User talk:Mycroft.Holmes

Parma

Have we come to terms on the Parma page yet? I see that some other users made some proposal, which is fine by me, i.e. neither of us just deleting the other's contributions, signing talk posts, providing more references for the history, making the language more neutral, and putting the economic material in a better context. Anyway, just curious if we should request the page be unlocked or not. I'm obviously okay with adding sections on "Famous People from Parma" and so on.--172.144.171.238 05:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having a section for Parma businesses and a separate article for the pet store. As for the small-town politics, I wonder if the same technique can be used. Regardless, let's get the page opened up. -- Mycroft.Holmes 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of some bad virus/identity theft experiences, I personally am just "afraid" to create any online accounts, no matter how secure Wikipedia might be. Therefore, if you would be so kind as to start new pages for "RMS Aquaculture" and "The Parma Witch Hunt," I would gladly move the contested information onto those pages and then we could just have links to them from the Parma page. --172.147.240.54 21:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Aquaculture and The Parma Witch Hunt created as stubs. -- Mycroft.Holmes 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Witch Hunt Page showed up, but the RMS one didn't seem to be editable . . . Also, do we both need to request that the Parma page gets unblocked or how does that work? I mentioned it on Curps' talk page, but haven't heard anything yet. Best, --172.130.220.31 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened to the RMS page. It's there now, with the text from the Parma page. -- Mycroft.Holmes 13:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ... The Witch Hunt page has been tagged (not by me, I promise!) as a possible copyright violation. -- Mycroft.Holmes 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that someone has greatly cleaned up the Witch Hunt information, maybe we should just keep it on the Parma Page and delete the separate Witch Hunt article OR have a separate page on the History of Parma that can have the info? What do you think?--172.132.18.191 02:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you feel about the pet store stuff, but why also delete the new information on the blackout and Ken Kuzma, which undeniably made national news, and which others, even registered users, suggested be included in the article? Best, --172.162.144.116 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with what the anonymous users say this time. Seeing as how they actually have references and proof, there was no reason to blatantly do a compete revert. I understand putting the tag back on and removing the ads, but not getting rid of new proven information. --Wizardman 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable enough, but I really don't intend the economic stuff as an ad and by including references to other pet stores and not having instructions of where to shop, I just don't see how it's being perceived as such. The point is to have a real and specific example of the changing reality of Parma's store life (from the few remaining small or local businesses like Parma Pets and RMS to the PetSmarts and Pet Supplies Pluses). --172.147.192.103 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the Parma talk page so we can discuss the new wording before just deleting stuff that people put time into revising. Thanks, --152.163.100.71 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mycroft, hold of on any Parma deletions for at least the next few hours, as I'm working on some research for the page and will submit that before Lost starts and then you can add your two sents afterwards, but at least wait to see how the new or revised content fits first and it'll be helpful to leave the page as is for the time being. Thanks, --164.107.92.120 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dudette, you are totally out of control! :(

I don't think you're giving good reasons to delete the economy stuff. It does mention specific stores in Parma that have a history with the city and the information connects really well with the rest of the article. Perhaps, just focus on adding and correcting grammar, because you otherwise seem to dwell too much on deleting others' contributions and some of these indviduals have on the other hands made attempts to revise the material to make it fit better. Do you read these revisions or just delete the paragraphs without noticing the changes? Regards. --24.154.173.243 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Response to Parma Annony and Request for Article Semi-Protection

The fact that Mom & Pop businesses are dying in order to make way for larger companies is not unique to Parma. People have been complaining about Wal-Mart (especially in the rural South) since the 80's In fact, this is not even a problen unique to our time. In the 30's and 40's, supermarkets like A & P were considered the scourge of the local grocer and an evil that had to be stopped. I'm sure with a little constructive Googling, even earlier examples could be found.

Regarding the pet store "war": pet stores are not unique to Parma. As far as I have been able to determine, it's a backhanded attempt to get Google link. When "RMS Aquaculture" was in the article, a Google for "Aquaculture" showed the Wikiwpedia article first. That's a Wiki-no-no I'd wager.

Added to all this is the fact that the the "person" who keeps adding the questionable material has remained steadfastly annonymous. In addition, that same person uses threats of permanent bannage to threaten other editors. My general rule of thumb is that questionable material added by an annoymous user is subject to summary deletion. I don't thnk that's a bad or an unfair guideline. I'll usually try to to a little reasearch to check out the addition, but if I don't have time and it smells a little funny, into the garbage it goes!

To any sysops who might watching, I would respectfully request the this page be changed from protected to semi-protected status. If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that the article was extremely quiet while it was semi-protected. When the page is open, Annony will usually telegraph a new outbreak of hostilities by vandalizing my user page just to see if I'm watching.

I believe if you check my other edits, you'll find that that they are factual, well-written, and completely "under control". -- Mycroft.Holmes 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I know for a fact that a good deal of what you delete on the Parma page is NOT from the same person. Moreover, as for the pet store comments they do preference any specific store. There are no "shop here" style comments; in fact, multiple stores are mentioned in passing. Even if the trend is not unique to Parma, it fits with a larger theme of the article in that Parma has changed noticeable over the past few decades:

1. Parma Heights broke off of a Parma (supposedly for religious reasons) 2. Parma's population went from over 100,000 to now being in the low 80,000s 3. Parma's police force had over 100 officers, but now has around 80 (paralleling the population trend); Parma's police force has also cancelled DARE and never replaced its K9 unit 4. Parma's visual make up in the way of smaller stores has given way to the chains

Anyway, a lot of us anonymous users who are hesitant to register because of identity theft fears, personal attacks, etc., still make worthwhile contributions. I usually look for grammar errors or typos in articles and I care about Parma because I lived there for nearly 15 years. So, I think protecting the page is pointless and that the economic information is 100% acceptable and reasonable. Best, --24.154.173.243 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)--24.154.173.243 00:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis 500

I have noticed you are making many articles for each race. So all of these pages can be cleaner, I suggest you follow the format of, say, 1951 Indianapolis 500. Thanks, and happy editing. -Whomp 19:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please link complete dates. Date with day month are linked [[day month]] (or month day linked as [[month day]]); dates with month day, year are linked [[month day]], [[year]] (or if day month year as [[day month]] [[year]] - note no comma) This allows the user preferences feature to work and rearrange the dates into the format the user has specified. In full dates, years must also be linked - some people like formats with years first then dates. Rmhermen 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. For now, I just want to get the full set of results into the Wiki. The only complete results were for the 50's, and those pages have a definite "F1 feel" to them (e.g. using "RET" instead of actual finish position). Since I'm using a PHP program to dump the contents of my Indy 500 data base in Wiki table format, I can change these pages very quickly. -- Mycroft.Holmes 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW ... the reason I did not link the year in the date was becuase the year was already linked in "results of the YYYY Indianapolis 500" part of the title. I can change the dump so that the year is not linked there, but as part of the date. I'm adding some additional data to the source database, so I'll have to re-create the pages anyway. -- Mycroft.Holmes 14:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're on the subject of dates ... my database does not store the actual race date, so I wrote the dump program to use the "traditional" date of May 30 on all pages. I'll tweak the database to store the actual race date(s) and update the dumper accordingly. This'll be a work-in-progress and might take me a couple of days to get to. -- Mycroft.Holmes 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that you would use title case for the driver's names rather than all capital letters. You could also create Wikilinks to each driver as many do have their own articles. It would be a great asset to other users rather than wait for someone else to do it later. You seem to know the subject well. ww2censor 19:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that as I started to do this little project. My next change will be to capitalize the names properly (my db stored them all in upper case) and create a wiki-link. I'm also working on getting the race speeds into the database and onto the wiki-pages. -- Mycroft.Holmes 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you noticed those points and will update on your own. Great work. BTW, I don't see anything about René Dreyfus in the 1940 Indy 500 in that year's article listing. ww2censor 01:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

René Dreyfus

The official 1940 box score from IMS at indy500.com does not mention Dreyfus. Neither do any of my source books. Was he a relief driver? -- Mycroft.Holmes 14:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was the case. I have his book My Two Lives but as I just moved house do not have the info to hand. I know he was invited to the USA in 1940 and while there the Germans invaded France, so he was unable to return. Do you not list the relief drivers? Thanks ww2censor 15:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been my experience that relief drivers are not mentioned in the final results unless they played a significant role in driving a winning car (e.g. 1924, 1941) -- Mycroft.Holmes 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yearly Indy 500 Results

Hello, I was wondering how sure you were of the results for the Indy 500 that you posted for all the years. I was starting an article on John Mahler, and noticed that there was a link to him from the 1971 race, but according to the official Indy website, he didn't race in 1971, although I believe that he did qualify the car raced by Dick Simon. This prompted me to check the 1971 results that you posted vs. the box score on the website and it looks like there are about 7 drivers who don't match. I decided to go to the 2006 article and start working my way backwards comparing your results and 2006 and 2005 match, but there is a discrepancy in 2004. It looks to me like you have reversed Sam Hornish, Jr. and Roger Yasukawa. You have them listed as 10th/26th, but the website has them listed as 26th/10th. Also, Hornish's website news archive shows him as 26th. I'm going to change this race and I will check some of the others, but I'm not sure how long it might take, so if you are not very confident in your data/postings, I would appreciate it of you took another look. --Brian G 21:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll check my database and my data sources and make corrections as needed. -- Mycroft.Holmes 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update on some changes I've made since my last posting.... I've changed 2004 Indianapolis 500 as noted above. I've made substantial change to 1986 Indianapolis 500, if you would please check that one out and make sure I did it right, please note Talk:1986 Indianapolis 500. For 1979 Indianapolis 500, I changed Hucul and added McElreath. All the other years from 1972-2006 look fine to me now. I've also made a few adjustments for different years to the qualifying speeds and the car numbers, but nothing major. If you want more details about them just let me know. I haven’t checked anything before 1971 yet. Hopefully this will allow you to save some time and not have to check over quite as much. --Brian G 01:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?

I'm not trying to be funny, but what exactly is a Mycrotch Holmes anyway? Is that like a name or something? If so what ethnicity, playah? Vroooom, vrooom!! :) --205.188.117.11 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Mykraft, just answer the question!

Okay, enough jokes. I'm just curious on the origins of the name. That's it. Have a pleasant day, --172.137.59.7 20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mycroft Holmes -- Mycroft.Holmes 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool, thanks for the reply! So, are you named after this character or is it just a nickname? --172.165.161.31 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, why Mycroft and not Sherlock? Keep it smooth!--140.254.69.123 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, enough games, make a bio now!! Or at least add an image or some stinks, er links! :) Are you watching the Raw family reuinion tonight?! I am! So there, G! And what's up with Kim Jong Mentally Ill?! You tell me!! The sooner the better! PYP! --172.128.50.16 20:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why don't you have a bio page or something? I think that would be cool, no? --164.107.92.120 15:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt

it isnt a minor dispute... 222.155.21.111 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be childish, but yes, it is. The tag calls into question the accuracy of the entire article. I dont think that the dispute does that. --Mycroft.Holmes 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this section in reference to? And let's not be childish! --164.107.92.120 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

You're affiliated with http://tjs-labs.com/, I presume? Note that it is strongly discouraged per WP:EL and WP:NPOV that you add links to sites which you own or maintain. (You're prominently naming the site and include a referrer to Wikipedia, it is doubtful that you're a neutral editor about it.) Please do not add more links to the site without further discussion on the article talk pages, and reconsider your earlier links. Thank you. Femto 12:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the external links I've added are permissible per WP:EL (see below)

What should be linked to

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.

All the links I have added are to sites have absolutely no POV whatsoever. The sites compile and display neutral, verifiable data. Thanks for the heads up. --Mycroft.Holmes 12:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 of Links normally to be avoided takes precedence: A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. — Not the content of your site is the POV but already the the decision whether or not to link to it. Suggest your links on the talk pages and let independent editors decide to add them, please don't do it yourself. Femto 17:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]