This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

March 2007

Blackball

Resolved

– Split is done.

Hello Stanton,

My interest is in 'blackball' pool so I'd just like to offer assistance should you require it on that particular topic.

There are various articles on my sites relating to the subject which could perhaps prove useful. For example..... http://www.blackball.co.uk/articles.php?cat_id=1

At present I provide around 150 free 8ball pool related sites. Mostly for pool leagues and the UK pool community.

As you will know blackball was intended to unify the game of pool as it is played on the 'small table' (generally 7ft X 4ft). These tables are of course commonly found in pubs and clubs in which larger tables cannot be accomodated. Plus the game is now played to this set of rules at international level and sanctioned by the WPA.

Unification has not yet been fully acheived in that two sets of (small table) rules still exist side by side.... blackball and what are commonly called 'world rules', as administered by the WEPF.

Anyway, Stanton, if I can be of any assistance do please let me know.

Best regards,

Bill Hunter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ukblackball (talk • contribs) 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Bill! We do indeed need some help in this area. Probably the biggest article change upcoming is the forking of the eight-ball article into eight-ball and blackball (pool). When I or someone else from WP:CUE gets around to that, the new blackball article will need knowledgeable review. My present take on the subject is that the article should detail the WPA blackball rules, as the more pre-eminent/global, and address WPEF variations separately in asides or in a subsection, but generally consider the entire English-style eight-ball game to be "blackball", as a classifier. I think the end result for the reader would be more confusing if WPA blackball had an article, and WEFP "quasi-blackball" remained a subsection of the eight-ball article. Interested in your thoughts on this. I am of course aware that the WEPF ruleset predates the WPA one, but the WPA as an organization predates WEPF by a long way, and has a more global scope.

In the interim, I invite you to join WikiProject Cue sports and to see what you can do with the WEPF stub article, which I think has only existed for about 2 days.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Out-standing: Blackball (pool) not yet split from eight-ball. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Split done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

I am writing Baseball pocket billiards. In my search for sources I came across this patent application for a new game called "BLAZZ". Thought you might find it interesting (not the game itself, but the existence and methodology of the patent application).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The format it is nice, the way Google does it in that PDF frame (well, nice if you have a PDF plugin installed, but I would think most of us do at this point). The text itself was also interesting in that it indicated that the 1974 ver. of the BCA rulebook includes games not listed in the later versions. Time to look for a copy! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you pointed that out. Can't find the 1974 edition, but earlier editions would likely have the same different material right? I just ordered the 1970 edition from amazon.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And I just got the '71! I think we were both doing that pretty much simultaneously. Anyway, yeah, I figure any version at least as old as 1974 should have that material. I've been meaning to add something somewhere about the differences between the World Std.ized Rules and the old ones, anyway, so that'll come in handy for that as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Out-standing~~ Done: Putting blazz into WP:CUEGAMES under "probably non-notable", but with notes about this ref. and the Shamos one mentioned elsewhere, in case it is later deemed worthy of an article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Resolved

– Self-resolving notice.

On 2 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William A. Spinks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani ^talk 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. We should have a special template for first timers with champagne and fireworks. I must admit it was the pic that swung it, but I couldn't go with the alternative suggestion which was too much in the style of Do you care: "...that John Doe was born in 1919" or "...that trees are a type of plant". Yomangani ^talk 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Danke! Yeah, that super-short alt. suggestion really made me cringe. Was that from a regular DYK admin, or just some random passer-through? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A regular. The alternative suggestion they made for another nom was very good, and I've put it in the next update. I just think they missed the point on yours. Yomangani ^talk 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, pobody's nerfect! Maybe after a while they start to blend into one another... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cue Sports?

Resolved

– Moved to WP:CUETALK.

Hi,

I learned a new term today, thanks to the move of billiards to its new location. Since it seems from the talk page that you championed this, I thought I'd stop by to let you know. This doesn't constitute an objection, or anything, but I must concur with Robert West's observation that I wouldn't have guessed that article name in five trillion years. If you're keeping any kind of informal measure on the currency of the term, lump me in with the confused. In it's own way, this is very fitting, as I'm quite bad at all forms of the game! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are bored and read the entire debate there (it is quite tedious, I warn you), I addressed West's issue that you raise here also. No one is suggesting that the average joe on the street says, "hey, Jane, let's go have a beer and play cue sports". The term is simply a classifier, and with this particular topic a disambiguator, because "billiards" means at least 4 different (conflicting) things to different people. The English folks were quite irritated that the main, general (now-) "Cue sport" article was (back then) "Billiards", because to them that word means "the game of English billiards, and no other". Meanwhile many but not all Americans interpret the term to mean "carom billiards games, as a class", as do many non-native English speakers. Other Americans mean "[[Pocket billiards|pool", period, not even being aware that carom billiards games exist, and yet other Americans, and many non-English speakers of English elsewhere (Hong Kong, New Zealand, etc.), and the rest of the non-native English speakers, mean "cue sports, in general" by this term. "Billiards" is just hopelessly ambiguous. I think it might even set a Wikipedia record for, well, uselessness as an article title. Kind of by default, we have it redirecting to "Cue sport". So, the unlikelihood of someone manually entering "cue sport" into the Wikipedia search box really isn't an issue. There are loads of articles like "Mike Smith (actor)", "Mike Smith (physicist)", "Mike Smith (Pokemon character)", etc.; no one is expected to literally enter those text strings as search terms either. Hope that helps explain the situation. PS: See also "water sports", as another example. If people want to go water skiing or surfing, they say so, not "let's go do water sports". That is, the everyday use of the term isn't really an issue at all; the value of the term as an unambiguous top-level classifier is where the value is. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stanton, if I might chime in. While I agree with your summary above, I am concerned about its usage in the text of articles. I think we need it as a disambuation term for organizational purposes (I think you've heard me say this a few times but I don't think I've ever embellished), but I think its use in article prose should be minimized as much as possible for the very reasons detailed in Xoloz's post above. Oh, and on a complete tangent, remeber that patent url we looked at for the game Blazz? Well get this: the game actually has an entry in Shamos.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, are we actually gonna argue for once? >;-) Gimme some examples of over-use, perhaps. I stand by the sourcing I did in the rename debate - it's a legit term, used (internationally) in the industry, and remains the only truly non-ambiguous blanket term for the whole shebang. I'm also trying to be sensitive to User:Alai and other Brits about "billiard[s]", without going too far in that direction. I'm thinking (favorably, I mean) of usages like the text in William A. Spinks that says "his lasting contribution to cue sports" - billiard chalk really does seem to apply across the whole board. And note I didn't call it "cue sports chalk". Heh. If there are other, dumber, examples I doubt I'd mind undoing them. There probably are some, but I'm not remembering any of them (or probably would have already dealt with it!) I tend to treat "pocket billiards" the same way. The industry has preferred this term for almost a century, but because it isn't used much by "real people" I try to only use it as a classifier in reference to the table type (e.g "snooker is a form of pocket billiards" - but emphatically not of pool, per se). I've probably poohed that screwtch a couple of times too, but I'm sure those can be edited away over time. Jist: Not trying to be particularly argumentative, but not aware of any particular, egregious "industry terminology geeking" instances. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think either you're reading more into my post than I meant, or I implied something I didn't mean to with loose writing. I've only noticed its use in prose crop up a few times and the one for which I objected to I edited it out (I forget which article). I don't really like the beginning of the main article cuesports, but I haven't thought of a good change. What I meant to say, is that we should strive to keep in mind that it shouldn't be used generically all over for the reasons Xoloz brought up, and we should keep an eye out for its overuse, without implying that it's currently a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right! I do remember the revert you are talking about; it was "back when", but I saw it and thought "oh, yeah, there wasn't really any reason at all to use that longwinded term there". Heh. Anyway, there probably are a few unnecessary uses of "cue sports" (and "pocket billiards") here and there. I'm with you that Xoloz's and (Robert West's) concerns have a valid ultimate base. If I go to the Efren Reyes article and see "is a Filipino professional pocket billiards cue sport player..." I'm going to cough up my own skull. >;-) I do think the terms have some value in introductory materials about the actual sports, as such, e.g. snooker, but thereafter do not need to be used in such articles at all. Also think the utterly general, all-inclusive stuff like Cue sport, Glossary of cue sports terms and Category:Cue sports are properly named, but would resist renaming billiards table and billiard balls, because literally no one actually uses phrases like "cue sports balls", even among industry marketing flacks. It's one thing to use cue sports as a generic classifier, but quite another to impose it as name, per se. Are our wavelengths any better synched now? If not lemme know. E.g. I'm not certain you'd agree with using the c.s. term to explicate what snooker is, for example, or concur with my use of it in William A. Spinks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we're pretty jibed. Note that if I ever get around to writing it (I'm not touching it unless and until I get the Stein/Rubino encyclopedia back), I would call an article on the history of the sport, "History of billiards" because that is what it is called historically. Of course, writing all these articles with history is laying the groundwork for that eventual article, which, by the way, is the best prospect I see in the subject area for an article that would lend itself to being an FA.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur on all points, I think. "History of cue sports" is kind of plausible, but only from a late 20th to early 21st century perspective, and just doesn't sound right, even if Category:Cue sports does; the latter is a thoroughly modern classifier. I think I'd only go with "History of cue sports" if the article ended with "And this month's tournament winners are..." Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this discussion and thought I would add my 2-cents (which is too late since the matter has been resolved). The U.S. Patent Office has been dealing with descriptively classifying cue sports for a very long time and probably to as great of extent as any other organization. They actually settled on calling it "billards or pool",[1] which supports the idea that the term "billiards" or the term "pool" is not sufficient by itself to convey the topic name, even in the United States. I could not determine how the United Kingdom patent office handled the name issue. The analogy to water sports is good. In reply to a post above, if there is a desire to modify the beginning of the cue sports article, this description might provide some ideas. -- Jreferee 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; may come in handy, as someone has tagged the main article's intro as insufficient. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Billiards pics

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

On another topic, any ideas where I could get a picture to upload at commons of a leather shake bottle? Would be useful in a number of articles—kelly pool of course, and I am 80% done with a write up of bottle pool.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just found my digital camera (now if I could just find the box that has my Shamos book in it...), and I happen to have a shake bottle (leather not plastic, though it is not an antique), and modern plastic pills/peas, so I guess I can do it after I charge up the batteries. Have intended to produce a boatload of pics for commons, on every other billiardy thing I can think of, but have been doing other stuffs — still working on William Hoskins in a sandbox, and have been building (maybe 15% done) perhaps the most badazz template of all time (a unified WikiProject talk page banner that can serve multiple projects at once, intead of having 5 on a page; initially inspired by the fact that we (WP:CUE, I mean) don't have the human resources for our own Assessment Dept. but could make use of the ones at WP:SPORTS, WP:BIO... long story about where it's going beyond that, to do with increasing community complaints about the "over-templatification" of talk pages, boneheaded attempts to hide all such templates in a "drawer" virtually no one will ever open, and so on; like I say, long story), and various other time sponges. So I just kind of backburnered the pics idea, but if you need that one now, I don't see why I can't produce one post-haste. Gimme a pointer to the draft bottle pool article, and I'll see if I can put together a pic or two that very directly address it (vs. Kelly pool). I don't yet have a set of clay balls for that old-tyme feel, though have been eyeing a few sets on eBay from time to time, much less antique peas. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As with most articles, I am writing it offline. Note though that the bottle in bottle pool is a prop used in the game itself and peas aren't used at all. The bottle is placed upside down on the center spot and is a carom target that scores point if knocked over by either of the two cue balls used in the game after caroming off a ball, but loses a player their turn if knocked over by either of the two object ball in the game. There's more to it than that, but that's the gist. A picture of the bottle upside down at the center of a pool (with no view of pov background, people posters etc.) would be ideal.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can do, but I just found my 2006 BCA rulebook, and it says 1 cue ball, and the #1 and #2 object balls. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

MoS type stuff

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

"Thou art God" - the greeting used in Stranger in a Strange Land.
Dates - there is near consensus about delinking years, however one or two of those that were anti, were vociferously so, mainly User:Rebecca, who has blocked users and done "admin rollback" on their edits, to the disgust of many other admins. WP:MOSNUM points out that context is key, it's as far as we could get with unanimity, with mere consensus we could have maybe gone a little further. I have certainly de-linked many hundreds of years with two complaints (both from "antis" in the long long debates) and a handful of queries. You can certainly point to WP:MOSNUM to say that default linking is not policy.
Combination links - I certainly agree with calcium carbonate, I suspect the place names depend partly on display style. I use pop-ups, so I see the link, but the browser hint is too far away for me. If you see underlines then that and the comma probably make the two links clearly seperate, if not the comma can appear (psychologically) blue. Also in the article you cite, since California is already linked to, the argument for leaving it unlinked grows stronger. I did think there was some guidance on this, but haven't been able to find it recently. Rich Farmbrough, 12:46 3 March 2007 (GMT).

I'd completely forgotten! Been a long time...
Hmm. My read of WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT are that it's kind of a toss-up. Darn.
WP:CONTEXT suggests strongly that using one link is better, but doesn't go very deep into the topic - that part could have been only intended to address one such situation, not all of them, so it's again not very authoritative. Ah well.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography articles by quality statistics modification request

Resolved

– "Redirected" to appropriate place.

I noticed that you edited the Biography articles by quality statistics template on February 18, 2007[2] that thought that you might be able to reply to my request that I posted here. -- Jreferee 05:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't know a thing about KingbotK's workings; I only just installed it into my AWB today! The only effect I've had on the template in question is narrowing its left-most label field so that the template fits inside right-side infoboxes again (and even this trick I borrowed from another, similarly-formed, though very different-purpose, template that used a similar table. What you ask for seems like a good idea (esp. given I'm a bio article assessor myself, though I stick to B-class and lower; not sure my understanding of the criteria are truly deep enough yet for me to be determining something as A-class). But, I don't know enough about the background code to make the changes you are seeking (at least not without possibly breaking something). I'm sure someone else reading that talk page does, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My warning of 71.183.11.205

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Have a look at this person's history, he had edited the page twice when I came along and has since replaced and blanked several pages, I assumed bed faith because the page was being deleted progressively. Thank you for your concern but for tests (edits that change content in good faith) I do scale back the warning I give. I'm glad you assume good faith, but Adding insulting content is not good faith, and v3 is the minimum level that assumes bad faith. I'm sorry if you dissagree with this but I feel justified. Adam McCormick 03:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do disagree, strongly:

User vandalizes twice in rapid succession (first two edits ever), which counts as one vandalism since not warned between them:

19:55, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Albinism (→Causes)

19:57, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Albinism (→Types of human albinism)

You warned, using a level-3 warning...:

20:00, March 4, 2007 Alanbly (Talk | contribs) (Warned about Vandalism)

...yet user had not done anything at all other than the one vandalism until:

20:16, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) List of rabbit breeds (→British Giant)

(Those are my local timestamps, not UTC, but copy-pasted directly from history & contribs.)

It isn't right to ABF based on two edits. The assumption did turn out to apparently be a correct one, but it was simply an assumption, and if the user continues to do this, but is not warned properly (in numerical order), it is likely that AIV won't do anything about him/her/it, which is why I fixed the warning levels. The numbers in the uw- templates are not severity levels of infraction, they are counts of warnings in the last week.

PS: The fact that an edit deleted something or added something dumb or insulting doesn't necessarily mean bad faith. Lots of especially younger noobs goof off like this when they first get here because they don't really understand yet and can't believe they can actually change things but why not do so for kicks. I'm not saying that this is certainly this user's modus operandi, but it could be. The fact the the user tried to remove the warnings suggests someone possibly embarassed - outright malicious vandals rarely bother. I guess we'll see if he/she continues to do this sort of stuff and gets blocked. :-) Anyway, I'm not trying to bite your ankles, just trying to help your uw tagging actually eventually get the desired results at AIV.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that there will be no action until someone is malicious four times, I had no idea that this was the user's first edit but I'll check before leaving a message next time. I'll just stick to uw-bv for easily identifiable abuse then instead of v3, I will endeavor to give new editors a long leash. Thank you for your concern Adam McCormick 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Keen (n.b. I didn't find anything uncivil about either side of the dicussion). Minor word of warning though: Over-use of uw-bv gets people upset too. It's better to go through the 4 step process. AIV rarely rejects a ban request that follows that process. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my adoptees asked me about this discussions, so please allow me to interject (a month after the fact). While I agree that starting at level 3 is too strong here, there is a case for using {{uw-test2}}, which was intended partly for those who make an random edit to a page, then revert it themselves. If self-reverts are good enough for a test2, then this should qualify as well. Thus, literally, the numbers in the uw- templates are not "counts of warnings in the last week", at least not all of the time (I suspect it's more of a generalization anyway). Another situation I can think of is if someone makes five deletions over five days; it's likely that you can start at level 3 at that point. Xiner (talk, a promise) 15:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I can buy that. In the former case I think I would still use uw-test1, since not everyone agrees with "jumping" to uw-test2 just because there's been a self-revert (if anything, I think self-corrective action militates against it, and that uw-test1 should be upgraded to also mention self-reverts). In that latter case I think I would do:

{{subst:Welcome2}}

===Your XX Month YYYY deletion edit to the [[:Whatever]] article==
{{subst:uw-delete1}} ~~~~

===Your XY Month YYYY deletion edit to the [[:Whatever2]] article==
{{subst:uw-delete2}} ~~~~

===Your XZ-ZZ Month YYYY deletion edits to the [[:Whatever3]], [[:Whatever4]] and [[:Whatever5]] articles==
{{subst:uw-delete3}} ~~~~

Edit summary: Welcome to Wikipedia, but please do not remove material from articles without discussion first; it is considered vandalism.

(Minus the welcome parts if not a new user.)

Just to have a record in place of the deletion activities for AIV investigating admins. I also agree that the blatant vandal tag is sometimes appropriate, such as when an article is replaced en masse by a string of profanity aimed at a specific person and that sort of thing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: As time has gone on, the number levels of the warnings have migrated even further away from the "number of warnings this week" model; I'm not sure I personally agree with this, but it is happening. And I've also seen some people state that leaving more than one different-level user warning at a time (e.g. because one belatedly found a user vandalizing three articles) is "wrong", but I strongly disagree with that. They did it, they get warned appropriately, period. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Resolved

– Sockpuppet nonsense.

I started editing wikipedia again, if you don't mind. [The previous unsigned comment was added by Jeff Defender (talk · contribs), 15:40, March 5, 2007 ]

? You hardly need to notify me what you are doing... I really hope that won't consist of filing more frivolous AfDs, however. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All: Please note that a sockpuppet investigation I initiated and researched confirmed that Jeff Defender (talk · contribs) is in fact a sock puppet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottle pool

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

The pics were invaluable. Much appreciated. Was a lot of work. Tell me what you think. Up for dyk here.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ehhhxcellent! I was expecting a 1-2 source restatement of the BCA book pages, and here's fourteen sources, incl. Sinclair Lewis even. Nice. A yeoman's job! PS: Did you try the bi-level image trick like I used in three-ball? For those with thick glasses it might work better. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! If you look at my replies to you on my talk page, I looked at three ball and didn't see what you were talking about. Is it possible it was removed? By the way, regarding Sisyphus, I hate to remind you of this but language in direct quotes never gets wikified (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Quotation. By the way, I'm turning in right now so I won't see any other messages until tomorrow.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The 3B article: I mean that I inlined the closer-up version of the pic in the article and then in the caption I linked to the wider-angle shot, so that the balls are a little more visible if you glance at the picture, while the more expansive view of the table is available if you really want to study the setup. As for wikilinking in quotations, the weird thing is I was just reading this stuff about a day ago and it said that there wasn't actually any consensus on that point at all. But it wasn't in that particular policypage, though. The two pages are thus obviously out-of-synch with each other as to consensus on that issue. I wasn't actually looking for details on that point, but more about date linking. I can't for the life of me remember where it was now, but to paraphrase it said "some editors think that material inside quotations should never be wikilinked, while a countervailing viewpoint is that if anything in a quotation might be unclear it should certainly be linked, because this is a wiki and an encyclopedia, and it should be as helpful as possible to the reader." W/o finding that again, I have no idea which view might be more current. I feel torn on it myself. I think the average 2007 (vs. 1927, when Greek and Latin material was de rigeur in any education) reader will not know that word or even know enough to look for its eponymous namesake, while I also think it looks funny and out of place to have the link inside the quote. I guess, revert it - people know how to use a dictionary, after all, be it online or off. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Resolved

– Just plain old news at this point; rm. this template if the topic needs further discussion.

Thank you for your unsolicited comments. In response, it's necessary to note that the man's rationale for not accepting the proper subhead was "I wrote the article." One might ask: What does that mean? Why is he saying that? Any reasonable observer would conclude he is asserting ownership, saying his edits supersede those of other editors.

In this light, of course, your WP:DICK remark was needlessly insinuating, to be polite.

Finally, many editors have trepidation about new messages. That's because people are slow to compliment and quick to complain. I hope you can see why ascribing trepidation solely to those receiving the message paints a selective and incomplete picture. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If you new issues at some other point, please do communicate them. --69.22.254.111 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not his rationale for not accepting what you believe was an improved edit. Here's the quote: "Those are not references because they were not used as references (I wrote the article; please see the page history)." I.e. he was saying "I should know, since I'm the one that put them there". He then proceeds to explain to you in quite a bit of detail what his actual rationale is. "I wrote the article" wasn't even part of the rationale, it was a side note). And yes, I'm aware that it is pretty WP:DICKish to mention WP:DICK. I don't do it often, and I try to do it humorously. Maybe that wasn't conveyed well in your case - sorry! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why this is so important to us an apparent third party. Please understand: For that person to say that certain things weren't References because he didn't use them as references implies that either no one else used them as references (which I, for one, certainly had), or that anyone else who used them as references didn't matter. And really, to say, "I wrote the article" does a disservice to everyone else who wrote that article. Thank you for understanding, and for the op to respond. --69.22.254.111 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the extended delay; I didn't notice your re-response until now. Again, I don't think Fuhghettaboutit meant anything like "I wrote the article, so I know more about the topic and its potential sources than you do"; he clearly means "I wrote the article, so I know what I meant to convey and reference by the sources that I personally cited". Very different meaning. I understand how the former could be arrived at, but as I said I think his clearly explained rationale following the "I wrote it" comment makes that interpretation highly unlikely. I realize this is 2-month-old news at this point, but I'd rather respond belatedly than not at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What is this?

Resolved

– Just a minor error.

Ah, what is this supposed to mean? If you're referring to me, note that (1) The project was MfD'd first and (2) I didn't have anything to do with it. It appears to be just a coincidence. If you are referring to me, I'd request that you make the appropriate correction, thanks. Herostratus 02:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't follow you. I'm defending Wikipedia:Service awards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards from a concerted attack. I'm on your side! Where does it look like I'm not? I don't think I've referred to you at all, other than obliquely as something like "the original creator of the page" or whatnot. While I did make a mistake in there (I mistook User:Dev920 for a WikiProject Awards opponent when he/she is in fact a supporter, and fiddled with my text to fix that mistake) I'm hardly attacking you! Just the opposite. It pretty well ticks me off that the page is under attack, after a 50/50 public opinion almost a year ago followed with nothing but constructive and increasing community participation. I'm your ally in this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I am truly sorry, I misread you altogether, my apologies. Something seems to be up at WikiProject Awards but I'm not up on that. Nevermind. Herostratus 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Looks like the MfD is going very well (from our perspective). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Billiards

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

No, I don't play billiards (although I did play some pool in college - not really the same, I know). The reference is actually somewhat more obscure than that. Ajwain is an Indian spice similar to cumin or caraway, and is often known in the English speaking world as carom, or carom seed. Although it can be difficult to find, I prefer it to more readily available substitutes because it has (in my opinion) a slightly more complex flavor (I'm a snob, I know). At any rate, it seemed like an obscure enough choice of pseudonym that I wouldn't encounter other editors with names like "Carom15" and "xCaromx" - the connection to billiards, snooker, etc., did not occur to me until somewhat later. Carom 06:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! I'm actually quite a spice "freak", so I am curious what the lesser substitutes are. Cumin? Turmeric? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The most common substitutes are cumin and caraway, although dried thyme can be used in pinch. Carom 19:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! I like both cumin and caraway, so I'll have to give carom a try. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Considering what a goldmine Shamos' encyclopedia is, I picked up another book by him. Wow! You want an overview of the entire sport, you have to get this. Pool: History, Strategies and legacies (Amazon listing, if you're interested).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good. Just ordered one (for $7, not $64, heh). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:merger of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs

Resolved

– Discussion never resumed.

Hi SMcC (Stanton? I always thought your name was Scott!) - the "List of stubs" was created as an easy way of keeping track of all the stub types (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Archive_7#Compact list of stubs). Judging by the comments at the time, I'm surprised it still exists, but going by the number of userpages linking to it presumably it has some use. The problem is trying to keep it updated. Perhaps it might be prudent to hold off on a merger until we've worked out how to cut the main "Stub types" list down to a more loadable size...? Grutness...wha? 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Stanton. I'm sure there are some Scott McCandlishes out there somewhere of course. Anyway, as for the merge it's just a tagged proposal. I wasn't meaning to just go do it in 5 minutes or anything. :-) The thing to me was that (and yeah, I'm surprised one of these still exists too), the two pages seem to serve precisely the same function, and keeping them both up-to-date seems rather unlikely to happen. Until I updated it just now, one of them was already a month or so out-of-date, meanwhile the mergefrom target article appears to be being very regularly updated. But, I could be completely missing something, and maybe their purposes are subtly different? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in the Mosconi Page

Resolved

– Discussion never resumed.

I do not understand why you suppressed the section I added on "similar events". There will never be 100 links as the similar refers to the Ryder Cup like event opposing continents and mainly the USA and Europe. The article refers to the Mosconi as the Ryder Cup as a template for the competition. There is therefore a logic in linking other event on the same format or opposing different continents. I realise that you may have been unaware of the logic I gave to this section. If this is a a problem of precision I understand. I will call this section. "Others events opposing continents". BestGpeilon 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Something like that would probably work (and no I wasn't aware of the logic, since it wasn't in the edit summary.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:High school sports associations in the United States

Resolved

– Moot issue.

You added a speedy renaming template to Category:High school sports associations in the United States, but the nomination was never completed (needs to be added to the speedy section at WP:CFD). As it was nominated a long time back, I've removed the tags. If you want to renominate it, and have any problems with the inaptly named CFD "speedy" process, please let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was in there; someone objected to this along with a zillion other consistency renames on the silly basis that it was a UK vs. US English fight (given that I'm an American, you can see why I think that was silly). I just gave up on the issue. Whoever dumped it out of speedy didn't remove the speedy tag, methinks. Either that or I just forgot to add this cat. to the group speedy rename nom. Either way, it's a dead issue. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the rule was that things American were supposed to be spelled wrongly^WAmericanly. Ah well, better luck next time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bigger issue than that, but I'm not sure I want to get into it again. A lot of people like to get hot around the collar about this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikiworld template?

Resolved

– Moved back to original talk page to keep the thread consolidated.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to in the message you left on my talk page. I'm not new to Wikipedia -- I've been a constructive editor and community member here since sometime in 2005, and I don't run around deleting things willy-nilly... Can you clarify? Killdevil 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Double-checking to make sure I'm not in error. Yep here it is - you deleted all of the documentation from this template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. You're right. That template was added to article talk on the Dinosaur page, which I help maintain. I was archiving discussions on that talk page, and I suppose I must have clicked through to the template page somehow. Killdevil 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Billiards Page

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Great work! I will try to make some time to look at the references. MichaelJHuman 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strickland

Resolved

– Moved to User talk:MichaelJHuman

Let me know if that's an improvement. I removed much of the reference to specific obscenties. I think the link to breaking of the cue, as well as Strickland on Strickland should fortify my points. I was unsure about mentioning of talking during matches, but I thought it was noteworthy...no other pro player I have seen talks as much during money matches.

MichaelJHuman 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As said at article talk page, anything that can be reliably sourced (i.e. from Billiards Digest or some other reputable, longstanding publication, not from "Jim Bob's Pool Blog") is probably good material; the Mosconi Cup article already sourced should probably be re-read for details, and honestly there's more said about him at the Michaela Tabb article, almost, than in his own. I think some of the details should be restored. I wouldn't bother with removing obscenities just because they are obscenities; WP:CENSOR and all. If they can be reliably sourced. I do think Strickland is one of the real "characters" of the game (though I think it is too PoV for the article to boldly state this without directly quoting someone notable as having said it). Wouldn't want his article to be too dry, if you see what I mean. By the same token I wouldn't add that he called Efren Reyes a "jerk" in 1982 in a pool hall in Tokyo, just because Reyes said so in a ten-year old interview. Picking fights with fans at televised events is noteworthy. Getting in the face of other players and the ref during World Championship Matches is too. Sharking on his own time while on the road or being testy at minor events really isn't encyclopedic. If it was, hell, I would have an article here, as a "notable cranky pool player". Heh. I think we should aim for the article to be colorful in direct proportion to that of Earl's antics, while always being sourcedly factual and not making PoV judgements. Even calling him "controversial" or something to that effect should be sourced (i.e. cite the controversy and those labelling it as such). These articles, esp. on Strickland and on O'Sullivan, and... it's coming back to me now — I think I was thinking of Marlon Manalo as another article with serious problems like this — tend to wander too far into WP:NOT#SOAP and {{Magazine}} territory. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page

Resolved

– Old news

Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list.

The instructions for getting or receiving a coach have changed. It's now a self-help process: just look for a coach from the list of coaches, and contact one. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strickland pics

Resolved

– Punted to Talk:Earl Strickland and WT:CUE.

Hi :)

AZ Billiards replied to my request to use their photo of Strickland. Here's what they said:

>Use any of the ones that are credited to Diana Hoppe. Just make sure that you credit her as 'Diana Hoppe - Pool Pics by Hoppe'.

>Thanks, >Mike

Does that make it sound like we can source their photo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelJHuman (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Probably. Do you have a last name and contact info for "Mike"? If you get me the details I can take care of this at the image page (use e-mail - see e-mail link at top of my userpage; other people's e-mail addresses shouldn't ever be put into WP pages, even talk pages, since spammers can harvest them, even from article histories!) If you want to do the license tagging and stuff yourself, a good trick is do something like 'Mike Smith, contactable at the site "AZBilliards.com", with a username of "MSmith"', so e-mail address harvesters won't recognize it as an e-mail address but any human could figure it out. But anyway, I know how to source pics with the right licensing templates, so it might be easier for me to deal with it. You could just forward me a copy of the e-mail. Might be good for more than one of us to have a copy of it anyway, just in case!

Oh! Can you write back and ask him if this means we can use other photos (of other players and stuff) by same photographer? Their "any of the ones" language suggests this, but I think we should know for certain. That could come in very, very handy. Or I can do it; either way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ? 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't grok

Resolved

– Just a miscommunication.

What's up? I see you found cribbage. As you see, I couldn't find any sources but pool sources describing the game:-( Don't understand your recent edit "Twiddle to avoid idea that the link went to card game". The link does go to the card game!--Fuhghettaboutit 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No, it was "to card game". That is, the original text said [[Cribbage|card game]], so I futzed it so it could say [[Cribbage|namesake card game]] so it wouldn't look like the article was directing someone to the generic Card game article. See what I mean? Just a usability tweak. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Got ya. Up for dyk here.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

BCA books

Resolved

– Discussion is at other talk page.

Hey we cross-posted. Answering your recent quiry on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And edit conflicted! I'll drop by your page in a sec. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic.

Resolved

– Moved to the other user's talk page for some pointers to WP:ATT, not to mention WP:NPA.

I do not see how my work is unsourced or does not meat other criteria.

if you have obsessive compulsive disorder or some other mental derangment which means you don't like people touching your perfect (oh, the lie) work, GET A LIFE.

It seems that what ever you do to the article, thats fine. Anybody else? NOT ON.. Correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtorey (talk • contribs) 07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Resolved

– Dealt with at MOSNUM talk page.

Hello SMcCandlish,

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I'm afraid I reverted the larger one, though; I have some sympathy with some of its points, but I felt it changed the guidance too much to be implemented without being discussed on the talk page first. (I've found it advisable to be more cautious in editing the MoS than ordinary articles, because it affects all the other articles, and people tend to quote it as gospel in edit disputes).

Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood, sorta. I think my monster justification/rationale/explanation post just made at the article talk page may have come off as a little more testy than intended, but I hadn't seen your note here (someone else left a comment after you, below, and I only noticed that one at the time). My main concern was that the reversion was so total instead of selective - you even reverted some simple typo and grammar fixes. But I'm sure it'll all sort out. As for caution, well, I take WP:BOLD to heart pretty much. There is nothing sacrosanct about guideline pages; I edit them all over the place, generally with positive reactions and results. As it was a pretty big set of edits, I'm not angry about the revert or anything, I just expected I'd be reverted on specific points that were contentious, while the more obvious stuff would be left in place. The end result is a sprawling set of subtopics on the talk page, but oh well. Talk archives exist for a reason, after all. Lastly, the fact that people quote it like some form of holy writ is precisely why I think it needs these changes and fast. For a good example of the ridiculous problems being caused, please see Talk:List of redundant expressions#Re-inserting my changes and the revert at issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law AfD

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Of course you're right that that would be an awful argument for notability! I didn't mean to imply otherwise--I meant it as a swipe at those who keep trying to have it deleted (or to try to have their own 'variant' added to the entry). Their very attention to the article argues against their own point. I made an actual argument on the first AfD but now am a bit annoyed, I suppose. To my mind the Washington Post article and a Google search establish that WP:N is met, and the two media uses of the entry establish its usefulness. JJL 12:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<grin style="sheepish:very;" /> Do'h! Sorry, I'd totally misunderstood your point. I was a heavy player in the Notability Wars of Nov. 2006 - Feb. 2007, so I am probably a little oversensitive when it comes to misuse (real or apparent-to-me) of WP:N in AfD. Anyway, I totally agree with you on this stuff. Both of the AfDs were in utter bad faith, and the Speedy Keeps were completely appropriate. If you are bored and want a fun read, check out the talk page of the user who had their pet "Criticisms" OR section deleted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Template Esoteric

Resolved

– Moot; template long since rewritten and moved.

Hi SMcCandlish, I saw your 'parser functions' being incorporated in the template, though I think it is not always enough to understand selectors: there can also be intricate handling e.g. by complex css etc by the choices being made. I therefore think 'setup' should remain in as well: it's the best word as it can as well mean the general concept, as a particular handling on some lines of code. I had already suggested a renewed template and as others I think the name should be changed, to 'Intricate' which appears to be the middle ground between 'Complex' or 'Conditional logic' as has also been suggested, on the low end, and AzaToth's concern for the more esoteric templates. Would you mind inspecting the suggested template at Template Talk:Esoteric#Move? and the comments thereunder including the one I just placed there with once more a request to unprotect, and please leave a note there; else we're going to get stuck with 'esoteric' forever, though few people seem to be hapy with its current name. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 17 Mar 2007 05:27 (UTC)

Template:Uw-delete3

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Thank you for fixing it. It was driving me nuts and I could not figure it out. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure which of my 4 recent edits to the page in question that refers to, but glad at least one of them was useful. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

/NG section removal

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Very much not! Must have been a browser problem of some sort. Thanks for pointing that out... fortunately in time for me to recover it from my browser history. Alai 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cache good. Missing data baaaad. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates wikiproject

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Hi,

Have made several such templates. Can pop in from time to time but mostly busy... Cheers --Ling.Nut 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. I don't expect it to be controversial or anything; it's whole point is to reduce controversy (and bugs, and inconsistencies...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your monster sig

Resolved

– Moving discussion back to other user's talk page.

Can you please reduce the incredible hugeness of your sig? It's very distracting on talk pages. Something about 2/3 the current size would do it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My sig length is 147 bytes and renders at 72x16 on Firefox on Vista, yours is 277 bytes and renders at about 200x16. Honestly, don't you have something better to do than be critical of other editors' signatures, when you yourself could be subject to the same criticism? -/- Warren 13:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(The gist was the visible size, which affects line-height, not the source code length; in Safari at least, Warren's sig was more like 200x32.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Non-authoritative

Resolved

– to mutual satisfaction.

The problem is we have nothing better. My recollection of all this (based on bits and bobs that float about in conversations over the years) is that there is no real cast iron source on the origins - hence why it is regarded as a "accepted story" rather than fact. How do we source that? ! SFC9394 16:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, cite books about snooker than mention such details and say something, anything, about where they got the info from. I'm not saying the organization is inherently untrustworthy, by any means, just that they're obviously summarizing something else, and not bothering to cite it. They had to get the story from somewhere, right? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I will have a browse, I do have one book which I will have a look at later in the week which may detail it - the thing is I don't know if such sources would say - this "story" really does seem to be some sort of handed down word of mouth line that dithered in army circles and snooker circles up until there was wider interest from the 50's onwards - at that point those word of mouth stories were then just recounted as "fact". SFC9394 17:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If the books just say "this, by the way, is an aprocryphal story", that in itself is a citable fact to add to the article. :-) My issue with the World Snooker mini-article is that's just in a void; no author, no source, nothin'. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I guess I am in one of those "If I am going to do it, I ma going to do it right" moods! Also, it is observable that the main failing point of FA candidates is sub-standard reffing. In the past with previous articles I have added major contributions to I have never really bothered with it all, but this is on a "nice" subject - the BBC site coupled with a few of the broadsheets can just about cover everything online (I am also trying to provide Waybackmachine versions where possible, and where not submit the sites to archive.org (through the alexa site) to ensure they will be archived in the next wee while and so at some future point the whole thing has a degree of future proofing about it. SFC9394 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is well covered now! SFC9394 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Resolved

– Stale topic.

Hi. I really, really appreciate your comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Consensus -- even though we disagree about a particular point. Disagreeing is OK. Some other things that have been happening are teetering on the brink of being enough to induce me to resign from Wikipedia.

Since we disagree on that point, let's discuss it. You think it's better not to say "Not everything which is attributable is worthy of inclusion" in the Attribution policy because it's covered in other policies. I wonder how strongly you feel about this and what the reasons are for not wanting to have some duplication of information. More importantly, I would really appreciate it if someone who disagrees with me would acknowledge understanding of my concern and explain how they think the thing through so as to avoid or otherwise take care of that particular concern.

My concern is that people may interpret the new, unqualified "not whether it is true" wording as a license to knowingly insert false (but attributable) statements as direct assertions without prose attributions. Perhaps more realistically, my concern is that when someone argues that something should be deleted or prose-attributed on the grounds that it is false, people may take the "not whether it is true" wording as a license to refuse to discuss the other person's argument and to insist that the material stay in as written on the grounds that it is attributable.

The particular sentence you disagree with including is only one way, and not the best way, to address this particular concern. I would appreciate it if you would indicate that you understand my concern -- even if you don't agree with it -- and explain how you think about this, and maybe even suggest other changes in wording that could address that concern without raising too many other problems. I've already suggested deleting "not whether it is true" (which, to me, would result in wording with meaning more closely resembling the original policy); or changing it to "not merely whether it is true" (or "solely" as someone else suggested) or going back to the original wording "verifibility, not truth". I'm sure there are lots of other possible ways of handling it.

I think in all these discussions people haven't been very clear about the difference between a statement with a prose attribution and a statement without a prose attribution. There's an important difference: in the second case, the Wikipedia article is asserting the statement.

Thanks again for your comment. I feel as if finally some communication is happening. --Coppertwig 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this to talk for discussion. I wish more editors would do that (myself included; I wish I had a "Spock button" that would turn my emotions off sometimes.) Re: "teetering on the brink of being enough to induce me to resign" I hear you, but I hope you won't go that far. Much of this WP:ATT mess has me steaming from the ears, too, but quitting will be a net loss for everyone I think.

On to the details: I think the "knowingly insert false (but attributable) statements" behaviour would absolutely qualify as WP:GAMEing the system, and that experienced editors would, en masse, recognize it for WP:GAME on sight. Re: "not merely whether it is true" (or "solely" as someone else suggested) — that language works for me. To be forthright, I'm not dreadfully opposed to your original wording. My main concern is that WP:ATT is a madhouse right now. Hell, it got The Jimbo to come out of the woodwork for the first noticeable time in, well, I'm not even sure how long. So introducing stuff that is more the purview of other policies and guidelines seemed an unnecessary distraction to me, more fuel on the fire. I honestly don't feel very strongly about this point. If you make a good case for its inclusion, perhaps others won't revert it (and I'm stating that I won't, myself.) Just because I don't think the point is important here doesn't mean that anyone who does think it is important is nuts. I'm perfectly happy to shrug and walk away without kicking that snoozing dog again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and for your notes on my talk page. Actually, I didn't find Crum375's note on my talk page helpful. He said to try to achieve active consensus on the talk page first. That is exactly what I had already been doing. I've been practically standing on my head trying to get people to discuss my concern, and I was getting mostly silence in return. To go ahead and make an edit under such circumstances (while others are also making edits, without asking me first) seems very reasonable to me. The alternative seems to be to go away and let the others claim there is "consensus" -- can you think of any other possible way to proceed?

I'd rather just delete "not whether it is true". This wording is not needed once the word "verifiability" is gone. However, if that wording is there, then something needs to be inserted to balance and clarify it, (in my opinion), even if it overlaps with other policies. I feel very strongly about this since some people seem to be talking as if the whole purpose of Wikipedia is not to try to provide information that conforms with reality, and as if it's OK to knowingly insert false statements. The whole meaning, purpose and credibility of Wikipedia is at stake. I know, we can't "guarantee" that the stuff is true -- but that doesn't mean we have to run totally in the opposite direction and present it as if it's all a fiction novel or something. Maybe you can think of another counterbalancing wording you'd (and others would) be happier with. --Coppertwig 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I say just explain the reasoning and put it back in. If someone reverts without explanation demand an explanation. I guess that's really the only way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your mediatorial-ish comments at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Strong objection. Very helpful. It's nice to feel understood. --Coppertwig 23:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Most welcome. It is nice sometimes to step back and not take (much of) a position and just be a referree instead of one of the players (for the most part). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've been very helpful. I'm relieved to see the merge/whatnot tags up on WP:V and WP:NOR.

I think I've finished editing User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy. I'm not planning to take any action using it other than this message to you and a message to Rednblu. If someone wants to copy or move it (or mention/link to it), that's fine. Note that if it's copied or moved, it's probably best to copy or move the whole thing including talk page and page history.

Remember that tone of voice doesn't come across in text messages, that some people edit while tired or hungry in spite of a guideline suggesting the contrary, and that tempers can tend to flare. It's probably best to phrase any criticism in the nicest possible language, for example avoiding words like "tiresome" to describe an editor or their behaviour. I-messages may be better received, e.g. "I'm getting tired of..." rather than "[your ... is] tiresome". (I'm also learning about ways of accidentally annoying people by doing things they don't like, even if not using insulting words, and learning to avoid doing those things as much as feasible.) The more someone is being annoying, the more they might be tired or hungry or something (angry at their boss, going through a divorce, chronic pain, terminal illness, grieving etc.) and over-react to the slightest nuance of how a criticism is phrased.

Thanks again for the good work you're doing in all of this. --Coppertwig 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM

Resolved

– Stale topic.

Small world... I created Wikipedia:Naming conventions (currency) "back in the day" in an attempt to deal with this issue. It appears that the Currency page got folded into the current Dates and Numbers page. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anything I'm saying at that talk page seems to make sense, please weigh in (or even if it doesn't; I'd just as soon get it over with more quickly if I'm spouting nonsense!) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote something else....

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Wikipedia:Shouting things loudly does not make them true (or WP:SHOUT)

I was actually surprised that someone else hadn't written something like this. I do realize it's part of civility, but I figured at least someone would have written about the "I'm right, you're wrong" method of arguing. Anyway, I did my best to get the point across, but I'm sure it can be improved. Just thought you might like to take the first crack at it, or just read it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 10:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Amusing. I think the point could be made more generally though - it's not just shouting, but repetition, assertion without any facts, assertion against facts and evidence, denial of validity of others' opinions without a rationale for the denial, and a lot of other childish argument tactics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See, I knew I hadn't gotten all of my points across. One of the things I was trying to state in that essay was that being repetitive, assertive with no facts, etc. etc. is just the adult take on the classic "it's mine it's mine it's mine it's mine it's mine!" Point taken though. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, I guess I'm saying that the name of the page doesn't sum it up. Maybe use {{Nutshell}} then? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, {{nutshell}} would be good. I'll add that. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check)

I just added a brief little explanation of the point of the essay and how it relates to the title. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I added two new shortcuts which I think make more sense: WP:IMRIGHT and WP:YOUREWRONG. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 05:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Resolved

– Moot issue; WP:ATT and its related subpages have evolved well beyond the issue raised.

Very happy to see the mediation you opened re the disputedpolicy tag. I wonder whether it would make sense to add putting merge tags on WP:V etc. as part of the same mediation? One of my main complaints about the earlier process was that I didn't know about it, and would have if there had been merge tags during the whole 4 months that WP:ATT was being edited. Now that same mistake is being repeated!!! There's supposed to be a broad community discussion going on, but readers of WP:V are not being prominently told about it or invited to participate! It needs merge tags with links to the appropriate discussion. Could the merge tag issue be added to the same mediation thingy, or should I try other channels? --Coppertwig 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem of course with mediation is that it requires the cooperation of all parties, and the opposing parties in the mediation issue (as I predicted) rejected the mediation. I think that estabishes a good faith effort on my part to resolve this sensibly, and it frankly helps demonstrate the over-control and resistance-to-consensus issues I've been raising. I encourage you to bring the issues up at WP:AN. I already have, but I pissed them off by being too longwinded about it. I'm not being listened to at this point. There needs to be more than one voice taking this through proper channels. The merge tags issues should be brought up at WP:RFPP under the section for requests to edits to protected pages. I did once, but it should be done again so that RFPP admins understand that this is a multi-party request. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think at this point it would be reasonable for us to elevate this to a complaint to the Administrator's noticeboard/Incident subpage. If this isn't an issue of admins abusing their power (which I fear it may be) it is certainly an issue of consensus-building being directly impeded by the effective shut-out of non-admin users. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I've already tried WP:AN (not AN/I) and got nothing but a "be more concise" note in response. I don't think I should be the one to take it to AN/I. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please let me know if either of you proceed with either or both directions of action, so I can keep and eye on them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article National Union of General Workers

Resolved

– Request fulfilled.

A request for comments has been filed about the use of anonymous sources in reliable publications. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:National_Union_of_General_Workers#Request_for_Comment_-_Use_of_anonymous_sources_in_reliable_publications in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. Sparkzilla 06:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Been led a merry goose-chase, we 'ave...ah well. Thanks for the heads-up on the @ mark e-mail protocol. David Lyons 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yar, just toss a few extra words in there and at least most spam'vesters are hosed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I brought the RFC for the benefit of several editors on the page who were complaining that the reliability if the source was suspect because they felt that the identity of the writer was hidden. It was a fair question, given the circumstances.

That aside, I am still confused about the issue. The discussion started with you agreeing that the disputed sentence was fine, and then changing your mind to say that the op-ed piece was the equivalent of "noise" and comparing the op-ed to "trivia". The op-ed is here: [3]

If the writer was notable, or the response itself was notable (e.g. for generating sourceable controversy, forming the basis for a movie about it, whatever), good to go. Otherwise it's just a random "who cares?" factoid, like the fact that it rained today in Albuquerque for a little while. — SMcCandlish

This confuses me because 1) I thought that op-eds could be used to show claims, but not facts (this was supported by editors when I asked for coment on WT:ATT/FAQ#anonymous sources and 2) I think the claims that the union is overly militant and that its actions will affect ordinary teachers' paypackets are neither trivial, nor random, nor a factoid, and merit inclusion because they are valid criticisms of the union's actions. I suppose there's also 3) why would the source be acceptable when the person was anonymous, but not when the user is identified?

The op-ed was notable enough to merit a letter of response to Metropolis from the Deputy General of the union. [4]

I understand if you find this tiresome, but I would appreciate your clarification. Sparkzilla 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the union D.G.'s job to respond to such things; doesn't make what he/she responded to notable. I used to have a very similar PR job, and it was even my job to respond to the most ridiculous thing, if they'd appeared somewhere notable. (Note, no pun intended, what the notability is adhering to, namely the publication/venue). Op-ed can be used to show claims, but not always. Let's stipulate that the claim in the article is something like "A coutervailing view of the medical report is that it was disingenuous, paid-for by the very interest group whose views the report ended up supporting, and was written by people whose creditials are much more questionable than those of the studies refuted by the report", to make up a new example so I am not commenting on your article in particular. Let's say that the source of this claim is an anonymous (or heck, even non-anonymous) op-ed piece by a non-notable college professor. This is not a reliable source for the claim. If the claim were from the president of the American Association of the Advancement for Science, or the managing editor of Nature, or a nobel laureate in medicine, biology or statistics (i.e. someone notable, and more to the point notable in a field that has relevance to the topic of the reliability of medical studies), then it might well be a good source for the claim. To return to anonymity, if the source were a member of the White House Science and Technology Advisory Committee speaking on condition of anonymity, that might be enough; I know some editors would disagree with me. If the anonymous condemnation of the report had been widely publicized and sourceably led or contributed to controvery over the report (i.e. some other source that the publisher of the anonymous op-ed made that connection), then it definitely would be a reliable source for that fact.

I hope that is clearer. There is too much going on in the article you are talking about and too much weird stuff happening between you and the other major respondent to your RfC (see his talk page for previous arguments between the two of you) for me to be willing to say anything more concrete about the article in question, other than to say that your point #2, " I think the claims ... are valid criticisms of the union's actions are absolutely WP:OR (aside from the "I think..." framing); they can't be reliably sourced because the op-ed piece wasn't written by anyone notable or authoritative. If a third source (1 being the original publication, 2 being the op-ed in response) says something like "ever since that op-ed piece was published, there has been a storm of controversy", or "the union has entered into negotations with teachers, after last Saturday's scathing op-ed piece by a teacher", etc., then you have something both notable (the effect of the op-ed piece and reliably sourced (both as to the effect, and as to the fact, from source #2, that the op-ed exists and who wrote it and whether they were anonymous or not). If the Emperor of Japan condemns the union in a new op-ed piece, that's good to go without a third-party source saying anything about the effect of that op-ed, since he is both notable and at least arguably authoritative on issues relating to the government and economy of Japan, unlike the teacher (cf. the siamese cat example; the teacher is the random small-town cat owner, by way of analogy). Without something like that, the teacher's op-ed is simply trivia (or noise, or whatever term one prefers for a non-encyclopedic factoid). I hope that helps. And of course feel free to seek others' opinions, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of this. I watch and clean up several hundreds of bio articles, among others, so I have to deal with RS issues constantly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That was very clear. Thank you for your time. Sparkzilla 05:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Further clarification: If the Emperor of Japan writes a piece on how exciting the movie 300 is, that isn't enclopedically of any value at all (except perhaps in his own article, but even that's iffy.) He's notable in his own right but not as a movie critic, unlike Leonard Maltin or Roger Ebert (who in turn are not of any use in a WP article quoted as commenting on Japanese economics.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

Glad you liked them; I only hope they have some impact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT protection notices

Resolved

– Done, and installed.

Hello, this is just a tip about notices on WP:V and WP:OR. Please design a new notice which draws on both the notices at WP:ATT and WP:RS, and merges the protection and merge notices, and then propose it on the respective talk pages. There is a danger of template overload, but a need for a decent notice, which I would be happy to apply once it has been proposed in full. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds raisonable. I was just about to hit the coffin (dawn is coming, after all), but I'll do this first-ish thing when It Lives again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag and Wikipedia talk:No original research#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag (the template code itself is at Wikipedia:Verifiability/Header. How much discussion time should this have? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm being attacked for doing this, at Wikipedia talk:No original research#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Further update: WP:RS version now exists, because the tag presently installed at RS drew some criticism; see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#New combined merge/community discussion header tag — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good resource

Resolved

– Self-resolving commentary.

If you are looking for a free online newpaper resource for articles, I just found a new one (other than the NYT which I don't pay for). Note that I have searched high and low and there are very few free archives available. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, apparently one of the most popular papers in the country at one times and headed by Walt Whitman for a time has a free online archive from 1841 to 1902 at http://www.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/eagle/. Type in billiards and you'll see pahe after page of results for example.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! How do you get the full NYT articles then? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a home subscription, you don't pay for any of their premium online services (so in a sense it's not free per se). You are restricted to 100 archive articles per month but I've never even come close to using that up.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can fix that for you; just look up "biliards" and save every hit. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

?? Not sure what thou meanest. Searches, verily, get you abstracts. Each abstract, for sooth, thou wishest to see in glorious whole, one must invoke as one and not en mass.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant just spend 2 days downloading 100 of such article PDFs and storing them locally, so you have them any time you want them, do it again next month, etc, until you have all of them, then you'll always just have them. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are over ten thousand articles (all pdf) in the nyt archive with the word billiards appearing and once downloaded no targeted searching would work, but if you want i'll donate one percent of the money you'll need for the exabyte-size drive necessary to store them all;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well get to work! >;-) Seriously, I thought it would be a few hundred! Yeesh! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AAJ

Resolved

– I've simply been misinterpreted.

As I recall you were bringing up "Jimbo said so" arguments several times in the WP:N discussion. >Radiant< 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Only the one that I recall (though mentioned more than once, because the thread kept getting archived before it was actually resolved) - I quoted him at WT:N ca. Nov. 2006 from the original "Fame and importance" debate. And didn't assert that it meant much, that I remember (I could be wrong about that); I rephrased it as a question later, even. I'm sorry if that gave you the impression that I run around quoting or interpreting Jimbo all the time. I don't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Updated for clarity 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I've actually relied upon WP:JIMBOSAID quite a number of times in the WP:ATT debate, because certain parties are pushing an interpretation of what JW said, vs. simply quoting him in context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AAJ and such

Resolved

– to mutual satisfaction.

Those are rather old threads and I'm not one to bear a grudge. I don't really see a reason to dig them up again. >Radiant< 08:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okeydokey. Just making sure they don't get archived before their time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Resolved

– Other parties refused the mediation.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-24 Attribution has been opened. I am currently reviewing the various pages to get a solid feel on the situation. Is there anything in particular I should note? Could you provide a few links to what you feel are the areas I should pay most attention to? I'd also like to know who is having a difficult time assuming good faith and who launched a personal attack, so I'm aware of the situation. You can reply here, on the case page, on my talk page or send me an e-mail if you wish to respond with some of the information privately. Vassyana 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that would auto-close, as the parties on the other side of the dispute refused mediation, and removed the mediation header from the page (I had guessed that the header tag did something with categories, such that if the header were removed the page wouldn't be in the category and the case would just no longer be there, other than for a moot case file). I took the issue to WP:AN instead, and it has "settled", though not been entirely resolved. I trust that it will sort itself out eventually. Thanks for looking into it, and sorry your time was wasted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No waste of time at all. Sometimes drawing the attention of some mediation-minded editors so they participate as outside voices or dive into the discussion isn't a bad idea. Besides that, it wasn't a waste of my time because I became much more aware of some ongoing issues and discussions. I will close the case and join in the discussion. Vassyana 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All good then! The more "I don't put up with uncivil nonsense just because you are popular admin from 2004 (when the standards were lower)" voices that get involved, the better. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because the official case is closed doesn't mean we can't act in an informal fashion. <innocent look> --Kim Bruning 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) The standards were actually higher in 2004, I feel ... but I digress.

You go! Re: Last point - Really? A common type of complaint about RfA that I hear resolves to "it's too hard, nitpicky and investigative compared to back-when, and we're chasing off good potential admins as a result, but really need them." I wasn't around (I'm a late '05er), so I can't legitimately offer my own perspective.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, new case in point: Wikipedia talk:No original research#New combined merge/prot/community discussion header tag. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Todo vandalism?

Resolved

– It was indeed vandalism, and has been fixed; vandal blocked.

An anonymous editor went through your signatures to change the font, and added a comment at the bottom under your name. Thought you should be notified if this is not you. –Pomte 07:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalistic silliness, thanks for the heads-up. I posted it to WP:BJAODN. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT: Replied

Resolved

– User:Romanspinner figured it out.

at User_talk:Kingbotk/Plugin#WPBio_Listas. Summary:

I don't like listas= either, if you want to argue for it's deprecation we're likely on the same side.
If I can placate you by having my plugin recognise DEFAULTSORT, consider it done. If there's more to it than that you'll need to let me know.

Cheers. --kingboyk 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that would do the trick. And I just went and proposed said deprecation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Start with randomly placed talkheader, skiptotoctalk, and DEFAULTSORT template; insert WPBio, move aforementioned 3 to top, use DEFAULTSORT magic word keyword. --kingboyk 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Except, that page doesn't seem to be properly sorted... so what's gone wrong? Hmm... Can you help? See anything amiss? --kingboyk 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Nothing is coming immediately to mind. I know the DEFAULTSORT-at-top order is important (even the docs of it say that order is important), and that this works fine with {{Cue sports project}}; the WP:CUE categories it puts articles (well, their talk pages) in are sorted by family name, as intended. Oh! One thing I noticed while testing this stuff myself a month or so ago, and just about pulling my hair out, is that it can take up to a couple of hours for the DEFAULTSORT to work! I think the DB has to "catch up". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Unresolved:~~ DEFAULTSORT is still not working properly on talk pages, and {{WPBiography}} is still using listas=. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, for the sake of the thread, I left a reply dealing with the DEFAULTSORT matter on my talk page, although if you would like to maintain a similar thread, please feel free to transport anything there to your own page. Romanspinner (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Good sleuthing!

Condense poll reply

Resolved

– Self-resolving chat topic.

Unfortunately, brevity is not a strength; don't you think others will scream if I edit my comments after the fact? That's always a slippery slope ... Maybe if I bold each main point, it will be more readable? I think the poll is a fiasco anyway; I've been traveling for almost a month, and intended to weigh in on talk beginning tomorrow after catching up, but since the poll was launched, I just dove in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not an issue in this case; I believe the poll text even encourages self-refactoring over replying to people in threaded discussion style. Also, see the bottom of my "Wikilosophy userboxes" for a link to a template about "I reserve the right to refactor myself at any time" that you might want to add to your own userpage. Since adding that, I've never had a single 'Pedian challenge my self-edits (though I am careful to use ~~old version~~ new version here, and added Updated ~~~~~ after original sig, if I refactor a point that someone has already responded to and I'm revising myself in a way that would make their followup comment no longer make sense. Either that or I reply to their reply and let them know I have refactored my original in a way that makes their point moot.) Poll: I think it is a fiasco too, and apparently so do enough others that its start has been reverted, so there's nothing for you to go refactor right now anyway. :-) Anyway, why I wrote to you was that I actually agreed with much of what you posted, but it was so lengthy that I think few will read it unless it's compressed a bit next time. Even mine was a bit long and I started refactoring it to be shorter before the entire-poll revert. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do tomorrow; I really don't have the gift of brevity, but sometimes I can see it after a good night's sleep. What a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you're not a member of Red Sox Nation;[5] we definitely worry about the fat lady singing :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Resolved

– Self-resolving FYI.

I put my reasons in there...I was multitasking and hit submit earlier as I was answering the phone at the same time. Mike Searson 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted; thanks. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Resolved

– Moot.

I did it. I called mine "arguments in support," and his "arguments against," so it's all equal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I hadn't seen that we'd simply cross-edited. I changed the deleted thing to a redir, since it was mentioned prominently on the poll talk page with "my" (CT's, really) name for it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Resolved

– Just mis-remembered.

I don't think it costs anything, but thanks for offering. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I was pretty sure it did. It used to be free in-country but international was supposed to cost something !? Maybe they dropped that plan! I hope so. Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered that it's when you use Skype to call a real phone number that it costs. Duh! I feel silly now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Resolved

– Self-resolving chat.

Thanks. This is the problem with this format. I support some things (the general idea of a merge, much of the text of WP:ATT) and strongly oppose others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya. I ended up objecting on process grounds, basically, but I'm not sure my heart is in that !vote. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)