can tell, someone high on the food chain made an edit to the infobox template we use (template:Infobox MLB player). Seeing as it is a high-risk template it can't be edited by us - just admins. I'm not a fan of the new colour scheme - I think the colour used should be one that the team is best recognized by, which in Cordero's case (and all players with LAA) should be red. You could always start a discussion on WP:BASEBALL and aim for consensus. Not sure where the first discussion to change what the template looked like was, but I may just have been asleep. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Haha the color scheme is okay but it just looks weird and all teams should have colors like the York Revolution and all the Atlantic Baseball League teams don't have colorKingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Vita Launch Games

Hi. I wanted to discuss about the launch games for the PS Vita. The main reasons why I made the table collapsed/hidden by default were:

  • Listing the launch games should only be for reference and shouldn't be imposed to the reader. It's been over a year since launch and it shouldn't be given priority. Make the page as up-to-date as possible. If the reader is interested in the topic, then only should they expand the table.
  • It shouldn’t take that much space (it has twenty-five items!).

Thank you. Xanthux (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Automatically collapsing the table makes it easy to miss for readers, especially people new to Wikipedia. The fact that the Vita was released over a year ago makes no difference to the inclusion of the table (note there is a launch game table on the GameCube's page, which is nearly 12 years old, and users do not have the option to collapse it). The 25 launch games may take up space, but it's better to give the reader the option of collapsing the table, rather than the reader having to search for the "show" tab to open it. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Over-linking

Can you point me to the rules/standards page where "overlinking" is defined on Wikipedia?

Also, if one is supposed to only link once (or twice? as in that article) then why not link the first instance under 2002 rather than wait for the second one in 2004?

I am "watching" this page for replies. Thank you.

Moshekaye (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly - WP:OVERLINK (and specifically, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.") It is therefore overlinking to add 14 links to earned run average. I did not see that the link in the body of the article falls under 2004, and not 2002. It would be appropriate to move that link to the 2002 header location, or if there is an occurrence earlier than that, to move the link there, as the first occurrence after the lead. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 01:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will move the ERA link from 2004 to 2002. ~moshe Moshekaye (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Trut ... thanks for all your good work. Funny enough, I came here to mention wp:overlink. I think per it we have no need to link to "American" in articles on major league baseball players.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, and a big thank you for all of your work on Kevin Pillar - the article looks great. Not entirely sure I agree with you on this one though. Its the first occurrence of the word on the page, and it isn't linked anywhere else on the page. I suppose "major geographic features and locations" from overlink applies, but I've added this in a lot of places and haven't had any complaints until this. I thought it was a helpful link. It doesn't help that over at WP:OPENPARA the examples have Italian linked but not American. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. As to it being the first occurrence, and not linked anywhere else on the page, I agree that is the case. That is not, however, in and of itself cause to link. Among other things, in part as you point out there is the "major geographic ... locations" issue. Clearly, pursuant to that, we would not link "United States." American being simply someone from that location, the same thinking applies. However, there is another part of wp:overlink that applies as well. That states: "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly. In particular, unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, the following are not usually linked: everyday words understood by most readers in context". I don't believe that linking "American" has the effect of "aid[ing] the reader's understanding significantly." And I think that "American" is an "everyday word ... understood by most readers in context." Furthermore, the automated "remove all overlinks" bot I use de-links it -- properly, I believe, given the above. I think I would be hard-pressed to come up with a word that fits better into both those above "shouldn't be linked" categories at the same time. I'm sure there have been discussions on this in the past -- the sort that lead to the rule in the first place, and its refinement. If you like, I can invite to this discussion another editor from whom I borrowed the automated bot that applies wp:overlink, for his perspective -- I think he is even closer to those discussions that I am. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Career stats

I was just wondering if you read what the other editor said in response to your opinion that career stats should be removed from articles? He makes a valid point. I'm personally of the opinion that they should be included in articles of ballplayers who've had respectable careers. Richie Hebner would fall into that category. Anyway, I'm hoping you're more open minded than most of the admins I've encountered so far on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.51 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The "other editor" would be you, but yes, I did read it. I stand by my comments that the career stat tables are redundant when most pages have three or four external links to websites that have full stats, as well as WP:NOTSTATS. The infobox provides the "basic" stats that even the newest baseball fan could appreciate, but that same reader would likely have no interest to learn that Hebner recorded 4,308 putouts in his career. A hardcore stats reader/sabermetrician would want to know that, but Wikipedia isn't the place they go to learn it. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't me. The comment that starts with "This is what the page says..." was someone else. This is what bugs me about Wikipedia admins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball

Just an FYI, I'm not an admin. Back to the talk on WP:BASEBALL, yes, I read both comments. The one you are now referencing is the original response (which was unsigned). Your comment is under his/hers, which I took to be the "other editor" you originally mentioned. It wouldn't be the first time I've had someone ask me to read "someone else's" comment, only to have it be a sockpuppet account. Now that the confusion is cleared up, I still have the same opinion. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI - I fight fair. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.242.28 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Austin Collie 49ers in career history?

Hey man, I see that you reverted my edit. What's the issue with showing San Francisco 49ers in his career history? Edday1051 (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Because he hasn't played for the 49ers yet. It's a WP:CRYSTAL vio. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
He signed a contract with the niners and is officially on the team. It doesn't matter whether he's played a regular season game for them or not. It's pretty standard to list the team in career history once they are signed to that team. Edday1051 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, playing in a regular season game makes all the difference, as if he suddenly retires, is traded, or even dies, the inclusion of the team in the infobox becomes incorrect. While I'm mostly drawing off my experience in baseball player articles, it violates WP:CRYSTAL to include something which may or may not happen (i.e. appearing in a game for a new team). It is an easy addition when and if he meets the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL, but an incorrect assumption to do so before he does. It is definitely not standard to include events that may or may not happen. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
actually, it doesn't. Not for the NFL. I don't know how it's done for other sports, but for NFL players, it's standard to list the team once he's officially signed to a team(you can check other player pages, look at this year's free agents that signed with new teams, all of them have their new team listed in the career history before any of them has played a regular season game for their new teams). If the player is cut, waived, released, falls off a cliff, retires, etc, during the offseason, it gets noted with an asterisk and the preceding note: "*Offseason and/or practice squad member only" in the infobox. Here's an example, go to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumaine_McBride Look at career history and look at the New Orleans Saints. An asterisk is placed next to it and the preceding note indicates he was an offseason/and or practice squad player for them, meaning he was cut before the regular season or he spend the entire season on the practice squad. Edday1051 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


All is Lost

Trut,

I thought that we could have a discussion about the changes to the All Is Lost page. Instead you just erase the Talk from the page. Other editor are suppose to get some say and vote on it. Again I will post my proposal here and let others comment as needed.

It would be extremely useful if there were a section under production that talks about the boats original owner. The owners name is Jeff Baumgardner. The boat was purchased by the production staff in Marina-De-Ray. This is an important aspect to consider because of the back story it provides. Jeff sold his boat for the woman he loved and gave up the boat he had dreamed owning since he was a young. Much was lost by Jeff for the sacrifice he had to make by giving up his boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muddyib (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 

   reference-Bajal Naval Shipyard is the company that procured the boat for the film — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muddyib (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Let the discussion begin and tell what we need to add to relate this more to the movie, add more references, add better references, etc

I would really appreciate your help on this

thanks Muddyib — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muddyib (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

First off, the story about this Baumgardner character is completely irrelevant to the film (and I have the suspicion that you yourself are Baumgardner looking for 15 minutes of fame, though it is extremely unlikely that I would be able to prove it). Why should a viewer care about who owned the boat before the movie was filmed? Secondly, I am unable to find any kind of reliable source to verify the story. "reference-Bajal Naval Shipyard is the company that procured the boat for the film" is not even close to being reliable. A discussion is completely unnecessary as the information is not suitable for use on the page even if it can be verified, and I deleted your post because of this Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 01:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

No I'm not Jeff be he is a friend of mine. It is a true story and there have been many cars,boats and RV that have been owned privately and sold to film production crews. They often can buy back these items and are a part of film history. A discussion is warranted and very relevant because the film crew looked for this specific style of boat. The boat is styled after the boat that Ernest Hemingway once owned. As I said the back story about the boat's owner is also relevant. I can work on getting better sources and the person from the company that envisioned using this boat if that will add to the references.

I just think it should be more of a democracy on the wiki pages. And again I humbly ask for your assistance to relate this better to the movie. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muddyib (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that claiming "it is a true story" doesn't make it true, and neither does it make the story relevant or important to the film and its article here. Who was the owner of the life raft Redford uses after the boat sinks (in the trailer)? Did he love his wife and give up the raft for her too? Did he sell the life raft to put his grandkids through college? The answer is: who cares? How about Redford's clothes? Were they bought second-hand? Who owned them before the film used them? Again, who cares? The name of the boat owner, as well as the sob story about giving the boat up for his wife, make no difference to the film article. Finding references will not change this. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 02:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What part is not true? Jeff did own the boat. You need to think more artisticly, this movie is not Cast Away. There was a specific reason they choose to use the same style of boat that Ernest Hemingway once owned. Here are a few examples of physical objects that had their own story before they were used in film or TV. The Dukes of Hazard car, the Batmobile (which was modified for the movie but the guy that owned it was a super hero in his own right), the used in Pirates of The Caribbean (this boat was a well preserved ship from the 1700's the owner had family that actually sailed it across the Alantic in the 1723)

So there is cause to put the history of items from a movie in a Wiki page.

Can we have other Moderators coment on my proposal please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muddyib (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I really can't believe we're still having this conversation, so I'm going to explain this to you again.
First off, if you'll see WP:TRUE, you can see the point I'm trying to get across here is "But it's true!" is not a sufficient reason to keep information on Wikipedia". This story may very well be true, but you saying it is true does not make it so. If this Jeff guy were the subject of an article written by a reputable source (like the New York Times, for example), that would verify the story, as right now it is original research. However, even if verified, the story is not important to the article about the film because of the second point I'm about to make.
Point 2 - The story about Jeff "giving up the boat for his woman and blah blah blah" is completely irrelevant to the film. The story about Jeff owning the boat before the filming of the movie is completely irrelevant to the film. If it is true that the film's producers were looking for a specific "Hemingway-style of boat", that is suitable for inclusion provided it can be verified with reliable sources. The boat's previous owner is no more important than the previous owner of the life raft, or the clothes used, etc etc as I tried to explain to you above. The suggestion that the boat in "All is Lost" is on the same level of notability as "The Batmobile" or "The General Lee (aka The Dukes of Hazard car)" is completely ridiculous. The Batmobile and the General Lee are well-known pieces associated with their works, whether films or TV episodes. When I think of "All is Lost", the first thing that comes to my mind is Redford, and not his boat. Just like when I think of "Cast Away", the first thing that comes to my mind is Tom Hanks (and perhaps Wilson), and not the plane he was on.
To close, if the film's producers wanted a boat similar in style to Hemingway's boat, and that can be verified with reliable sources, then that information qualifies for inclusion. Jeff Baumgardner and his sob story are irrelevant. The boat, Hemingway-style or not, is not an iconic, recognizable piece of film history (i.e. the Ruby slippers, Batmobile, General Lee etc.) This is the end of the conversation. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain pressx2start px2s

Ok a few days ago you undid something I did on the last of us under the username px2s. Not a problem. However I did ask you a few question that have goon unanswered. Then came along another admin and blocked that account. I understand that block because of the name. Once again no problem. Once this happened I asked for a username change. Instead of hearing back from that admin on the username change the third admin joined in asking a few questions and I never heard back from him. So as you can see I just made another account because it seems like second chances do not happen here. As I explained with the username it was an error because I am new to Wikipedia. And as for the information on the last of us page I still have questions regarding that but I would like answered or explained to me better. Also by me making a new account is in no way me trying to get around my other account being block as it was an option to do so. I am not trying to make trouble just want to understand better.Popdoc (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well hopefully I can give you an answer here (please note that I am not an administrator). I undid your edits because, as your username implied, you were a representative of the site PX2S. The site appears to be a blog run by a person/small group of people and deals exclusively in Sony ratings (so there is a bias issue as well). I did not see the questions you asked as you asked them on your talk page, and I don't watch that page. I can't really add anything to what the admins did - the block on you because of your username and the request to change it. As long as you're not going to use this account to add additional links to PX2S I don't believe you'll be seen as a sockpuppet. With regards to your response on your talk page, when a user named Px2s adds links to a site called PX2S it is an attempt to promote the site by the person that runs it/a person involved 99% of the time. Wikipedia uses reliable third-party sources to back up everything, and PX2S is far from a source suitable from Wikipedia. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson

Hi Trut-h-urts man, I'm not sure why you reverted my recategorisation, but this should be the header article of the category for the series, which is itself in all the categories I removed. This is standard procedure when a category exists for a particular television series. As such, I have reverted your change. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Recategorisation" looks an awful lot like vandalism, especially when there's no edit summary. I've never seen this done before, and I've been here a while. Would you please direct me to the policy of "standard procedure" you mentioned for recategorisation? I did take note that Late Night with Jimmy Fallon has a category for the series at the top of its list and still has additional categories, as does Game of Thrones (TV series), Boardwalk Empire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and more. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Standard procedure does not automatically imply a specific policy. It's been done at least as long as I've been working on TV articles here (about nine years). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Free agents

Hey it's been awhile since we have talked. But I have one question. For the baseball teams that didn't make the playoffs can I make the players that are free agents (free agents) or do i need to keep them on the team?Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 20:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry for the delay - I have no excuse for yesterday, but for today the Colts v Seahawks game was first on my schedule. As for your question, I've never really been 100% on how free agency works for baseball. I think minor leaguers that don't make the playoffs, but have the 6 years pro time can declare free agency, as several Blue Jays did just a few days ago. As for players that should be FAs but are on an MLB roster, I believe its 3 days after the World Series finishes, but don't quote me on that. Best to ask for input on the project page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I know what I did wrong

Sorry for doing that I didn't know it was wrong for that im sorry please give me another chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.175.92.79 (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You altered every year by rolling them back by 10 (e.g. 2006 became 1996). I'm really at a loss to see how this could have been an unintentional act. Regardless, I am not an admin, nor do I personally have the ability to block you. The message was just a warning. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.175.92.79 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Jay Onrait

Help me fix the reference instead of removing it, please. I would appreciate it. 108.162.155.76 (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no fixing that reference because it isn't a reference. You need to find an article online from a reputable source that includes the information you are trying to add and provide it. Reading WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE will help. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it isnt a reference and that's why I asked you to fix it, errrrrr? It doesn't have to be an article. The book should be fine.108.162.155.76 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bob Baird

This is just a friendly heads up. Both you and I have worked on this baseball player article. Some time ago in this edit[1]. You edited the part out about Baird being shot to death by a woman. It was unreferenced and your edit was justified. I had seen this in Baird's article when doing edits before yours. At the time I tried looking for a source for Baird's death but was unsuccessful. However I left it up because I swore I had read somewhere that Baird was shot to death.

It was today that I discovered where I had read it. Baseball author Bill James in his 1992 Baseball Book(I have a copy of most of James books around my house and have used them a few times as sources. One time was for the 1985 World Series.) had a brief biography of Baird and it told of how he died. So today I restored the bit about Baird's death, with the James book as the reliable source. Just letting you know. Cheers!...William 01:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks'

This user has contributed to Man of Steel (film) good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Man of Steel (film), which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Trade question

I saw you posted templates on the Jim Johnson and Jemile Weeks pages about them being in reported trades. I'm not around here that often, what's the policy regarding editing pages of players in reported trades? Do we have to wait until they're officially confirmed by the teams? NBAfan321 (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ken Rosenthal is pretty reliable, but there's no harm in waiting until the trade is officially confirmed by the teams involved. If it turns out to be incorrect, we look pretty dumb. Plus, I'm also pretty sure these players will need to undergo physicals to complete the trade, if they haven't already done so. In either case, best to wait for something official. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 04:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, seeing as how it's now being reported all over the place, it's probably good. Anon editors will clusterfuck it anyway, might as well make sure they do it right. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 05:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Retired players

on baseball reference.com if it says final game on their page does that mean that they are retired???Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 18:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Usually. It's a good indicator, but if you're not 100% sold on it a google search can't hurt. Guys like Barry Bonds have never officially retired, but it is generally accepted that he is retired. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please give your input.

I noticed you edit a good bit of articles I do and thought you might want to add your input in recent poll and discussion has here.

It would be much appreciated. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey,

Thanks for the info and letting me know where I made a mistake. However, I feel that the info should not be removed as I actually know what goes on in those schools. If one knows actual info about something, how does he reference it? I completely understand if there is something I have missed. Please do let me know what is the process to cite knowledge known by the author and I do apologize for any mistakes I might have made. However, most people in the area know the rivalry behind the school.

Thanks, Let me know,

PS: Hopefully we can get my edit back up and running if you feel it's worthwhile of being on there.

Thanks, SwervingStyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


The "I know this is correct because I know it is/I saw it/I took part etc" sourcing falls under original research, which we cannot use. If you can find a newspaper article or a reliable webpage to back up what you added to the page then it can be restored with the reference. We can't reference ourselves. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, However, I still don't get it. Many articles on Wikipedia have so many things that are not sourced. Many of those things are all untrue and have no relation to the actual article. Not everything will have something to be referenced. For example: December comes after November. Now, do I have to source that in the Wikipedia article for December. No. That's common knowledge. That's what I'm trying to say. Stuff that is said between schools and rivalries between schools will not be broadcasted in medias like the news. Schools are not like the Leafs and the Habs. Or like the Penguins and Flyers. I understand from your experience and high Wiki authority that that's just the rules. But, if this information is never released in any other media, aren't I stuck not adding it at all, ever? People really don't have time to write articles about high school rivalries in the news, tv, videos, etc. However, does that mean that Wikipedia is not allowed to share that hidden info just because other sources haven't proved it. Let me know what you think, Thanks for response. SwervingStyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to add a thanks for the link. After reading it, if info isn't found in any of these "peer-reviewed journals books published by university presses university-level textbooks magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses mainstream newspapers" then isn't half the stuff on Wikipedia false? So many articles have such little references and instead of focusing on those, Wikipedia chooses to remove contributions to an article with a much lower meaning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "November-December" argument is correct - that is common knowledge amongst people. However the rivalry between two schools in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada is definitely not common knowledge for people in India or Australia or Russia etc. (were they interested in such things) and that is why it needs a source. The whole "Wikipedia has so many unsourced things over there and there and there etc." is a ridiculous argument against one editor. Wikipedia is huge, and I'm not here to look at every single addition for a source. I do what I can, just like everyone else. I'm also not a "high Wiki authority" (administrator), just someone with experience here. You probably think I'm picking on you, when the truth is I only had a look at your edits when you did this to The Following. Linking dates is usually not done so I reverted it and checked your contributions as you appeared to be a new editor. In all honesty if you hadn't done that, your edit about the school rivalry would likely still be there.
When you ask "if this information is never released in any other media, aren't I stuck not adding it at all, ever?" the answer is an unfortunate yes. If someone objects to information added to a page without a reference they are encouraged to remove it and ask for a source (especially in the case of a living person). Sometimes that's it, and it ends right there. But on occasion there is a discussion (pretty similar to this one) about it in the hopes that a reliable source can be found. I hope you do find a source, but if you don't it can't be added back to the page. You can probably find a source that states the two schools are rivals, but with regard to some of the other info (" gotten involved in fights trying to protect the pride of their respective schools", " students have not been allowed to enter the opposing school", "alternate lunch and end-of-school times" etc.) I don't know if that will ever be verifiable through reliable sources. It's probably not the answer you were looking for, but that's the way things work here. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean you are actually picking on me? I believe I made the edit to The Following after I edited the article about Gonzaga. "In all honesty if you hadn't done that, your edit about the school rivalry would likely still be there." How does that make sense? I didn't know that linking to dates is not allowed. Maybe you could have just told me, and left my school edit there? After looking at your talk page, it seems a lot of people are tired of you just going on a free removal spree and removing their contributions without hearing their side of the story first. True. You are right. It is against Wikipedia's neutrality to post without citing your sources. But, I just don't get why you're wasting your time on a little high school article that has info that is clearly true if you could be doing something more productive, like editing other spelling and grammar mistakes in other articles. And about sources? Half of the articles use blog posts as their sources. Pretty sure they aren't reliable. How come they are never removed? It may seem like I'm nitpicking here, but the true fact is, there is a lot of other, heavy, false vandalism on here that needs to be fixed before true information is removed. I used the Wiki guidelines, wrote it from a neutral point of view, had no bias and yet "I need a reliable source"? Wikipedia users who have no authority are the reason why so many people leave Wikipedia everyday? Focus on the big problems, not on removing small contributions that are true. Good day, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm really trying hard to keep it civil here. It makes sense in that, if you hadn't edited a page I have on my watchlist (The Following), I would not have seen your edit to the school, and we wouldn't be having this back-and-forth we're having now (you'd probably be complaining on someone else's talk page). I've shown you why your edit violated Wikipedia policy (read WP:V and WP:OR) and I get that you don't like the response you got, but the rules are the rules. Other discussions have no bearing on this discussion. I'm not "wasting my time" as you've stated. Earlier, you were mad that other editors add unreferenced things to pages and those edits may stay around longer than yours, and now you want me to lay off because somehow your edit is better/automatically true because you say it is? That's ridiculous. I'm not here to watch all of Wikipedia - if you have an issue with sourcing on a page, check the history and contact an editor who frequents that page, or bring it up on the talk page of that article. So in closing, please read WP:V. If you still feel like your edit doesn't apply to WP:V, read it again. Repeat as needed. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and removal of my opinions after you realized that you were wrong. Just wanted to let you know that I've taken your advice and contributed to the talk page of the article. Good day, SwervingStyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 21:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Putting garbage where it belongs isn't "realizing I was wrong". Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. You could have recycled it: Meaning to respond to others opinion. Instead you choose to just trash it. That just shows the sign of you losing. When you know you are not right, people tend to hide away from it, just like you did. You could have just responded to the opinion about the boat in the film's production and the opinion of having Gonzaga on your watchlist. Thanks, SwervingStyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is completely ridiculous that we are still having this conversation. In a way, I am "losing" this talk we're having - a "win" for me would be finally getting you to realize that your edit violated Wikipedia policy, but it would appear your level of reading comprehension won't allow that. You're even confusing the points in this conversation - I do not have your school on my watch page, I have The Following, which I wrote earlier. The boat conversation you're referencing took place over 6 months ago, so responding to your opinion on the situation is pointless. Also, you wrote that you had contributed on the article's talk page, but looking at your contribution history I can see that is untrue - instead, you re-added your unreferenced information .
In a lot of ways though, the user from the boat question is just like you - someone who intended to improve Wikipedia, but knew nothing of the policies in place regarding contributions and reliable sourcing. Again, I understand you're not happy with the response you received, but Wikipedia has rules, and you broke them - there's no two ways about it. I have once again reverted your edits to the school's page due to a violation of WP:V and WP:OR. Continuing to re-add the unreferenced information is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, and you may be blocked from editing. Produce a reliable source for your contribution. It is not my problem if you are unable to find one, and if you can't find one, maybe it shouldn't be added to the page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, First off, let me respond to your idiocy in order. Firstly, the discussion that took place 6 months ago was here until I started this discussion. If it was really of no value to you, why wasn't it archived before? Secondly, "Regardless, I am not an admin, nor do I personally have the ability to block you. The message was just a warning." is written on a message above on your talk page. Now, explain this to me. If you have no admin power, and no real sense of authority on Wiki, why do you give these warnings. Mind your own business and let the admins notify us if there is a problem. Now, I'm not saying your wrong. A lot of the situations, you have provided sound reason for removal. But for many, you just believe you are right and bring up a policy to justify yourself even though that policy may not accord with what you are saying. There are many ways to have the "Unreferenced info" banner on an article. Why not place those instead of removing someone's hard written piece? You constantly say that you are not an admin, but you always give blocking warnings and such. Why? I thought it was "policy" for only admins to do that. Stay with in your admin/user boundaries is what the rules say. Why not do that? Like your username states "The Truth hurts"... SwervingStyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:WARN templates are for use by any user who wants to notify another user of their rule violation(s). Don't like the warning? Boo-hoo. Delete it. It's your talk page. I can archive old discussions whenever I please - this is my talk page. You wrote "Now, I'm not saying your wrong. A lot of the situations, you have provided sound reason for removal." which makes me want to believe you understand, but then you directly contradict this with the following sentence "But for many, you just believe you are right and bring up a policy to justify yourself even though that policy may not accord with what you are saying." Bringing up policy that clearly applies to the situation IS a "sound reason for removal". Adding an "Unreferenced info" banner as you called it is a band-aid, where a page needs surgery. It's counterproductive to simply add a tag to the top of the page and allow the page to continue to display unreferenced information, when you could have made a bold edit and removed it. Such edits are usually reverted, and a discussion takes place (WP:BRD).
This will be the final time I explain this to you. Your edit to St. Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School violated Wikipedia's policies against verifiability and original research. I removed your contribution in accordance with these policies. Your contribution requires a reliable source. If you do not provide one, you have violated these policies. This is the end of the discussion. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove my person of interest part?

Why did you remove my person of interest part about bluejacking? Bluejacking is an essential part of the plot of the TV-serie person of interest. It appears every single episode. --Shattr (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Because you need a reliable source. Otherwise your contribution is original research, which we cannot use. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to True Detective

Hi, can you please tell me, why you deleted my reference to the anthology "A Season in Carcosa" in the section about influences? Mr. Pizzolatto refers to the collection in the same interview that was already quoted. His reference to "[...] what contemporary voices have done with Chambers’ “King in Yellow,” [...]" makes this reference / link as valid and useful as the writers that were already mentioned in the article.

[1]

Best, LL LadyLovecraft (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made a partial revert of my edit. Why is it worth mentioning that the book it was edited by Joseph S. Pulver? In addition, that article (which you edit frequently) has numerous issues. Are you Pulver? You appear to have a close connection to that person in any case. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! The librarian in me has a tendency to add the editors to the according collection, I am truly sorry if this seemed inappropriate. No, I am not Mr. Pulver, I am "only" taking care of his Wikipedia article.

Best, LL LadyLovecraft (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not an issue, just curious. Thanks. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Krimuk90. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 86th Academy Awards without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The onus is on you to not remove it either. If you remove it, and then say that there is no mention of it, then that's a joke! Not going to edit war, but be a little more responsible the next time you edit. KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is completely ridiculous. You come in, overturn the established format while waving the "MoS flag", but neglect to point out exactly where your edit applies. I ask, and you tell me to find it. The onus is on YOU to produce it, not for me to find it. I'm not going to go hunting for it. If you're so sure you are correct, show me where. I don't have the time or the interest to do your work for you. In addition, your "double dagger" format is only in use on 2 of the previous 10 years worth of pages at the time of this post. So maybe you need to be more responsible and point out where your edit is in the MoS. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 02:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You did look for it and remove it. So yeah, boo hoo! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Produce it. It's a simple thing to do if you're so sure you are correct. Don't like that I removed it when you wouldn't point it out in the MoS? Boo hoo. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 02:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL. You are funny. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Buffalo Bisons

Hi it's Hamiste076 Your references are right here http://www.milb.com/content/page.jsp?sid=t422&ymd=20120226&content_id=26872206&vkey=team4

Great. Thanks for finally providing this, after numerous requests (and vandalizing my user page). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete it then?

I merged the section into the already established list because many of the names were repeats, and the format was terrible. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiste076 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting me!

I am glad you reported me. Now, people from a neutral point of view will be able to decide who is correct. Nice work! I would also like to ask. Did you save the page to your watch list to see every little change occurring to it?

SwervingStyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And since your block is expiring soon, you should know that I have no issues reporting you again if you make it necessary. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Don't worry. I'll be reporting you soon for the same thing. Reverting numerous people's edits and starting an edit war. Thanks, SwervingStyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the laughs. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Enjoy the changes to the Roy Halladay article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought they were hilarious – I wish I could have undone them, but someone beat me to the punch. I also enjoyed your asinine, nonsensical unblock requests and your using a sockpuppet account to make more garbage edits ("FeistyBored123"). I have again undone your edits to the St. Aloysius School page, and I will report you again if you re-add the info without a reference. Thanks again – this has been too much fun. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. However, I do not have enough time to make repeat accounts. I actually have a life unlike you who sits here all day. I did not form any other account and am only on this account. However, I did add the edit to Gonzaga again because it is true. Hopefully, you'll realize that and just go back to editing the stuff your good at, like baseball. And leave the people who have knowledge of schools to edit/revert those articles. Enjoy some more laughs!

SwervingStyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervingStyle (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. Because it happens everyday that someone adds something as stupid as "Three/Six Hunna Collegiate" to pages ("FeistyBored123" and you) and also happens to edit the John Fraser page with similar material (seen here), not even bringing up the fact that "FeistyBored123" registered and was active while you were blocked for a second time. But you clearly aren't even aware that page and contribution histories exist (as seen in your second ridiculous unblock request). Your continued edits to my talk page border on harassment and I will no longer take part in trying to educate you about the rules here. You are beyond help and not worth my time. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 04:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Scott Maine

Is this a good edit that I did to the page Scott Maine.Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 20:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The draft stuff should probably stick together, as he didn't sign with either team. Other than that, I'd say it's a good one. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Beat me to it.

I have never thanked anyone for reverting me, but thanks. I was reverting it, but it edit conflicted with you. Good heads up. Chambr (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries - I figured you had to be maybe a couple seconds behind me, because after I undid it back I went to the Xbox One page and saw your self revert. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing year

If you're having to edit that many articles it implies that there are several people who don't agree with what you are doing. Mass changes like that need to be discussed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am reverting an IP editor (80.192.155.191) who has been adding these unnecessary years to the lead of many video game articles. This IP editor did not begin "mass discussion" beforehand. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 5)

May I ask who made you God? This is in reference to the Game of Thrones (Season 5)_ page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piandme (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

May I ask how you intend to make meaningful contributions when you clearly haven't read any part of the huge welcome notice with instructions for new editors left on your talk page? Maybe you should, instead of continuing to add unsourced content, or info sourced to an unreliable fansite. I and a few other editors have been cleaning up your messes for a little while now. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have actually read it (although I hadn't at the start, which caused me to make a few mistakes so I apologise dor that). It should be noted that the edits I did this evening were based on ow the season4 page for Game of Thrones looked. The cast list for that did not have references ata nay point (excluding new cast additions). There were numerous mistaakes, but I hva e been careful to make sure that my list was accurate, and will continue to make edits like I have been doing.

I will not though put the casting list back in for now, because I respect that you disagree, but once more information backing my side comes up rest assured it will be back, either using this account, or another, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piandme (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you need to read it again. The season 4 cast list does not require sourcing in its current state, because the sourcing is the 10 episodes comprising season 4 that have already aired. Much in the same way the episode titles do not require sourcing because they have aired. Your point about being careful about mistakes seems pretty ridiculous given the amount of spelling errors in your response. Regardless, I am glad you won't bring the cast list back without reliable sourcing. I would have removed it myself, but every editor must adhere to 3RR, you and I included. Do not register and use another account. Doing so violates WP:SOCK. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"LOL, nice try "MegaGoTFan" now you're a sockpuppeteer. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, well I respectfully disagree. They are actually typos rather than spelling errors, but you can call them whatever you like. I, of course will not register for another account. I was merely suggesting that I think it is likely that someone will do something similar to me in the next month or so, but I guess we will see. Unless I am banned (which I suppose is quite likely) I will continue to edit Game of Thrones pages (amongst other pages). I completely disagree about your point pertaining to Watchers On The Wall (So WinterisComing.net isn't a fansite then?????), but I bow to your superiority. If you wish you can delete my messages here once you have read them, as I only felt the need to respond, and they don't sereve muc of a purpose apart from that.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piandme (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You just did register another account to remove my 3RR report. "MegaGoTFan". I am now filing a WP:SOCK investigation. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I hope the administrators see this the right way. I do respect that you are a very experienced editor, but it is important to encourage new editors as well, something you don't seem to want to do. We all learn by our mistakes, and I will of course by more careful when editing not to uost the status quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piandme (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong? It would be an unbelievable coincidence to have a new user register at that time, under the name "MegaGoTFan" (clearly referencing Game of Thrones), and make their first edit to blank the 3RR report pending against you. Too coincidental to not be connected. Regardless admins can check the locations of the two user names to verify the sockpuppetry. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know, we will see. I take on board alll of your comments above. If I do get banned, well, thats just one of those things. On a competely unrelated point, I do oike your username, which is pretty apt here for me, I think. Anway I think this discussion has well and truly flown its course, so there is no point you responding as I won't return (unless, say, in the future discussion is required). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piandme (talk • contribs) 22:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Untitled complaint

Why do you put "former" instead of retired. Former sounds idiotic. (Unsigned by User:Mattjc25)

Former is the standard when it comes to ex-baseball players, at least in my experience with the project, which is around 4-5 years I would guess. Retired just isn't used, and when it is, it should be and often is changed to maintain some uniformity. I won't say that all pages use former, because they don't, but the vast majority of living ex-ballplayers use former. In any case, the player's nationality comes before either term, as the player is not a "former Canadian/American/etc.", nor are they retiring from their nationality. If you think retired should be used instead of former, the correct thing to do would be to open a discussion about it, and not just change it without any discussion (or even an edit summary, which you should always use). Please be aware of the policy on edit warring. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 13:30, 2 October 2014
I do think "retired" should be used instead of former. For instance former could mean multiple things. Example you have Jeter as a former shortstop. A-Rod could also be put as former shortstop and current third baseman. Jeter isnt current anything. He's just retired. (another unsigned comment by Mattjc25)
Well you're welcome to your opinion. Note that current is a word to be avoided, per WP:DATED. Jeter is worded as a "former professional baseball shortstop" and not just "former shortstop", so there is no confusion to be found there. Regardless, this issue you have won't be resolved on my talk page by the two of us. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It could be resolved quite easily. You could change former to retired and call it a day lol. If you look at Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettite, and Jorge Posada all say retired. Not former. (Still hasn't learned how to sign posts)
Pettitte was changed by you, and was undone by another user. Thanks for bringing Posada and Rivera to my attention - they have now been changed to former for uniformity. I have tried to explain this to you, but you don't seem to understand. "Resolved" is building consensus within the community to change from "former" to "retired". While both are acceptable for a page on Wikipedia (READ ME) "former" is the established norm for baseball players who are living but not playing anymore. Consensus can't be built by two editors, and especially when they don't agree. Now that this has been sufficiently explained to you, this discussion on my talk page is closed. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 13:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Penance Walk

The reason I undid Sandstein edit is because I believe it would spoil the plot fpor many people. I do understand Wikipedia's policy on spoilers, but I don'y yhink it should be announced in such a blatant way to ruin others enjoyment. There is plenty of other filming information, which hasn't been included, and I don't really see why this is any different. If it has to be included (which is a shame for show-only) viewers as it could ruin the plot for them), I think it should be slightly more vague as to why Cersei is doing the walk, and not exaggerated to such a great extent with "penance". Of course, once season 5 gas aired the full information could be included. Piandme (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing something and using the reasoning of "spoilers" is not allowed. It is as simple as that. What you could do is open a discussion on the article's talk page, or Sandstein's talk page, and discuss possibly changing the wording but just removing it because it may spoil something for an uninformed viewer isn't allowed. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully Sandstein has learnt from his poor edit by my undo. I have carefully edited the post, so it mentions the slaient facts without completely ruining the show for people people who don't want to have huge spoilers pointed out to them before the initial airing Piandme (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein is an administrator with years of experience. I recommend you be more careful in the future to assume good faith at all times. His intention was to improve the page, much in the way yours is. You don't have to agree with him, but you have to show respect your fellow editors. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I see it has been edited back now, which I obviously accept (despite disagreeing with the wording). My problem is the word "penance", remove that and it would probably be acceptable. No one would have posted that Robb Stark dies in season 3 beforehand, and I think this is similar. Penance gives the impression of sins, and it gives away a huge book spoilee. I understand that spoilers are permitted (after all most of the page is a spoiler to some degree), but I still think major ones should be made more discreet. Sandstein (and others) feel this is fine to do, I feel that the information should be included (a it is a major filming piece), but a degree of discreeteness is something i would expect. Perhaps not... Piandme (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but if you want it to change, the best place to discuss it would be the article's talk page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 01:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NFL player infobox honors

Hey, Truth. Can you keep an eye on Omar's edits? This is obviously the same guy as two other newly registered editors who I had to revert a bunch of times back in September and October -- he has the same hang-up about wanting to add "PFWA" to the All-Pro honors, and even to the same articles . . . He apparently refuses to accept the standard formatting of the NFL player infobox honors. Thanks for your help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 03:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ichiro

Thanks for warning the IP about edit warring. As the same time, you're getting into the danger zone yourself over the position. Be best to avoid the hassle and just get input at WT:BASEBALL. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Will do - I'm avoiding the page altogether until there is some kind of consensus. Thanks. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Kotsko

Thanks for your editing/rollback of Adam Kotsko. I wanted to let you know that the "single purpose" accounts you cited in edit descriptions are writing students--the only reason they haven't made other edits is that they're learning the ropes and working on assignments. I agree that they were a little off the mark in their contributions, but they are going to revise and resubmit. Perhaps you'd then engage them on the talk page? Cheers. Daclausen (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got some concerns regarding this new information, and I'm hopeful that you, as their instructor, can assist me. Wikipedia isn't a creative writing assignment - the intention is to crowdsource an encyclopaedia. Much of what the two students wrote is inappropriate for Wikipedia due to its advertisement-like tone, and the fact that their edits were not reliably sourced/only partially sourced. Wikipedia editors are not considered experts or reliable sources on their own (WP:OR), and so all additions must be sourced to reliable news articles/books that back up what appears on a page. I initially reverted this edit to Dexter (TV series), a page on my watchlist, because it appeared to me to be an advertisement for Kotsko's book. Furthermore, the content added was sourced to Kotsko's book, creating a kind of circular reasoning. The user in question (User:Mothomsen03) also made the same edit to Mad Men, which I undid for the same reasoning. The majority of the edits to the Kotsko page were made by User:Jtkingsley, and, while partially sourced, used a tone that is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. What I would recommend you have your students do is make use of their personal sandbox (see WP:ABOUTSAND) for their assignments, so that they won't be bothered by other editors (myself included). I don't have an issue with using Wikipedia to teach (I think it's a great idea) but perhaps these student editors could use their sandboxes for rough drafts before adding their content to pages, to give them time to ensure their edits "play by the rules". Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 00:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just Curious

I recently edited the Ray Donovan Wikipedia page and you removed my edits. After reading through the tutorial etc. On new users, I assume it's because of that. I did not post any incorrect information (I read it in multiple articles) but I suppose you wanted to make sure. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellser2 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source for your edits - reading it somewhere just isn't enough (WP:OR). It's a pretty easy thing to overlook when you're just starting out. If you find a source stating that the person/persons will appear in the show, cite it by adding it to the page between <ref> and </ref> tags. I have done so on the page, if you want to check out how to source an edit. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Lennon

I apologize, sir, but the things I wrote on Tom Lennons page were entirely truthful and could easily be seen to be so if you have been watching the show @midnight at the time of the reveals on information about his family crest and his condition. Thank you. Alexander XVIII

I watched the show. Regardless of what Chris Hardwick says, Wikipedia is not your playground. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 04:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Bloodborne sources

Main source is the game itself, other sources are here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-04-10-how-bloodborne-honours-the-legacy-of-h-p-lovecraft http://kotaku.com/https-www-youtube-com-watch-v-vomax-lkfiw-feature-you-1697067199 http://www.twinfinite.net/2015/04/09/heres-how-bloodborne-captures-lovecraftian-horror-perfectly/

@DoctorForHire: These just state the game was inspired by the work of Lovecraft, which many games are. Unless the game's developers outright stated it, it shouldn't be included on the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Its a huge enough inspiration that its the primary theme of the game, its wrong to not mention it. The developers outright stated it as well http://community.eu.playstation.com/t5/Bloodborne/Bloodborne-Exclusive-Interview-with-Jun-Yoshino/td-p/23062300 68.108.73.247 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

FF7

How long do you think before we will have to semi-protect the page? Have a feeling it's going to blow up with the recent announcement, lol. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Writer Nic Pizzolatto on Thomas Ligotti and the Weird Secrets of ‘True Detective’ http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/02/02/writer-nic-pizzolatto-on-thomas-ligotti-and-the-weird-secrets-of-true-detective/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trut-h-urts_man/Archive_2&oldid=1139331393"