User talk:Miss Mondegreen

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miss_Mondegreen.

Wikimedia Foundation

Archives

---

Numbered Archives

• Archive 1 -- Feb/March 07
• Archive 2 -- April/May 07
  

Issue Archives

• Please continue any conversation where it was started.

Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.

I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• If you want to initiate a conversation, please create a new heading.

Continue existing conversations under existing headings.

Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Automatically sign your comments using ~~~~.

YMMV

Sorry, I missed your earlier post a few days ago. The intent, at least, was that if someone is having a cow, a dose of funny can defuse the situation. YMMV ("Your Mileage May Vary") in that not everyone finds the same things funny. So no insult was intended, and my apologies if it seemed like one. I am aware of instances of admin abuse (e.g. protecting a page in their preferred version) but that does not appear to be the case here.

I realize it's annoying if people use funky abbreviations to explain things; however, the reason people tend to do this is generally because we see a lot of situations that are similar to issues we've seen and discussed before - so people use shorter explanations and/or abbrevs because they (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) believe other people are also pretty much familiar with the kind of situation. Linking such terms gives at least some explanation of what is meant, but it may be incomplete. This may explain why such wikijargon is a bannable offense on Citizendium (although I doubt that approach is all that helpful).

The issue of admins "vs." regular editors is a rather complex situation. Power does come into it, but a part of that is in assumptions of non-admins, that may prove to be incorrect. The perception is that admins have more respect, and are more likely to be correct, than non-admins. However, this is a false causality: it is not that people gain more respect caused by becoming admins, it is that already-respected people have a tendency to become admins as a result.

In general I believe the term "admin" is badly chosen, in that it implies more power than is intended. For instance, I've seen people who believe that they're not allowed to disagree with an admin, an approach which most admins would find rather silly. Suppose that a non-admin would have "denied" the edit request and moved on, would that make the situation different? The "stepping-on-toes" issue is not nearly such a big deal: admins disagree with one another all the time, and undo each other's actions all the time. And there are clear and generally working channels to deal with actual problem admins; the main reason why these seem at times not to work is because most requests on these channels are frivolous.

I guess I should stop ranting now. I hope this clears some stuff up, and feel free to disagree or ask questions or whatnot. Happy editing! >Radiant< 11:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There are wide varieties among admins, and I think that people who are admins, especially those who have been admins a long time often miss some of the worse parts of it. Like I said, I found and still do find the piece very funny, though I don't know I'd call it policy. I didn't under the circumstances, because I felt that I was being accused of something--not only because of the way the piece was written, but because when people abbreviate and link to policy instead of explaining, there's a lack of communication, and so I had to figure out why you were linking me there. Which then put me in the position of choosing a move and guessing what you'd do. And all of the choices seemed like BAD options--or rather, options where something could go bad, and a lot of users would probably have avoided a potential conflict with an admin and just waited it out (probably not the users who edit IAR, but still). Anyway, you were great about answering and dealing the complaints and questions in a very timely manner, and you even found my comment from a few days ago and followed up, which I really appreciate.

The point we were just trying to make is that there are bad admins, and there are ones that aren't good, and winning a fight against an admin is hard. Considering that admins do have more power than the average user, it's very helpful when they are extra careful not to step on toes etc, because a lot of times users back off of a quarrel or potential quarrel with an admin because it's not worth the time or potential damage. And there often is a vast difference in levels of experience between admins and users which is partially to blame for the communication gap. If you've been doing something forever--you don't remember what was confusing two, three, four years ago. Anyway, it's just something I think admins should take into account. Anyway, thanks for following up about this. Miss Mondegreen talk  12:15, May 23 2007 (UTC)

uni high school

Find another source other than the student newspaper, and I have no problem with the material being included. As it stands, it's negative and critical, and that needs to be carefully sourced. A student newspaper does NOT cut it for that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

An explanation (but I am well drawn)

It was originally a joke my friends and I had on someone's badly drawn Street Fighter fan manga. The only okay character was Charlie, so we started calling him "Well Drawn Charlie"...then they started calling me Well Drawn Charlie, and it stuck! Oh, and I always stay in the lines. ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

I appreciate that you want the widest possible input on the Uni High dispute, but we discourage editors from engaging in internal spam. See WP:SPAM. It isn't good form to post a request in every possible place. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted at the relevant wikiprojects and at the policies. I included both ATT and V, because I've noticed that a lot of people seem to have no idea which one is policy and I'm assuming that the majority of users do not watch both talk pages.

I also personally asked the four people who have assessed or commented on a peer review lately as generally, leaving a comment at the wikiprojects yeilds little. All of these users have spent time recently reading the article, the sources and offering opinions about how to change it. The article in question has almost no contributers, few active watchers, and these four people are more familiar with the article than practically anyone else on wikipedia. They don't watch the article. If you look at the article, you'll notice that I've written almost everything that's there, and that the article recieves more vandalism than it does other writing. This was a serious attempt to get other people who are familiar with the article involved in the discussion, because I am constantly being put in an OWN position. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:32, May 24 2007 (UTC)

Everybody who canvasses has a good reason for it, but if everyone canvassed we'd be overrun with people posting requests for comments. It's been posted at AN/I, which has a wider readsership than any project. As for vandalism, that's a part of this project and particularly afflicts school articles. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

*nods* I appreciate the warning, and I am well aware of AN/I's readership, but I am also hoping that people who are familiar with the article will provide their opinions. Which is immensely difficult when I have done almost all of the writing etc, and there are very few editors who (to my knowledge) watch the article. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:03, May 24 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to "Clean up your mess" after this is over. Wikipedia:Canvassing#If you have canvassed. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the page protection, I'll remove it if you commit to not reverting the contributions by others. I know you're just one of many, but you're the one making the request. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--I hadn't seen those before. I'll leave personal talk page ones, and wiki project ones in the desperate hope that someone from socal will wander down and at least assess the thing (it's been months!), but there are definitely ones I need to remove. I'll do that now.

"commit to not reverting the contributions by others"? With the protection removed I'd like to change the current version to the one here. I'd been writing the section when the edit war broke out--this is the more finished version that I've been working on ever since. The current version not only removed most of the references to the high school newspaper, but also removed other references with no explanation and added fact tags for things which were sourced by definitely reliable sources (like the latimes). Would that be alright? I really hate to be waiting on people that I don't know whether or not (or when) they'll be coming back to explain, discuss, etc.

But yes, in general, I have no issue with commiting to that. My main reverts were in my debate/discussion with whisper and they weren't because of the dispute, they were because something was factually inaccurate. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:23, May 25 2007 (UTC)

A good practice to follow is "be bold, revert once, then discuss". But until things settle down it'd be better to avoid reverting. That filming article is awesome, though I'd worry that it would affect the balance of the Uni article if included in that form. Anyway, I'll let you work that out with the other editors. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:BOLD was working really well until the edit war. Irnoically, because I was writing and no one was commenting on the talk page I didn't even notice the war until someone left me a comment on my talk page. I kept getting to the page when it was on the verison I'd been using, so I didn't even realize anyone else had touched it until the second or third round of reverts.

And thanks. Worried it will affect the balance how? Eventually filming will be a subpage, because filming at Uni has gone on for decades and even only including notable projects, the list will look like the alumni list easy. And I'll try and write a start article for FilmL.A., Inc sometime in the future, but for now, this is what I have. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:54, May 25 2007 (UTC)

School categories

Many thanks for commenting on the school categories. I'm replying here rather than on the categories page as it would appear that there is already a consensus for a merge and the battle has been lost. To me it makes much more sense to have a category entitled secondary schools. However, it would appear that the majority of American editors prefer the term high school and this is perhaps the reason why so many school categories have been mistakenly categorised as high schools rather than secondary schools. I suspect it's probably easier to compromise so that the categories can be understood by editors worldwide and we don't end up with separate categories developing for high schools and secondary schools as at present which depend on the preferred terminology used by the editor at that time. I understand too that in Israel secondary school is an archaic term and that high school would be the normal term used. In the UK we would use the term secondary school, and it would be quite inappropriate to classify such schools as high schools. I associate high school (perhaps mistakenly) purely with American schools. I think it would be very difficult to categorise schools by type internationally simply because there are so many different types of secondary school, many of which are exclusive to one specific country. UK schools are already categorised into grammar schools, comprehensive schools, specialist schools, city academies, private schools, etc (but note no high schools, though we do have a few middle schools and we have primary schools whereas the US has elementary schools). However, I don't think that any of the UK school types are used elsewhere in the world. Our grammar schools are roughly equivalent to the gymnasiums in many European countries (ie, schools catering for the academic high-flyers). I believe our comprehensive schools are roughly equivalent to US high schools (ie schools catering for the full ability range) but none of the schools are exactly equivalent. It's probably best to stick with the existing categorisation by country. The secondary school/high school categories seem to be the only ones which have been adopted on an international level as far as I can establish. Dahliarose 23:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR (apology)

Hi User:Mmondegreen, I by mistake edited your latest (of many) comments on WP:IAR. Sorry. (I also removed DBAD from the project page). I am new to wiki, so beyond apology, if I should do some action, please let me know. No offense was meant, I thought it was the articlepage, not the talkpage, or I wouldn't have done it. — Newbyguesses 08:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my silly mistake; i see and concur with the consensus now, (though I do wish the user had thought more about language) cheers — Newbyguesses 09:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to Wikipedia!

No harm with your talk page edit. I was able to easily undo it. But, if you do realize that you've made a mistake in the future, please fix it yourself. You could have undone the edit (it was the most recent), or had another edit been made since, readded that text and made it clear in your edit summary that you were restoring a mistake you had made earlier. If someone had already replied to the comment, you could have added a reply to the comment explaining the accidental removal of text (so that people weren't upset when they responded to different stuff) and that you restored it.

On another note, I reverted your edited to the project page as well. You'll notice that my comment on the talk page comes immediately after a section on the talk page discussing Don't be a dick. The issue of the link had just been raised and it was agreed to keep it on the page. Someone had already made the same change you did earlier, discussion had started and more people may comment and consensus may change, but as of now--four editors agreed on the talk page to keep the link (five if you count my latter comment) and you ignored consensus. If you have strong opinions about the link, be sure to voice them on the talk page. Discussion about the link just started today and commenting makes a difference. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:13, May 29 2007 (UTC)

You wish the user had thought more about the language? What user? What language? Miss Mondegreen talk  09:19, May 29 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) issues

A lot of controversy is starting to appear over this guideline - many people don't like the idea that every school needs location disambiguation among other things. As you were the main driving force behind this guideline I would like your help in addressing these growing concerns at Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (schools). Thanks! Camaron1 | Chris 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh!

Can't believe I fell for that one :) [1] nice! >Radiant< 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it brill? Miss Mondegreen talk  21:21, May 29 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the slithy toves, too. >Radiant< 08:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm tempted to change that timestamp to 4:00. Or, more blatantly, tea time. oooh! That's a fun idea in general. Course it would drive people (including me) crazy always going to see what time I'd actually commented, but it would be fun to have other sorts of times as a sig. Tea time. Late for lunch. Too early. You should be sleeping. Oh, the whimsy of me! Miss Mondegreen talk  09:14, May 30 2007 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked for one nanosecond for your tendentious edit warring over Wikipedia:Ignore this page!!! Please ignore this block, and I don't care if you do it again. >Radiant< 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I may have to. I hear the Cabal is trying to change the background color to seafoam green. The injustice!

Actually though, the page may be of some real use. I think people just like edit warring on pages in Wikipedia namespaces and they especially like doing it at IAR where a certain sentiment is expressed. It's almost like IAR editors blow off steam at ITP so they don't have to edit war at IAR. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:04, May 31 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> some people have no sense of humor. If I create Wikipedia:Delete this page, do you suppose people will ignore it? >Radiant< 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If they do you could list it as a paradox :) Miss Mondegreen talk  21:22, June 5 2007 (UTC)

Re: adding the naming guidelines to appropriate wikiproject pages

Done (Canada at least) and Done. After reading some of the Canada guidelines I thing they deal mostly with Country-specific issues so I Added some language to the effect of "Comply with WP:NC(S), then follow this" if you think it needs more I can make a more substantial change Adam McCormick 18:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even think of saying (location) isn't in the examples but do it anyway--that seems so simple. I did make some changes though. I removed the last section of their original instructions which handled articles with duplicate names and contradicts WP:NC(S). I also moved your instructions down to the proper section and rephrased them slightly. I think it works well now and we should do something like that for the schools and uni projects too.

I also like Canada's other naming guidelines. I know that they are just really NC(CN) stuff, but they've really isolated what things generally apply to schools and I'm wondering if we should add a section to the guideline about picking the right name.

Also, this is sorta off-topic, but I was wondering about your watching habbits. If you comment here, do you watch my talk page or do you want me to comment on your talk page, or continue the conversation here but ping your talk page? Miss Mondegreen talk  22:19, May 31 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

I appreciate your efforts to have a logical discussion on the topic of external links. In the meantime, I have some interesting news that I think is relevant. I'm not sure how to address this. Perhaps you can offer a suggestion. It would appear that Baseball Bugs is in fact an editor by the name of Wahkeenah. This is evident by this edit. I seem to remember this person having a similar attitude toward me in the past. I don't recall the specific dispute nor the circumstances surrounding it. However, it is obvious to me that Baseball Bugs (and perhaps a few of the others), are in fact either socks or just pissed off users who are upset at me editing in the style that I do. I would love to dig up specifics, but Wahkeenah's edit list is so massive it's hard to figure out where the dispute was. Thoughts? // Tecmobowl 07:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is with this. First, editors can have multiple accounts, as long as they don't use them in a sock like manner. Clearly that's not the case here. Wahkeenah asked for his account to be blocked so that he could forcibly remove himself from wiki and it didn't go so good--he created a new account. But they don't overlap in editing, so I fail to see the problem. If you suspect that this editor was/is using socks either before when he was editing as Wahkeenah or now as Baseball Bugs, that's a different story.

In terms of the personal attacks, etc--well, I've already said my piece on that at the WikiProject page. I'm also well aware that your disagreement with Baseball Bugs goes much further than this one issue that I've weighed in on. I've seen some of your talk page dialogues and your recent bout at Wikiquette. (what was the point of going and continuing a content dispute there? you guys didn't ask for any sort of help at all, just bickered)

With the WP:EL issue, I think there's a straightforward guideline and I fail to see why this is such a big issue. I also btw did fail to see how your links were acceptable. Was that the right link I was directed to? Lorem Ipsum, stats and cards?

If you do think that there's a real sock issue, I'll direct you to an admin that is capable of investigating complex sock cases, but all you've shown is that Baseball Bugs has had an account for more than a few weeks. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:21, June 2 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to avoid senseless arguments. I am aware that people are allowed multiple accounts, my only point is that the user seems to have instigated an argument with me simply because of past interactions and is conveniently not mentioning this. Not being an admin, I have no way to check IPs or anything else, but it would not surprise me if some of the other editors are perhaps this individual. While using the Baseball Bugs name, we had a disagreement over the inclusion of some content in the Black Sox Scandal article. You can review the details of it on that talk page. He was unable to provide any reasonable source to support his claims, while I provided a reputable source that supported mine. I digress, but with regards to your claim about the link on Shoeless Joe Jackson, I'm somewhat puzzled. I think it is very appropriate considering WP:EL#Links_to_be_considered. The page is linked specifically to Jackson's page which shows a number of baseball cards that he appears on. Moreover, the site has a file repository located here that is easily navigated to and is perhaps one of the better sources of information on the players for the black sox scandal. I have reverted Baseball Bugs removal of the link for one simple reason: his explanation is that it is a site dedicated to selling baseball cards. There is a sale page there, but I don't think anyone would say that site is dedicated to selling products. I also opened a discussion on that talk page and have yet to hear from anyone on the issue. //Tecmobowl 08:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I dropped the Wahkeenah account and switched to this new one. I had way too many watch-pages on the old one, and I was spending most of my time reverting vandalism instead of editing, and it was driving me nuts. After one petty argument too many (i.e. a 3-revert violation on a totally stupid topic), I decided to have the admins permanently suspend that account, and was about ready to quit altogether, but some friendly editors helped pursuade me otherwise. So I started over with this new more-appropriate ID and a way-much smaller watch list. That switcheroo is mentioned somewhere on the old user talk page. Meanwhile, I got away from this website the last couple of days, having grown weary (again) of trying to deal with my-way-or-the-highway types (like the one on the Apollo hoax page that a number of us battled for many weeks before he was finally blocked, although he was several orders of magnitude worse than any other user I've ever run into). I don't recall having even heard of this Tecmobowl user until the Black Sox Scandal question came up, and I also don't recall if that started under my old ID or not. Be that as it may, I'm now trying to keep any direct interaction with that user to a minimum. And I don't do sockpuppets. I first edited via an IP address in late winter or early spring of 2005, then soon created an ID, then switched sometime last month. The old account still has a page, but it's dead as a user ID, as noted by Miss Mondegreen. Baseball Bugs 05:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC) and Baseball Bugs 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Shoeless Joe baseball card spam site is concerned... I no longer care. The policy against spam is evidently too vague to be enforced. Baseball Bugs 05:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppets, ironically enough I had a lot of my time (under both old and new ID's) taken up, along with that of other editors, including Tecmobowl if I recall correctly, in trying to deal with User:Ron liebman and his endless list of sockpuppets. That kind of stuff makes me wonder why I stick with it, but I still go back to my original reason for getting into it, as an outlet for a desire to write. Baseball Bugs 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm back home again, hopefully sometime soon I'll be able to watch the 2005 World Series DVD and see what they had to say, specifically / if anything, about the Black Sox scandal "curse" that was the original bone of contention between us (although I think another editor originally wrote about it, not me). But it will probably have to wait until the weekend. Baseball Bugs 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on one of Miss Mondegreen's comments, while there is no overlap in time between my old and new accounts, there is an overlap of topics, obviously. Baseball Bugs 05:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline: I surrendered my old user ID on May 16th and adopted this new one on the 19th. Baseball Bugs 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:PaulGS added the original section about the curse on April 23 (or maybe earlier), and also tried to re-add it several times, including in the last day or so, again reverted by Tecmobowl. Baseball Bugs 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl's interest in baseball cards probably connects with his interest in that Joe Jackson baseball card link. Baseball Bugs 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is jumping out at me regarding any articles in dispute between us prior to Black Sox Scandal. And it looks like the entirety of that one was under my new ID. That's not to claim it never happened. I'm just not finding it or remembering it. Baseball Bugs 06:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One user had implied (the way I read it) that Tecmobowl's Blacksoxfan site posting in fact was a site run by Tecmobowl. I wonder if he would care to address that question? Baseball Bugs 06:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Tecmobowl was once called User:Wolverinegod, although his request for change to new ID was more sedate. Either way, I don't recall any specific dealings with either user ID prior to the Black Sox page, although it looks like we edited some common articles. Baseball Bugs 06:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to MissMondegreen -> No rush. In response to BaseballBugs, this is childish. No I am not the owner of BSF, though I do personally know the owner. The site stands on its own as a resource and your claims that it exists primarily to sell things is laughable at best. You engaged me in an edit war and tried to hide behind a username change. You can contact the owner of blacksoxfan on his userid here:User_talk:Blacksoxfan. Telling me I run the site is a joke. STICK TO THE CONTENT NOT THE PEOPLE EDITING THE CONTENT!!! //Tecmobowl 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not try to hide behind a username change; nor did I say that you ran that spam site, I merely asked about it. Thanks for admitting that your interest in it is not altogether neutral. Meanwhile, you continue to run roughshod over various users, including the one on this page after she tried to support and defend you. Baseball Bugs 13:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough. In case you haven't noticed Baseball Bugs, I have asked you again and again and again to focus on content, not personal attacks. You seem completely unable to. I was hoping that if I and others simply ignored your focus on this and talked about the issues at hand, as we have successfully been doing on the talk pages, you would quit. You haven't. The personal attacks and completely focus on your issues with other people, especially with Tecmo is out of control--you're spamming my talk page, and you've been so focused on name calling and accusations and defending yourself against things you've yet to be accused of that I don't even know what you're issues with the content are becuase you haven't commented on them.

There's only one person running roughshod over people and it's you Basebull Bugs. Tecmo and I have had a few disagreements, mainly over misunderstanding coming from discussing things on so many pages (something incited by other editors), but he's been very polite and constantly goes back to the talk page to discuss what went wrong or what was misunderstood or what needs to happen next. You have spammed my talk page, you have personally attacked other editors, and you now accused Tecmo on my behalf. If there was anywhere in this whole process where you thought I lacked a voice, you thought wrong.

About the site--if you have issues with it, this is not the place. The talk page of the article is the place, that's where I and everyone else has commented. Whether or not Tecmo has a COI, and I don't see that he does, there are really clear guidelines for ELs. Four or five different points apply here and it's very simple to go through each one and ask what it says about the EL. Leave your issues aside.

I want both of you to leave your various username issues aside. I did a quick look at contributions and while you edited on the same articles often, and I can't really buy Baseball Bugs story that he doesn't remember you at all from his previous name, I didn't see the evidence of clashes that I'm seeing now. Granted, a lot of it is taking place on other pages, but it's also taking place on your own talk pages. I don't have the time to do a full investigation. Obviously Baseball Bugs can't show diffs of your not interacting, so I expect nothing more on that front. Tecmo, if you do want to dig up diffs that you think show something, feel free to. Otherwise, MOVE ON.

Baseball Bugs--this type of behavoir is simply unacceptable. Maybe you need another wikibreak, maybe you should break from certain articles--I don't know. But this type of behavoir is going to get you into trouble. Continued personal attacks are not ok, and it's so intense and so clouding that I have no idea where you stand on any content issues. Get back to editing and working on talk pages and leave all this behind. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:37, June 7 2007 (UTC)

I think you're a day or two behind on the status of this situation. I could see the trend, so I backed off for the most part and let him fight it out with the other users. The results speak for themselves. He got several users irritated with him; he got into several revert wars; he got himself into "insult wars" with some of them (including an admin); he got himself a 48-hour block due to revert wars with others; and at that point he posted an "I quit" on his user page. I don't know when or where he and I might have got into it prior to the Black Sox Scandal page. But I've continued to have cordial discussions with the other users. When I said "I quit" in mid-May, a friendly editor posted a useful site to read, and I have posted the same site on this contentious user's talk page, because it occurs to me he might have reached the same exasperation level I did in mid-May. Maybe he'll find it useful, as I did. I was previously watching over 2,000 pages. I've cut it back to about 200, and in general, things are much better. And I hope he doesn't totally give up. I think he's got something to contribute. He just needs to learn to discuss things and be more flexible. Baseball Bugs 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think I've been "spamming" your talk page, feel free to delete anything you don't like. My policy is to never delete anything anyone puts on my talk page, no matter how weird it is, until archive time, when it all goes away, of course. Baseball Bugs 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not watching, or stalking either of you, and I don't really care what has happened on other pages in the nanosecond since the last explosion. He's blocked and you still can't help yourself (btw, I'm well aware of recent going ons, I quick look at both of your watchlists lets me know about major changes)--you need to let me know about someone else's behavoir. I still have ZERO idea what content issues you care about--you go on and on about how you cut back to watch fewer pages, but all I really know about is that you have an issue with Tecmo, and that you certainly watch Tecmo. You talk about cordial discussion--you've never had cordial discussion with me, although I posed content related questions to you multiple times on the baseball wikiproject page and other places and you seem unable to respond either on topic or even politely. The fact that you feel the need to continue after everything is a serious problem. You've been warned continuously--Tecmo has been banned, and therefore isn't doing anything that you could feel the need to defend yourself against, and he can't defend himself either. Get it through your head that you crossed the line days ago, that you are so far beyond the line that you can't even see it and STOP. I am serious---either manage to get control of yourself and your behavoir, focus your wiki activity on something productive, or take a break.

Consider this your final warning: if this kind of behavoir continues, I'll bring this to ANI. Personal attacks on editors are not ok, and with regular consistency all I see is a focus on the editors, and not the editing. That needs to be changed. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:20, June 7 2007 (UTC)

I treat editors pretty much the way they treat me. I will put up with a lot of things, and I'm always willing to talk about things, I like to talk about things, provided someone is willing to talk to me back. One thing I will not put up with is someone copping an I'm-better-than-you-are attitude... not here, and not in "real life". I got that from him on the Black Sox Scandal page and subsequent articles. I don't recall ever running into him before the Black Sox page. However, I am not feeling that attitude from you, nor do I feel that from most editors. From you I'm getting honest discussion, and I appreciate it. At some point here, I will wade through all the verbiage and find out exactly what questions you had asked me about whichever article(s) contents, and see what I can do about addressing them, if there are still open issues not already covered by other editors in the intervening days. Thank you for your consideration. Baseball Bugs 23:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's called sinking to their level and that's not ok. Two wrongs don't make a right and if someone else is behaving badly, behaving badly toward them is NOT the answer. I wasn't around in re the Black Sox Scandal or anything else, so all I saw was you spitting fire toward another who was very patiently answering every single content related question more than once and quoting guidelines step by step and explaining them step by step, when really, all the editor should have had to do was point to the guideline. You also raised an issue about a particular link which has had a great deal of discussion on the talk page, but you didn't participate in said discussion and the issues you raised were again, personal ones. If other people's personal comments (comments I haven't seen and again don't want to be told about) get to you this badly, or whatever it is that happened/happens gets to you like this, you need to figure something out. There's no point to continue to defend yourself here, because the more you do, the more you're still focussing on your personal issues with editors. Just change your behavoir. It doesn't matter what the reason is for it, what the mitigating circumstances are, who did what first, what I've been seeing from you is unacceptable. That's all I'm saying. I do hope that I'll see content related response from you if appropriate. That'll be good. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:47, June 8 2007 (UTC)

I scanned through the lengthy discussion on the baseball project page. I see that many editors had problems with Tecmobowl's approach to editing, and that I kept harping on the same thing over and over, which was overkill and thus didn't help the situation. I also see that he continued to defy consensus because he "knew" what was right. You're right that an RFC should have been filed rather than continuing to argue with him directly. It is not our nature to "go running to Mommy", but sometimes it's necessary. That's what we had to do in the case of a user called Gravitor on the "Apollo hoax" set of articles, and I have to admit that Gravitor's behavior was way much worse than anything else I've seen in my narrow range of editing work. Anyway, if Tecmobowl decides to come back after his 48-hour block expires (which should have passed by now), I'll work on doing better and/or ignoring him rather than baiting him any further. Thank you for your kind consideration. Baseball Bugs 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He's back, and nothing has changed, except that I'm no longer going to interact with him or talk about him (after this moment) unless an RFC is filed by another editor. Baseball Bugs 05:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your assessment of the situation is incorrect. Tecmo was by and large following the EL guidelines by the book, and EL is a Wikipedia guideline which has community consensus. While your wikiproject may want to ignore that and say that they don't like the guidelines, frankely, the overall community consensus overrides your wikiproject consensus. The issue of how to apply the guidelines and whether or not they apply in certain cases and which ELs are preferable to other ELs is of course something that has to be decided by the members of the project. However, there was almost no discussion about that. There were people complaining about edit summaries they felt weren't "good enough", and various other aspects of Tecmo's behavoir, but I found almost no problems with his behavoir and real problems with other people's behavoir including your personal attacks and the fact that the only reason the discussion was there in the first place is that the editor who posted it was asking for other editors to intervene in reverting Tecmo once he had used up his reverts.

I can't and won't defend behavoir I haven't seen, but on my part, Tecmo has never failed to provide thorough explanations for edits and discuss disagreements, and I have not found that of other editors, including and especially you.

You continue to say that you've moved on and that you won't continue unless "yada, yada, yada" but you're still focussed on Tecmo and what he's doing instead of editing and improving the articles you care about--where I haven't seen you on the talk page, not even to discuss issues that you've brought up (you'll bring them up in re Tecmo's behavoir here and on the wikiproject page but won't discuss the content issues you have there). You're edit warring with Tecmo and other editors, almost all of whom are participating in discussion on the topic--you're not. You're commenting on my talk page about Tecmo, and I still don't know why. Figure out how to use talk pages to discuss content and how to stop using user talk pages to complain about who's doing what now, or what they're going to do in one day or next week. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:57, June 9 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, you yourself questioned the legitimacy of the Black Sox baseball card link. Baseball Bugs 15:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I clearly can't help you. If you would like to reply to my comments on the talk page I left them at, feel free to. I watch those talk pages. I'd be more than happy to explain my comment then and my decision now. But stop using my talk page as a catch-all--you've used it as a sound-off board against Tecmo, to defend yourself endlessly and tell me how you're going to change without actually changing, and to respond to my comments in other places. Stop. I don't know what you think talk pages are for, but this isn't it. If you need to get my attention focussed on something, ask me to look at a page (don't tell me what I should be seeing btw). Otherwise, use a talk page! And stop talking about PEOPLE! Miss Mondegreen talk  20:09, June 9 2007 (UTC)

You're talking in past tense at this point. In any case, I responded to your straw poll on that page. Baseball Bugs 23:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bushism

Hello, you seemed like a big contributer to the Bushism page (your name is all over the talk page) and I was wondering if you would mind responding to some of the things I posted on the talk page regarding some of the "other examples." I removed some, and my edits were reverted, and I figured if I could convince you, or you convince me, things would be fixed much faster. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by P337 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've made almost no changes to the article (I have made a few minor ones and version restoration). I am a big contributer to the talk page, which is a different thing entirely.

In May you left a comment or two on the talk page. One of them, you deleted. Please don't do that again. If you change your mind, or realize that you were misreading something, just strike your comment through and reply to yourself explaining that. Talk pages are records, and deletion of comments changes the records. As does changing your comment latter for example.

On June 2, only a week or so after your participation on the talk page, you removed some examples from the article with the edit summary, "bad examples". You were reverted, and then went back to the talk page.

You knew the status of consensus about these examples, and hile consensus does change, it's unlikely that it does only a week later with no new discussion or information and an edit summary that makes no argument for it. If you wanted discussion, instead of making a change, and leaving a comment on the talk page an hour and a half latter, after it had been reverted, and then tracking down the main contributers to the talk page and canvassing, you should have left the comment you did on the talk page and been patient. We watch pages for a reason. If there wasn't a response after a few days, you could have made your edit, and had an appropriate edit summary, "see comment on talk page". You wouldn't have had to track down ILike2BeAnonymous, as he would have responded to the comment at the time he reverted your edits.

In re contacting me, you didn't even wait a full day for me to see your comment and respond before asking me to comment so that one of us could hurry up and convince the other so that this could be "fixed" faster. I personally wouldn't mind your leaving me a comment asking for my input on something, I do occasionally miss things on my watchlist, though not here, I've just been living a life outside of the computer, but your comment was distinctly rude. You don't want consensus or respect the consensus that exists, you're {{WP:OWN]]ing the article. You want it to agree with your position. You don't care how, you're fully ammenable to either having your mind changed or my changing my mind, but if everyone else agrees and you don't, that's not ok.

If in the future, you are interested in consensus and you just can't get opinions on a talk page (you leave a comment and there aren't enough responses though you wait), the proper procedure is not to canvas people who have previously commented on the talk page or who are big contributers, but to file an WP:RFC.

I'm replying to your article concerns at the talk page. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:45, June 3 2007 (UTC)

I really do apologize if I seemed rude, I am new to editing wikipedia articles and am not really up on all the ways of doing things (especially about deleting my own comments, I had no idea that was a problem). I am doing my best to learn and I appreciate you giving me some tips. I will definitely try to work on the things you mentioned. It was just kind of disappointing last time when no one ever said anything but one positive response. I am sorry if it made me impatient, but I honestly didn't expect results with just posting my thoughts on the talk page. I had no reason to assume people really cared about what I was saying. I should have read here first before replying to the bushism talk page, so excuse me if it seems as I had not learned anything. Sorry for contacting some people on here. You appeared to be a bit of an authority on the talk page, and I wanted to hear your perspective. Again, I apologize if I have somehow offended you.

When I say fixed I do not mean "fix" the article, I meant just resolved I guess. I am open to the possibility that I am the only one who has it wrong. "You don't care how, you're fully ammenable to either having your mind changed or my changing my mind, but if everyone else agrees and you don't, that's not ok." That made me feel kind of bad, and confused I guess. I really am trying to approach this as unbiased as I can. I guess I don't understand what is wrong with what I was saying. I know I dont have to come to an agreement with everyone, and that's where I think you may have misunderstood my intentions. If everyone else believes one thing, and I disagree, I would be willing to accept that I had the definition wrong, and therefore I would be in agreement with it. I hope I am able to express myself correctly this time... All I ask is try to be a little more understanding of a newbie I guess. :) Thanks for the help and time. (ack I just realized I forgot to sign my first comment)P337 00:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nom for Admin

I'm shocked that you are not an admin, is this something you are interested in? I would like to start the process if so. And before other users jump on me, please remember - THIS IS THE GUY THAT REMOVED A LINK I POSTED. :-) Be well. //Tecmobowl 20:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shameless bootlicking. I love it. Count me in. :b Baseball Bugs 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As though anyone would actually think that it would help you think me. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:48, June 10 2007 (UTC)

"Scraps of bread?" I like to think of such morsels as "croutons". :b Baseball Bugs 20:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you let them get stale. But why go hungry now? What am talking about? You people are carnivores! Miss Mondegreen talk  20:57, June 10 2007 (UTC)

No, it does help. I said on the baseball project talk page that an admin needs to look into this situation, and you've helped move that process along. Baseball Bugs 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

??

"no false forks please" what does that mean? (MrsMacMan 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Content forking. Let's say that there's a significant difference between the middle school and [[Junior high school|junior high]. Significant enough that they need individual articles. Then an article for junior high school should be written from scratch (perhaps taking guidance from the middle school article). Copy-pasting the middle school article over and making minor changes is completely unacceptable and known as a false fork. Redirecting the middle school talk page to the junior high talk page is also not ok. If two articles do need to exist, they'd need two seperate talk pages. I understand there was ongoing discussion about the issue in both places and you might have been trying to coordinate but that's not the way to do it. That actually uncoordinated the conversation and made a mess of edit histories. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:33, June 13 2007 (UTC)

But junior high school should be in a separate article. Middle school is the one that should be merged with the junior high school. It is only called a middle school because of the younger students. Other than that it is still a junior high school. Most senior high schools are high schools. But most of them prefer to be called a high school. so the junior high and the high school relates. They are still a senior high school. (MrsMacMan 14:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

You're talking about a major change--it's something you propose and gets discussed, not something you go off and do on your own. When you do that, especially if you don't do it properly, and you didn't, you leave a mess for other editors to clean up. Maybe consensus will decide that all types of middle schools should be covered in one article and the article should stay there. Maybe they'll rename the article "Junior high school". Maybe they'll agree that two articles should exist and someone will help right one. But copy-pasting an existing article doesn't do any good. You created two talk pages so the content was split, and as Junior high school isn't an article, that talk page should redirect to the Middle school talk page, and the discussion should be in one area anyway, which means that someone has to finish copying over all of the comments.

Please note that I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you content wise. I'm just letting you know that you're trying to make a big change, so it's something that needs to be discussed first, and that creating a fork isn't the way to make the change. Had the article not previously been a redirect, it would have met the criteria for a WP:CSD. Instead, I just reverted to the earlier form. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:46, June 13 2007 (UTC)

So...do you agree or disagree that middle school should be merged with junior high school? Thanks for fixing up all those comments and putting it in the right talk page. Sorry if I cause your inconvenience. (MrsMacMan 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

(edit conflict) Merged? There's no content to merge it with. In answer to your broader question, I see no need for two seperate articles. The article is so broad, it covers a particular level of schooling across so many different countries etc, and unless you can really show that middle school and junior high school are significantly different as institutions across the wide range that the article covers, I don't see the necessity. But I haven't heard much content related discussion--no ones mentioned big institutional differences (or little ones really), so I'm waiting to hear.

No problem. But I'm about to get offline so you're going to have to be patient. You're a little quick to revert back to your version of the page. When you're reverted, you should probably ask the editor who reverted you why. It generally avoids a lot of problems and it's a good learning experience. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:15, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Kerflunkeled

Best word ever! :-)

Seraphim Whipp 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually tried to spell-check it via google. That didn't go very well though :). Miss Mondegreen talk  23:35, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Bloaty's Pizza Hog has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Discussion Notification

I have started a discussion here regarding the current situation. I hope you do not feel dragged into this, I intend to see this through until the end. //Tecmobowl 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate your comments. I have generally tried to leave FG alone during my editing since I've returned. I try and give at least some reference during my summaries to what's going on. I'm not always the best at it, but people have a responsibility to put a little effort into their understanding of things like WP:EL. I do agree I should stay out of the blacksoxfan argument at this time. When I returned, I was simply trying to get all of the relevant articles on the same "page". I gave up when Irishguy jumped in. I have said my peace and I'm done with that topic. I am now having trouble with one of these editors because he/she insists on moving the Fangraphs discussion I started. In the meantime, I'm just fixing up things and trying not to step on anyone's toes. //Tecmobowl 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• The refactoring was a little confusing, but I think it was necessary. If you look at where it was moved to, the discussion seems to be moving in the right place. It does still need more comments--I think that that's too few editors to comment, and the new comments should be in that section and easier to read, but they seem to really be working on that issue. Also, I don't know what your particular issue with Fangraphs was, but IIRC correctly, it had the least ads of all of the sites--and the sites in question aren't ad heavy enough that they cross the line, but some of them push it. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:01, June 15 2007 (UTC)

• If by refractoring you mean combining the discussions, I have to unfortunately disagree. Those discussions are so confusing. Editors have broken up the comments, rearranged them to suit them, and often failed to realize that consensus is beyond what a few people say (myself included). The whole thing has given me a headache and I'm almost inclined to simply stop discussing it and just move on with my activity. WP:EL is pretty clear on a lot of things, and the best argument i've heard for the site is that it presents the information in a unique fashion. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that matters. Here is another editor's input (although it is extremely limited). Not only does Fangraphs have to pass through the standards put forth in WP:EL, but it also needs to be considered with regard to what is already widely accepted by the community. //Tecmobowl 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• From what I read of the discussion there, it appeared that unique format was one of two issues--unique content was the other and editors were making an argument that fangraphs did have unique content. Like I said, the discussion there is a start. At least it's being discussed. If the think that the information isn't unique, you should voice your opinion. Maybe you could write a comparison of the four sites. List what statistics they all have. Then list what statistics are unique to them--if three sites have something but one doesn't mention that. Mention unique formatting too, make it a fair and acurate comparison of the sites, and decisions can be made from there. While yes, unique formatting, presentation doesn't really fit WP:EL, they are guidelines. And four sites is, IMO excessive. But it may be necessary some places. I doubt it should be the standard, but the wikiproject may decide to allow it. The best you can do is offer your opinion, and an acurate assessment of the sites if the think that the assessment there is inaccurate or confusing. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:17, June 15 2007 (UTC)

• You are aware of the other "issues" involving me and at least three of the participants, I will tell you those problems have led to my thoughts being strewn about the internet unceremoniously. The original thread that generated the topic has so many problems, and the conversations have been patched together and moved and adjusted quite a bit. This is by actual moving of the content or by certain users interjecting their comments throughout a single post. Here is the short of the long, as I stated in the cabal case. We have to consider (amongst other things), if there is unique information, if that information is significantly different in quantity and quality from existing sites, and should it be used in conjunction with or instead of already used sites. Also, the overall usefullness to the average reader. This site is not the place of expert analysis and communication of "specialized" information. It is to communicate, in an encyclopedic fashion, information that can be understood by someone who knows nothing of the topic at hand. I will say that I have adjusted my position regarding the unique information in at least one of the sites (fangraphs), but I am still of the belief that the information does not belong here (for a number of reasons). //Tecmobowl 11:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I saw the mediation request, which I think is a good idea. However I'm not sure focusing on other users' behavior is a good idea when you've gotten in so much trouble for it yourself lately. I would just say that editors need to focus on content, and that the current system isn't working--it says the same thing but without the finger pointing, and your comments are less likely to be discounted. It's taken weeks to get to this discussion on content, which is not a good sign, but editors have been moving away from personal attacks and moving towards real discussion, which is definitely good. I think that there are problems with the current discussion etc, but I think that they can be worked out. Mediation can definitely help with this, and I do think it's a good idea, but I would advise you, and everyone else not to get back into finger pointing etc., no matter how mild. I could see mediation making this situation worse, because of how the involved parties react, including you. Just keep that in mind in how you proceed. Miss Mondegreen talk  12:01, June 15 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I've been looking for help on the cabal for over a week [2] and when I saw you take the "Shoeless Joe" issue up, it made it easier for me to address the EL issue. I'm not sure what you mean about me focusing on other users behavior. I tried to convey that everyone has messed up and i do mean everyone (of course - there are some more guilty than others). I have adjusted the last section a little bit per this discussion, but I do think that the overtone of my request is that content is what matters. It is possible that the situation will continue to escalate, but I am more than willing to have calm and rational discussions on the content. I am hoping that others will as well. //Tecmobowl 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to continue related discussion here due to your talk page blanking. I'm talking to Epeefleche about the other edits you've been making to ELs, and I know you already said that you were staying away from FG removals, but I'm going to ask you to not remove any of the statistics sites being discussed until that comes to a conclusion. This will also help seperate the general cleaning of ELs from the statistics site issue. This may mean having to carefully look when reverting and partially revert to avoid removing those. It would also be a nice show of good faith to revert yourself on some of the more recent ones you did (like a partial revert on Hank Greenburg, and other ones post unblocking).

One of the things you need to recognize is that there have been behavior issues with a lot of editors here, but because yours has been the most noted, your behavior really needs to be good. Try and avoid angry edit summaries, losing your temper, and try and explain your position simply, carefully and without going after people, or what they did--even in a non-obvious way. Remember that consensus, not being right, rules Wikipedia, and if you piss too many people off, consensus will focus more on you, then the content at stake, or ignore your opinions on the content at stake. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:28, June 15 2007 (UTC)

• I don't care to get into any more discussions of who did what to whom and when. In considering my past actions, they weren't all ideal, but many were still fairly reasonable considering the circumstances and the actions of other editors. I am not a spiteful person, I could care less who said what to whom and when. All I care about is the process and the content. I'm not saying I'm right and they are wrong, I'm simply saying that we are where we are and let's focus on the content. I am not inclined to do a partial revert of the Greenberg page because of the manner in which the link was placed (after the debate broke out). I have never removed fangraphs as a citation (although I have some serious reservations about the statements being made), only as an EL. As of this writing, fangraphs appears as a link 113 times. That's a fairly reasonable compromise on my part. I am no longer going to engage Epeefleche as he cannot focus on the topic, but I'm not allowing any more examples of this link in until the discussion is complete. //Tecmobowl 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• You mean that you plan to continue reverting FG ELs until there is consensus for it? So when you filed a request for mediation you didn't plan to stop editing and talk, you planned to WP:OWN until the talking was done and people disagreed with you? First rule of mediation--there's no point unless the parties are willing to sit down and talk. Unless you can show me a clear reason per WP:EL or something else that it doesn't belong there, leave it and the other stat sites alone. The statistics in general are unique information, unique to what will never be in the article. Having more the one might be duplicate linkage, but unless you can show a clear reason why fangraphs shouldn't be used, you need to let discussion run it's course as to what links to use. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:46, June 15 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all, I intend to leave it status quo. If a new one pops up in the EL section, I will remove it, but that's about it. If anyone wants to add it as a citation relative to some text, it will stay. I will direct you to the Chipper Jones article where you will see I did not revert Epeefleche's revert of my adjustments. This despite the fact that I replaced ESPN with a site he has been vouching for. You'll notice that I created a handful of templates this morning and have been incorporating them into the article. I'm not going to touch fangraphs outside of removing any additional links put in. Fangraphs is a site geared toward baseball afficionado's, not the lamen. In fact, if you are inclined, I will explain my full rational on this page if you want. It might be best to start it as a new section so that you can follow it from the begining. But whatever works is fine. //Tecmobowl 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation. But since Fangraphs doesn't seem to blatantly violate anything, please don't remove it, or any of the other three sites being discussed period. If it looks like someone is going on a spree adding it, let me know. Other than a spree, which is unlikely, maybe a couple articles will be expanded to include EL sections and so it might be added there--that's fine--you can't prevent its addition when it isn't the problem, but the problem is excess sites, and choosing which sites should stay and which should go. Going on a spree adding it during the discussion is not ok. But Tecmo, even if something does happen and edits need to be done, you should probably not be the editor to handle it. You know that you're being reverted wholesale and that editors aren't making distinctions between your removal of excess statistics sites and your removal of dead links, duplicate sites, etc. Why on earth do you think they'd make a distinction between you reverting spam, you removing a couple fangraphs links that aren't right, and you going crazy and removing every fangraph link on wiki. Wikipedia will live if you wait a week to clean those particular ELs--and so will you. Be patient. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:11, June 15 2007 (UTC)

• I'll start a new section on fangraphs momentarily. Just to be explicitly clear, I have no intention of adjusting any of the 113 examples of fangraphs. If Epeefleche ads it as an EL to any article it is not in, it needs to be removed. Keep in mind, articles like Brad Ausmus have not been touched by me since the revert, even though the EL's are excessive. //

• Please take a quick look at the Cabal i started. I am not liking the way Epeefleche is handling it. I don't think he should be editing the page as he is and he is doing it with the underhanded suggestion that I intentionally left out people (one of whom has joined the conversation after the cabal was filed). //Tecmobowl 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

fg

So here are some questions that I have used when evaluating all of these stats sites against WP:EL. These are an attempt to adhere to the guidelines and not just randomly invented questions. I wanted simple yes/maybe/no questions that would allow me to form "content" related answers to "Should this site be included?" I have then put my own answers to the questions

• Does said site include any unique information? Yes
• Does the site include a great deal of repetative information? Yes
• Would said site's unique information be useful to the laymen? No
• Is the majority of information available on said site unique to that site? No
• Is the unique information qualitatively significant enough to necessitate its' inclusion in the EL section? No
• If the purposed site also contains a significant amount of information already contained in a site that is already accepted, should the new site simply replace the old site? Maybe
• Does the community as a whole benefit from the inclusion of the site in conjunction with already accepted sources? No
• Does the sit fail any of the criteria in WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided? No (depending on how you view point 1)

Interpretations & Conclusions - Fangraphs does have a decent amount of unique information. However, the information that is unique is fairly complex and does not substantially benefit the average reader. While some fans of baseball might find the information useful, fangraphs does not seem to improve upon what is generally accepted.

The Jose Reyes Argument -[3]

The other suggestion is that the data is presented in a unique way. While that is a "neat" feature, I do not believe that alone takes precedent over the fact that much of the information is unusable to the community at large. The "effectiveness" of him as a leadoff hitter is highly subjective and using a graphical representation of the information instead of a chart of the information does not justify the inclusion of the link in the EL section. However, it does mean that the cite could (and should) be used to explain Jose Reyes improvement in the on-base-% category. As an editor pointed out here, "I think it's the information which we deal with here. Painting the information on the side of kittens does not improve it sufficiently to require a link to the same information in a different format. Charts and graphs are sometimes more useful than numbers, but does that site's presentation bring any new insights? Maybe one should wait for some reviewers to comment on how great the pie charts are, and then there will be sources which indicate that it's a useful site." This would lend itself to say that the site fits perfectly in the context of a source to be cited in specific examples, but not as a widespread "standard" in the EL section. //User:Tecmobowl 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you have any comments on the above statements? As I don't want to continue to drive the different discussions forward with comments on the sockpuppet issue, I will give you some relatively "public" information. I say relatively public because I would ASSUME (yes assume) anyone in the sports memorabilia industry could be aware of the actual identity of the blacksoxfan site. The site owner of blacksoxfan is in the "public eye" in the related industry (sports memorabilia, baseball history, and such). He is the owner of a sports memorabilia website (again this is not secretive information). I am sure that if anyone (myself included), spent any amount of time exploring his professional life, we'd probably find that he doesn't have time (or the inclination) to contribute more to wikipedia. I know he has been on here in the past (under the Blacksoxfan username). Looking through the edit history, that account was responsible for violating wiki policy (or policies) especially with regards to EL use. It seems apparent that the account is no longer used for editing. I don't want to spend much more time on this aspect of the discussion, but this person could even considered to be notable (although I don't think he is there yet nor do i care - i'm here to focus on baseball content and formula 1 content). I appreciate your opinion regarding //Tecmobowl 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I have made the decision to take the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Shoeless Joe Jackson. I hope I will be of some help in this case. I will try to all of you guys communicating in a civil manner and will assist you in finding a compromise. Have a nice week and God bless.--†Sir James Paul† 10:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if you will tell me exactly how you would want the article to read if it was entirely up to you. I will be asking the other people involved in this case the same thing. This will help me to understand this case more and thus help me and you come up with a compromise. Thanks for your time.--†Sir James Paul† 08:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think my opinions can be found pretty clearly at: Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson#WP:EL and how it applies. I'm not quite sure why you're asking this question--the discussion is about the inclusion of an EL--it's pretty specific. There are related issues--using parts of the file center as a source, linking to specific files as ELs, but we're not talking about major rewriting of the article(s). Have you looked at the talk page? Miss Mondegreen talk  09:37, June 22 2007 (UTC)

Also--My opinion is based on my reading of WP:EL, and it's subject to change if discussion happens. Irishguy has alluded to a serious issue, but then won't actually say anything about it and I can't find any evidence of it myself. I'd also like, if possible, for the discussion to be centered on the article talk page. Not all of the editors involved archive their talk pages and I don't want to constantly be watching other people's talk pages and chasing them down. Perhaps you could ask people on their talk pages to respond to questions that you pose on the article talk pages? Miss Mondegreen talk  09:47, June 22 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate your dedication to wikipedia and the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. However, I think it would have been appropriate to at least inform me that you were including me in a medcab request. Thanks. Lsi john 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't inform anyone individually. I added a list of anyone who had commented on the issue as someone who was "involved", as appropriate. It isn't protocal to inform everyone who's mentioned in the case that they've been included, and it didn't occur to me to--I think informing some of them might have stirred certain things up, and only informing a few people would have been an equally bad idea. There's a medcab note on the top of the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page, and I assumed that anyone commenting on the talk page could easily see it and go there if needed. Miss Mondegreen talk  02:53, June 24 2007 (UTC)

• I don't consider myself an 'active' editor on that page and I do not routinely review that article discussion. Regardless of whether it is (or is not) protocol, it is courteous to inform editors whenever you include them in any mediation or activity. Never assume someone will 'know' when you have the ability to be sure. Many a war has started due to incorrect assumptions. If you don't wish to notify someone, then don't include them in the mediation. And, actually, I was under the impression that all parties in a mediation were supposed to agree to the mediation, before it could proceed.

I would suggest that if you believe informing 'some' would have 'stirred things up', then perhaps the medcab should not have been opened yet, or you should not have included them in the mediation. Everyone deserves the courtesy of a notification. Their conduct is up to them. Lsi john 03:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• You've commented on the talk page in question multiple times since the notification has been there--maybe you don't watch the page and didn't notice the edit of my adding the medcab request, but there's a banner. It's assumed that when you go to a talk page, you can see the banner at the top of the page. You've been there, I assumed you saw the banner.

Also, it's not formal mediation. I don't know what the rules on that are, but the mediation cabal rules are just that all parties have to be talking, which we were. Some rather rudely, which the med-cabal can help with. Edit-warring with discussion, the med-cabal can help with. The med-cabal cannot help if the parties refuse to talk--then other/further dispute resolution steps should be taken.

BTW, stirring things up wasn't why I didn't inform people--I assumed everyone saw the request--it didn't occur to me to inform people--I'm not sure what I'd be informing. That there's a pending request? I wouldn't be informing that your presence was wanted anywhere and med-cab participation is voluntary--I was simply saying that you'd commented on the issue. There's nothing to do or say until a request is taken, though things can get way out of hand before then--as I saw with the Wikiproject Baseball request. Everyone seemed to feel the need to put their two cents on the dispute on the med-cab request page, which led to a whole second round of comments on the med-cab request page--"I didn't say that"s and back and forth pointing. In these cases, mediation is especially important and these people most certainly need to be included in the mediation. Avoiding mediation because of bad behavior on the part of certain users isn't going to help the situation--those situations are often in the most desperate need of mediation. At any rate, mediation wasn't requested in response to a particular person or persons, but in response to an article related conflict, and so anyone who came to the talk page (including you) was notified. In addition, once the case is taken and actually opened (not pending), the mediator, as you saw, notifies anyone listed as "involved" that the case has been taken, in case they haven't been to the article talk page. I'll take your feelings into account for the future, but I would appreciate it if you could tell me why you needed triple notification--why the talk page banner and the notification by the mediator wasn't enough? What would you do if you were notified that ________ had filed a case with the mediation cabal? How would that notification be any different or more helpful than being notified that case ____ was being opened by the mediation cabal with mediator _____? Miss Mondegreen talk  05:29, June 24 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

I hope you understand that my attitude i expressed on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page is a general frustration with the situation and not with you. I feel like almost all the parties involved have a general understanding of the situation and that we are running around in circles because of some disruption. It seems pretty clear that others see the value of the blacksoxfan site regardless of which page is actually linked to and that's what started this whole debate. Again, do not take it personal, it is merely just my frustration with the situation. //Tecmobowl 12:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I would just like to thank you for staying civil in the Shoeless Joe Jackson dispute up to this point. You have not said a single thing that could be taken the wrong way, and have focused on the links, not the editors. I would like to encourage you to keep on acting the way you have so far. Again, thanks.--†Sir James Paul† 09:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irishguy admin

I wanted you to be aware of this. As you were a person who questioned his behavior towards me, I think I am required to notify you of this. Would you confirm that you were the other person to question his behavior? //Tecmobowl 13:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's now denying that we even had a dispute. It's pointless and leaves me contradicting my own main focus: Just make the content better. Be well //Tecmobowl 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to know, if you don't already, that (1) a more thorough checkuser proved that Tecmobowl used El redactor to try to evade a block; that following that exposure, (2) he achieved new low levels of incivility, throwing the F-bomb at me and various admins; that (3) he began furiously deleting links from articles, in defiance of all discussion on the topic; that (4) he has been blocked for a week due to that activity; and that (5) the inevitable has arrived, a request to have him blocked permanently. You were the one user that appeared to sympathize with him. The thing is, though, Tecmo has not yet learned that it's not just about content. It's also about working together. And his own words and deeds indicate that, bottom line, he couldn't care less what anyone else thinks here. Baseball Bugs 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

University High School

Hey, ive noticed your great work on the article, and just thought id spread something i have discovered, and affects the article. Look at the references in the article, there are 3 sometimes 4 citation marks right next to eachother, and this looks messy. You may wish to change this, by formatting them differently, look at reference #12 on Aquinas College, Perth; instead of having 3 reference tags, i have incorporated them all into one using bullet points (click edit the article to see exactly how its been done). This makes one citation mark, yet it still shows the same citations and looks alot neater. This is commonly used on Featured Articles now, and is something i just thought you may wish to know about. If you want, id be happy to do it (providing the refs are in cite format =P). Cheers. Twenty Years 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Blpdispute

Template:Blpdispute has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC(S)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'd like to give everyone who's participated in the creation of this gideline, this barnstar for collective patience and effort. To chgallen, Camaron1, Dahliarose, DWaterson, Miss Mondegreen, and Victuallers, I solute you. Adam McCormick 03:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Juan Pierre

The Marlins link automatically brings up the correct stats page, including all the Dodgers colors and insignia, so it's not a big deal either way, but I have corrected the link to refer to MLB rather than the Marlins. Jpers36 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to know--like I said, I didn't really know, since I was undoing a lot of edits, but I'd seen the edit summary for that one and it looked like it made sense. Thanks! Miss Mondegreen talk  21:34, July 25 2007 (UTC)

Good now?

Are you satisfied with the response to your latest WP:ANI? I'm trying to WP:AGF and believe that any perceived harassment is at an end now. If something else occurs, try WP:ANI and let me know. I may be advocating some blocks. Also, in the future, at least for the sake of my short attention span, you may want to summarize your posts there. Something along the lines of:

Harassment by <person> continuing:

July 31 10:53am: <diff> - accusation of being a proxy

July 31 11:03am: <diff> - personal attack

Help please. <signature>

Diffs and brevity are key. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs and brevity are key. Well I provided diffs, but I wasn't sure if anyone who responded was going to be at all familiar with anything that had happened. I've done things both ways and gotten--"too long, summarize" and "what am I missing?".

Am I satisfied? Mainly I'm worried--both users not only responded adamantly that I was a proxy and that their comments weren't personal attacks, but Epeefleche also accused me of advocating for keeping post-ban edits and a myriad of other things. I'm afraid I don't have quite the same faith that this is over, but there's only one way to find out. Either you'll be hearing from me again, or you won't. Thanks for your patience and everything--I really appreciate it.  :) Miss Mondegreen talk  14:19, July 31 2007 (UTC)

Template removal

That's weird. The template appeared to be deleted, it was leading to a redlink, and I found all the occurrences of the nonexistent template, but it seems that the template now exists again. I have no idea what happened there. Sorry. Bobo. 14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at that template. Its original poster implies that he's from that website. Not that there's anything wrong with someone promoting their own website, eh? >:) Baseball Bugs 14:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe everyone has a conflict of interest when it comes to baseball. At any rate, that site is frequently added as an EL on lots of articles, independently by lots of different editors. This editor doesn't seem to have had many contributions at all, and even if the editor had, or was the initial driving force behind adding this EL--it's independently been added in so many other areas (a higher bar than required when dealing with COI stuff). It's a non-issue IMO. Do you disagree, or are you just having a laugh at the fact that all roads I edit lead back to WP:COI? Miss Mondegreen talk  01:08, August 4 2007 (UTC)

A little of both. I used to like findagrave, until they started putting in popups and stuff that mess with my PC, so I don't go there anymore, as I don't trust them. Baseball Bugs 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not COI by any account... I'm not having any such problems with findagrave. Excessive advertising is generally a reason to avoid using an EL, but as I'm not having the problem I can't give you an opinion, and I'd wager that unless the advertising is really ridiculous people will want to keep it. It's something to keep in mind, but a lot of people find it a unique site and it's use is widespread and there's nothing that can really replace it. Unless the advertising is a major problem I'd guess that people will wish it otherwise but not find it reason enough to get rid of it. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:21, August 4 2007 (UTC)

Bobo--can you put the link back? I'd do it myself but the article's protected. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:21, August 4 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ISA-scan.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:ISA-scan.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. OsamaK 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC(S) input

Hello, as you might have noticed I have brought up a new proposal for a guideline on school naming conventions. However, there has been very little input for it to go anywhere. I remember you were involved in the last proposal, so I would appreciate your input once again at WT:NC(S) if possible. Thanks. Camaron1 | Chris 11:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DnM logo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:DnM logo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)