Misplaced Pages

Revert

I've got to say I'm disappointed that our editorial collegiality is so absent that you revert such an obviously thorough and time-consuming effort on my part to address an issue raised both in the article and on the talk page, and then instead of justifying that revert on my talk page, you go to make two edits to expand the history of the Holy Assumption of the Virgin Mary Church. What's that about? I'd like to know why responding substantially to Grundle's questions, challenges, and edit, is so unacceptable to you as to cause you to revert it? He has asked for it (literally, not in the snarky vernacular sense), and thanked editors who explained what was wrong with his edits instead of simply reverting. While his en-masse reintroduction of earlier discussions smacks of making us go in circles and jump through hoops, something I'm not keen on doing, my post focused on the lone issue we had not already discussed at that page (or if we did, I missed it in the onslaught). I could ask you the same question I asked Grundle: Other than my Palin quip, do you feel any of my assessment of the topic at issue was POV? (As if that has ever been a reason to revert a talk page post.)

Insofar as I commented on Grundle's recidivism, why, if Grundle is allowed to make such declarations here as the one I used for my section title, would it be inappropriate to point out that he did not in fact live up to his own hype and promises of a day earlier? Although weight is not a central issue for talk page comments, if it were, my post is surely not out of proportion to Grundle's excessiveness, and the majority of my post is devoted to the issue, not the editor. I am not bringing any of this up out of the blue, it is asserted, questioned, etc., in a couple of previous sections, and I am gathering them together here to respond. Is there something I'm missing here? As I have commented to fellow editors at this page before, if we don't provide the factual refutation of claims made in edits or suggestions, then editors not only go off thinking they're right, but they think we're whitewashing the article by ignoring or denying "the truth". Given that we have amply refuted Grundle's misunderstandings about virtually every topic he's raised, I'd be happy much of the time to ignore this troublesome editor, stomping willfully about on a daily basis upon the borderline of vandalism, and leave it to others to handle from a purely bureaucratic angle—if those editors didn't drop the ball from time to time, overwhelmed or bending over backwards in the absence of comment to enable his behavior and shepherd his flawed suggestions into the article. Abrazame (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty simple. That wasn't an issue for an article talk page. Your issue was legitimate, but the article talk page isn't the place to call out an editor for his issues in general - do that on his talk page. Grsz 21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You're oversimplifying. As I mentioned above, the majority of it was a substantive explanation of the issue and why it didn't belong where it was or represent the issue the contributing editor thought it did. I was of course responding in large part to the post immediately above my own, wherein Grundle wrote, about this issue, "Why is it OK for the article to mention one side of this issue, without also mentioning the other side?" You're saying it's not an issue for an article talk page to answer that question? Did you actually read what I wrote in that article talk post, or were you just reacting to the title and opening sentence? Abrazame (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying as well. I removed the message and it's over, another editor agreed with me. How hard would it have been to just copy it to his talk page? I'm sorry if I offended you, obviously that wasn't my intention. Grsz 22:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not "over", as my question is not simply about what I do with this message, it's whether it's reasonable to expect people to post questions at talk pages about reverted edits and have those questions answered, or from my perspective whether it's reasonable to answer those questions, or from Wikidemon's perspective whether it's reasonable to allow or reinstate those edits if nobody ever does answer those questions. Which other editor agreed with you and what does that have to do with the questions I'm asking you? While I am somewhat offended, I accept your apology and my discussion is based not on offense, and not merely on what I do with that one post, but on extrapolating your reaction to what is going to happen on that talk page going forward with respect to the issues I'm raising of substantively responding to the litany of questions and protests there—and since when and why we seem to be shifting that paradigm. For example, I reverted someone's insult of the Clintons' marriage at the talk page, because it seemed like a BLP violation and the post was entirely off-topic. My revert was undone with the response that this additional insult was in the service of explaining a previous insult. So clearly my Palin comment is not at issue. And I guess I'm wondering what the difference is with allowing questions about what one has done wrong, and statements about what one intends to do right, on the one hand, and on the other, answers to those questions and counter statements when one so immediately and grossly ignores their own statements of intent. If one allows the former, doesn't one have to allow the latter? Abrazame (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I see there is some sort of policy action you have taken with regard to the initial cause of my post and our discussion here, and as the outcome of that policy action may itself answer or obviate some of my questions here, I will suspend our discussion for the time being and only request answers in the event that any of these questions remain at the end of however this plays out. I don't want to diffuse your focus away from that. I will watch your page but feel free not to respond before that issue is resolved, I'm presuming a week or two. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you chime in there? I've really only been observing. His actions at the talk page are at issue to, and you're better able to address that than I am. Grsz 23:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I rather expected to have a couple days to do so. Of course, all my previous questions remain, and there's a new one or two... Abrazame (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What I meant in my edit here yesterday was that since you aborted your policy action, all of my above questions remain open and even more, obviously, arise. Could you please explain that reversal, and resume the above discussion with me here? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I initiated the enforcement request, and had the right to withdraw it. I prefered to give him the benefit of the doubt that he would take a break for a little while and the same issues wouldn't return. I've moved on from the issue, I'm not sure what else you still need answered. Grsz 03:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment here, sadly, I must agree. I wanted to believe that he really was a "doe-eyed naif" and that it was not an act. I tried to help him (as did many others), but I could not fathom how anyone who espoused such good-nature could be so disruptive. Sigh. I used to avoid political articles to avoid contentious editors and general mean-spiritedness. I decided to brave the snarky comments because I felt that the political articles needed good neutral editing. I still do, but I'm not happy to be in the gunsights of some of the less-friendly members of the community.Nonetheless, I stand by the actions of the community - G was given an abundance of opportunities to participate within the rules, and rejected them - apparently purposefully. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hey

Haha, I was just going to write you the same message. Yeah, I was going to start working through the article paragraph by paragraph when I got a chance, which is hopefully soon. The game log for this season's article needs cleaned-up some, we had pretty much agreed to not include "site" at WP:HOCKEY, so I'm not sure where all that came from. If you have no objections, I like the format we used last year. So, I gotta run to class now, but definately yeah. Those rings were awesome, eh? blackngold29 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool stuff. Do you want to use the "recap" column for the links? Someone had said a link to the Pens' site or HockeyDB at the bottom of the page could cover the whole season citation-wise. There was never really a consensus, it would probably make it easier to eliminate it, not that adding the links is hard. Did we link the opponents in the game log? Whatever, no big deal. As for last season I c/e'd the post season prose, I'm assuming the regular season should be good because we pretty much wrote it all. The Milestones section and player awards need some citations, but other than that it's looking good to me. blackngold29 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, alright. Challenge accepted. Thanks for giving me so long to work on it. It was the anniversary of the opening of th park this year and I realized that too late to get it to FA, but Maz's HR is just as, if not more, memorable of a moment. blackngold29 19:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we were the only team that really did it last season (even though we kept them pretty recent). It makes sense because basically we're copying their official site, so people can just go there to get them anyway. I'm starting to think that it would even make sense not to update the infobox stats until the end of the year. blackngold29 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FG

I don't "claim" , I am.

Vanisheduser5965 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"cant you just take down those sites"

So you are asking me to take down my professional blog and my professional website because you want to personally harass me ? No. The request is in to the Oversight admins , please just leave them off till then. If you really hate me so much that you want to drag me through more bureaucracy . There is no reason to keep this section at all.Vanisheduser5965 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the issue here is. Saying I am harassing you is a lie, I have nothing personal against you. I simply attempted to point out why your claimed personal knowledge was insufficient as a source here. I kindly asked you to provide reliable sources that were not original research, as any responsible editor here should have. Anybody simply looking at this section without the background knowledge would have no clue what is going on, and no harm would be done. This is my talk page, and I am allowed to do what I please here. I was kind enough to unlink the blog, and the other link was dead anyways, so why you are still concerned is beyond me. You say you've "vanished" but are still here. If you want to stop being uninvolved, all you have to do is walk away. Believe me, nobody is going to care enough to look back through my history and find links to the blog (which you don't even claim to be yours in the first place) and make the connection. I am not openly saying who you are, I respect your desire for privacy. But if somebody really wanted to, they could still look through the history at this page or others and find the desired link, so removing them really accomplishes nothing. I haven't done anything wrong here, so there is no need to continue to harass me. I'm sorry your experience here was not as pleasant as you would have wished, but that is not my fault. Grsz 03:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You requested I take down a blog I've been on for 3 years and website I have been on for 10 years . It doesn't matter that the links not clickable , they are here with the original URL . I'm not blaming you for anything ! I'm just trying to get my links removed. That's all ! Why does it matter ? Just wipe the whole section out. Hopefully oversight will just delete it all. Just leave the links off and if you get nostalgic you can look up the history. I wont come back again if you do  ! I swear it ! I'm just trying to leave.Vanisheduser5965 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

My sand box

Please feel ree to use the links on my sandbox to improve the article.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I appreciate your looking at this objectively given our history. I was wrong in my previous evaluation of you, and apologize for that nastiness at Obama.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking at, but with these recent events, I can make assumptions. That section of ANI revealed a number of different addresses all located at a certain city. I really do think you should persue it, I'll help if you need something. Grsz 01:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Due to the delicacy of the situation, I think it would be best to wait untilFrank logs in and addresses the issue. If he denies the COI, I will go to Arbcom.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Grsz11, if you are alleging that *I* am Frank Pais then go ahead and make a CheckUser request - you'll be disappointed. If you're alleging that I edited earlier this evening from another IP beginning 64then you're correct. I was at the office before and now I'm home. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let´s just let this drop until Frank has a chance to address the issue.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Grz: Long time no see. How are you? I noticed you’ve become involved in something regarding an alleged COI. Please proceed with care, as user the user intiating such move has a history of going around accusing people of COI. This is a prime example of such behavior. I wanted to point that out to you, so you don’t get caught up on what might be based on personal motivations rather than a good faith concern of a policy violation. Regards, Likeminas (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Martinez

It's not that the references in question are "off line" it's that they either don't exist or don't mention Martinez. 141.117.225.1 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey . I wonder if you would evaluate objectively the fellow's canvassing accusation and tell me what you think?--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Holy Assumption of the Virgin Mary Church

On October 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holy Assumption of the Virgin Mary Church, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Misplaced Pages search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Misplaced Pages at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Sorry

This was me bumping the rollback link while scrolling down my watchlist. Sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I hate when I do that! Grsz 04:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Busch Entertainment

Hi ... I wanted to let you know that your edits to the articles related to Busch Entertainment Corporation have, for the most part, been undone. While I completely believe your edits were being made in good faith, they were nonetheless in error. It is true that Anheuser-Busch InBev has announced plans to sell BEC to the Blackstone Group; however, said ownership change has not occurred yet. As of right now, BEC is still a full subsidiary to A-B InBev. It is very possible that the deal could fall through during the approval and closing process, so until such time as the deal is truly completed (expected by year-end), the articles should reflect no change.

Further, when the deal does get approved, the only mention of Blackstone Group, in my opinion, should be in the BEC article. If each of the parks links to BEC--which, for at least one article, wasn't the case until you fixed it (thank you for catching that)--then that should be enough. As I said, that's my opinion; it should be discussed in BEC's talk page so we can get consensus amongst the editors.

If you have any questions, leave them on my talk page or on BEC's talk page. Thanks, and happy editing!

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question

See User_talk:MBisanz#Question. MBisanz 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Kennywood

I responded to your request at wt:NRHP, actually by posting at Talk:Kennywood. See there. doncram (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1900s football

Hi Grsz11, I don't know how much help I can be. I found practically all of my information about early IUP football, from the Professional Football Researcher's Association () when I was researching John Brallier, Lawson Fiscus and the pioneering pro football teams like the Latrobe and Greensburg. The PFRA site has a very good search engine and if you type in "Indiana Normal" it will give you a listing of 27 pages of PFRA articles that mention early IUP. Sorry I can be of any more help, but let me know how it works out. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting diff

. I copied some of our history to his page. I expect he´ll remove it soon. If he doesn´t , I will in alittle bit.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

. It just gets better.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaming the system

Hey! I think a strong case could be made for gaming on the Shane Martinez page. One editor voted non notable, and used hat vote to justify asking for all those pages to be deleted. Some IPs voted in the Shane Martinez deletion discussion, and one has only had thatone edit. I think that the page should be replaced, and the votes from these gaming accounts discounted. I expect an ANI discussin might be in order, but I have no time to collect diffs for it due to midterms. What do you think?--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I get around!--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Youtube video and Colorado balloon incident

Hello and good morning. I disagree with you on that youtube video not being a reliable source. This is a case of WP:IAR here. Clearly any ordinary youtube video is definitely not a source of reliable information, but this particular video is a recording of a Larry King episode which clearly features the family and clearly and directly supports the information in the article. In this case, common sense must prevail over WP:RS. It would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to have the video as a reference because it does more to support verifibility than the news articles do. I'll wait until your response before considering adding it back in.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I've thought a little more about this and I feel that WP:SELFPUB covers this. It is a interview where they talk about themselves and an event directly.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Grundle

IMO, if he wants to set himself up as a martyred drama queen, let em. We're probably not going to get much mileage out of needling him here. A bit revealing that he's been an almost decade-long FReeper, though, eh? Tarc (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Richards/Booth

What's with the Huffington Post link for the AP report? It seems like an odd outlet for sport news. Check out the comments. :) ccwaters (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right: Richards knew he was finishing his check. Honestly: the fact that a Flyer did it and the league DIDN'T suspend him and is even going as far as possibly rescinding the game misconduct says A LOT. The HuffPost has a link to a youtube clip, so I guess its should stay (as compared to finding a more typical outlet for the AP article). ccwaters (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

CSCHL

I reverted your addition of CSCHL to the University of Illinois page as there are no other athletics nav templates on the page. It could be, perhaps, added to Illinois Fighting Illini. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ 17:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)