User talk:HuskyHuskie

User talk:HuskyHuskie/Archive1

Hello HuskyHuskie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Glad to see you had a re-think. Drmargi (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are very kind, and I am humbled at your greeting. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be humbled about. Did you see the whole pea thing worked out? Colicchio talked to several competitors who acknowledged they'd seen Alex make the puree. So much for Pea-gate. Now we're in on to "Did the Red Team cheat?" v. "Did viewers buy in to Kenny's hype?" It wouldn't be Top Chef without a crisis. Drmargi (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't read the blogs every week--thanks for telling me. My partner thanks you too. Kenny, by the way, was my biggest disappointment this season. I was rooting for him to win it all from Week 1, but he just didn't meet his own hype, slipped farther and farther in my esitmation each week, and finally, that whining he did at his last judges table showed that he just didn't get it. Oh well. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny did have a quite a following, but turned out to be much weaker than originally promised. I think he spent too much time hyping himself, and not enough on delivery, in the end. The one who surprised me was Steven Hopcraft. He's probably the most experienced among them, almost to Masters level. You don't work as a Michael Mina executive chef, including opening Seablue in Vegas, if you're not darned good. So often, of course, the issue isn't whether they can cook but whether they can cook competitively. The sleeper in the group seems to be TIffany, who's suddenly come on very strong. I would imagine that, barring a disaster, the finale will be Tiffany, Kelly and either Angelo or Kevin. But you never know. Drmargi (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my partner and I have both switched our rooting to Tiffany. She is surprisingly successful, and yet never gives any sign of gloating. She's very likeable. Kelli is also very nice, but I think she's not as unflappable and is going to melt somewhere critical. My finals prediction is Tiffany, Angelo, and Kevin, much like yours.HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit more confidence in Kelli. I saw her do Iron Chef America, and she was solid there. I'm surprised Ed is such a wash-out, since he was one of Cat Cora's sous chefs on ICA for ages. I tend to agree that Tiffany has suddenly become the front runner, and Angelo has faded back badly as he's been forced to get out of his very safe Asian style. Tiffany reminds me of Carla from a couple years back; one can only hope she'll have more confidence in the end; Carla's loss was such a shame, and Hosea was so mediocre -- his winning really pointed up all the weaknesses of the judging and immunity system. My only issue with Tiffany is she's been pretty judgmental with Alex recently, which has been rather unattractive; aside from that, she's always been among the more likable of a hard to like group. Drmargi (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that about Kelli--I really like her a lot. Tiffany's emergence does bear some resemblance to Carla's, but Carla's was the bigger shocker, to me. Tiffany's just not as plain out goofy as Carla was.

Hosea's victory was so upsetting to me [check that--Hosea's survival to the finals was so upsetting to me . . . ] that I literally skipped Season 6 altogether. This season I was drawn back because of the setting in DC, which really appealed to me with its potential (and, which I will say, has paid off with some interesting guests and locales). Hosea's well-established mediocrity was not what made me hate him, however. It was that it appeared either that he was making the beast with two backs with Leah, or else was trying to, and then he expended enormous amounts of energy denying the relationship, and finally threw her under the bus when it was convenient because (I suspect), doing so would make it appear that he really was not interested in her. What a jerk. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here - space between dot and reference (number 2). It does not should be. This kind of edits I do when I tired. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old ranking (2007), from a pretty random source. I don't think it is still relevant really. 138.87.196.226 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, but not the one you made in your edit summary.

Secondly, since these rankings may well have been updated, a more appropriate move would be to seek a more up-to-date ranking instead of merely deleting it. If we listed the ten busiest airports and the article said that Hartsfield/Atlanta was the second busiest, and you deleted it because now it was the number-one busiest, that would be kind of horseshit, right? This is less notable a matter, but the principle is similar.HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look a little better? :) CTJF83 chat 01:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much! Great job! HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would actually endorse moving it up to near the top of Quad Cities. Again, great job. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks for the "great job" CTJF83 chat 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The athletic conference categories are a mess and I'm in the process of cleaning them up. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign is now categorized under Category:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which rolls up into Category:Big Ten Conference schools, which in turn rolls up into Category:Big Ten Conference. Make sense? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess so. I've never really gotten into categories, so I'll take your word for it. Just seemed odd; at least now I know that there is actual reasoning behind the edit, even if I don't have the time to follow it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 03:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That sure came out of the blue. I am absolutely stunned and incredibly appreciative! I'm just a small-timer around here, but boy that sure feels great. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Everyone deserves appreciation. CTJF83 chat 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Huskie! That sure is a better way of getting BS than a couple I could think of! ;-) Rapier (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothin' but good feelings all around . . . HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? HuskyHuskie (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you were planning on correcting the ambiguous Tri-County Conference links in light of the disambig page you created. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, is that like considered to be a part of Wikipedia ettiquette? I've never done that before, so I don't really know. If I'm really expected to, then yes, I guess I will. But I thought it was enough to have the dab page where those who care about those articles can link up. My thinking had been that it was rather arrogant for the Tri-County Conference page to be only for New Jersey, when there was also a Michigan Tri-County Conference in existence, that someone already knew about (as evidenced by the note at the top of the page). I thought I was the good guy already. But if you say it's de rigeur to do so, then I will. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, I had some extra time, so I've done this as best as I can figure out to do. Let me know if I've missed anything regarding the process. HuskyHuskie (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the delist nomination you were trying to create. You're welcome to chime in there. J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say anything, about any living person that is negative, untrue, etc. You're a good editor, and I don't wanna see you get blocked for this. Yes, it even applies to saying things on your talk page. Note the userbox that got me in trouble. So please stop adding anything negative or could be perceived as negative about Jerry Kill or any other living person. I'd hate to see you get blocked. CTJF83 chat 17:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking out for me. I'll try to keep my nose clean. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, amigo, Please leave the Jerry Kill POV stuff off Wiki. Put your venting on the Huskie website. Leave meaningless comments like "He offered no explanation" out of the JK article. How does that inform anyone. What's the hidden, implicit message, He's being secret and close to the vest and it upsets me"? Who cares. Move on......org. Thnaks. Rosspz

Thanks for that, although I am no longer a minor. :) I was going to create a separate little section called "songs", but then I saw that the sports section had only a link and no text, so that seemed like a good place to put that splinter, along with a companion comment about the fight song. Most school's alma mater songs tend to be obscure, but this one kind of stands out due to being a classical work. Also, during the 60s when other campuses were having massive demonstrations, riots, etc., the ISU campus was relatively calm, its students generally being of a more conservative bent. "I don't want to say that the school is fascistic, but their alma mater is 'Deutschland Uber Alles'!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't speak well of ISU, IMHO, that while the bulk of students rioted over war and civil rights in the 1960s, ISU didn't get it's gander up for another 20 years, and that was over beer. If you're not familiar with the 1984 Beer Riot, take a look at page 12 of this history. Unbelievable. HuskyHuskie (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 60s, there were no fraternities at ISU, and Normal was a dry town. By the time of the infamous beer riots, Normal was no longer dry, and there were frats all over the place. I can imagine Jesse Fell doing the "told-you-so dance". I don't mean to imply there was nothing at all going on at ISU in the late 60s. There were indeed demonstrations and no small amount of tension on campus. Just not like at SIU, where they had to close the campus and send everyone home, following the 1970 riots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the 1970 section of that history, and you'll see what went on on the campus. The real fascists made Braden the scapegoat, as he did what was necessary to keep the peace on campus. He was a good man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HuskyHuskie, I indeed reviewed and read the note on your last edit of Jerry Kill. I just reverted your reversion to restore the opening sentence, which provides wikilinks to American football and United States that frame the topic at hand, especially for an international audience. Also, the single sentence about Kill's playing days doesn't need its own paragraph. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be, at least, that those 30-story buildings were indeed grouped into "houses" of 5 stories apiece, or some such. How they're administrating those buildings at present, I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some poking around at the ISU website, and it looks like they still use the "house" designations at Watterson.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I would have said "grouped into" rather than "divided into", which is a bit unclear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not intended to deny that the building is divided into houses, but rather, to deny that the floors are divided into houses (if you look at the edit history of Watterson Towers, you'll see that I understand it quite well). But yes, you are right to say that the floors are grouped into houses; I wish I had thought of that wording. Please, go ahead and fix it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned (more clearly) in the separate article about the towers, so maybe it's too much detail for the main article, as you were suggesting when you deleted it. I just wanted to be sure that we both understood what the story is at Watterson. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Northern Star (Northern Illinois University) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced and no indication of WP:notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest, cowboy. Rome wasn't built in a day. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Kankakee Torrent at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate that someone looked at it so quickly.

Having said that, I guess I'll withdraw the nomination. I just can't get into all the bureaucratic stuff that goes on behind the scenes. I wrote an article, the first that I've ever thought was really interesting enough or significant enough for DYK, and if it doesn't qualify because it's not long enough, then so be it. I'm not going to artificially expand the article because DYK requires it. I put in what I know about it, and I look forward to the eventual expansion of it by other editors over the years, and that'll just have to do. I think recent discoveries about geology that have forced the acceptance of non-theological catastrophism theory are just fascinating, and to find that such a phenomenon actually occurred in my own back yard was really cool. And it doesn't need (in my most humble opinion) another 600 words to be interesting enough for the front page.

Please don't read any anger or sarcasm or rancor into my words--because there's nothing like that here. I'm just tired, and quite content with what I've done. I'm not looking for any plaudits, anyway, and in fact plan to be reducing my level of editing with the new year. I just wanted to put something interesting out there on the front page, but I'll live without it, the (very minor) loss is the community's, not mine. Thanks for cueing me in on the requirements. Happy editing! HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To PM800: Well, some other editors worked on the citations, and I happened to add some to the text, so maybe (and I know it truly is just a "maybe") you could give it another look? Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have refixed all the references now and also added some text. Use this Google tool [2] to fix all book references from Google books (the finished format appears at the bottom of that page). You may like to fix the correct page number to the last para. It is now more than 5x expansion. You can record this in the DYK talk page. Better add more text from the book reference. --Nvvchar. 07:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Dnot' give up. I have gone through this stage in the past. Continue contributing.--Nvvchar. 08:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah keep at it. Just remember to draw up references properly and to ensure you articles are long enough... Happy New Year!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's unforgiveable. I might have had a good mind to call for your immediate banishment... if I hadn't done the exact same thing at various times in the past. :) It's unfortunate that there isn't a mechanism to "fix" edit summaries, when you click save and then have one of those "D'oh!" moments. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kankakee Torrent, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Illinois River channel was carved out in a matter of days by the Kankakee Torrent? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) 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 DYK project (nominate) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who helped me learn about the DYK process, and helped me get my first and only DYK. Special thanks to User:PM800, User:Stone, User:Dr. Blofeld, and User:Nvvchar. I shall now be able to retire from Wikipedia with a somewhat greater sense of satisfaction. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HuskyHuskie. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
Message added 14:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying in your response to my oppose at the Ctjf83 RfA, and am dropping you this note as I don't believe that RfA really needs any more commentary on the subject. I tried to make it clear that I was not basing my oppose on the userbox itself, but rather that the response of a serious candidate for admin would be to acknowledge that others would find that statement offensive, and at least replace it with {{Template:User atheist}} or a similar box which could simply state the fact of Ct's atheism without the condescension and judgment. The failure at this point is to acknowledge that others may be offended, and make their statement in a more acceptable manner. Not an apology, just an acknowledgment and demonstration of willingness to change. It is this lack of judgment, empathy, and respect for others that influences my decision to oppose, along with the AfD problems and other reasons I noted that have nothing to do with the entire ubx issue. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I meant to include in my comment an acknowledgment that CT clearly aggravated the situation with his response. I have left him comments on his talk page with the hope that he will develop just such a mindset as you speak of wanting to see. I've recognized the valid concerns of you and others, but I have stuck to defending him as much as I have because I do believe that equally abrasive demonstrations that contained the majority point of view would not have resulted in such a controversy (hitting me up in my fairness bone) and would thus not have provoked CT such as it did (my empathy bone engaged by this). CT really is a reasonable, fair minded person, and this, unfortunately, has not brought his best side out. Anyway, I agree, enough has been said. I encourage you to track CT in the future; hopefully his growth will not disappoint you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you think "quietly" was a better description than "without drama." I changed the wording to "without drama" because I think the main point is to call as little attention to the situation as possible, and I thought that "without drama" would do that more clearly. (And, as an aside, my principal concern regarding CTJF is related to a tendency to incite drama.) But I'm interested in hearing why you think "quietly" expresses that better -- or if you think that a different point deserves to be made there. (This is not important, but it seems I'm always learning about how other people perceive language, and this is another opportunity to do so.) --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you share my fascination with language, and, presumably, the connotation of words. Immediately after I made my post on your page I regretted it, worried that you would take it wrongly. My fears are assuaged.

Anyway, a couple of thoughts were in my mind. First of all, I favor "quietly" because I think that's exactly what best discourages vandals and trolls. Silence, or at most a laconic response, does wonders to rob them of their source of glee. "Without drama", while better than "drama", implies to me providing for them a concise, logical retort for their comments or actions. And merely taking the time to construct a response gives some of them what they want--to waste your time. Now I disfavored "without drama" for this case specifically. Why? The unintended invocation of gay stereotypes. Like most of us who move through the educated part of the world each day, I have a number of gay men I deal with. The reality may be (and some of them would admit it) that a few of them do tend to be overly dramatic about things. And with those who are my friends, I can accuse them of being drama queens and whatnot. But in the US (I have no idea where you are) we are quite preoccupied with political correctness, and so I would avoid using the term "drama" or even "dramatic" in reference to a gay man whom I was not closely acquainted with, and that would mean I would not advise a gay man to "avoid drama". I'm one thousand percent certain that you had no ill intent with your comment, and had you not changed it, I probably would not have even taken notice. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the semantics lesson. I'm in the U.S., but it did not occur to me that "drama" might be misconstrued in that fashion. Thanks again. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should enable your "email this user" in your preferences so that I may contact you in around 9 hours, after work. CTJF83 chat 03:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, friend, but while I do recognize that there are valid reasons for using email, I have consciously chosen to not have that communication avenue open. It mainly has to do with my feelings about WP:CANVASS, which I consider to be a piece-of-bullshit policy, because I've seen people accused of canvassing, when what they were doing was being open, and then they lose the battle to those who canvass off-wiki. Accordingly, so that I can never be accused of this, I keep my email option turned off at all times. I'm not sure if you could convince me to change this. I'm really, really sorry, it's just a principle that I've held to for a long time. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the biggest supporter of my RfA...but it might be time for me to consider throwing in the towel....thoughts? CTJF83 chat 09:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to suggest it, but yes, I think that's what someone genuinely interested in becoming a consensus-oriented Wikipedian would do right now. It's not easy to think about, and I purposely stopped myself from bringing it up last night. But the fact that it's so difficult to do is what makes it an act of maturity. But seeing reality for what it is and not fighting it can only benefit you in the long run. I'm so sorry. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much for your above and beyond support!! I greatly appreciate it!! CTJF83 chat 21:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For HuskyHuskie, great catch on DeKalb, Illinois, good eye, keep it up..IvoShandor (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, it was well-earned. Your catch is just the kind of subtle promotion that too often gets overlooked. It smacked of public relations. I wouldn't be surprised if it was originally added by someone within the City of DeKalb bureaucracy. IvoShandor (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for your comment on my talk page, I'll refer you to your own words "Sometimes, I will admit, I create a page that, while accurate and worthy of an article, is complete crap in terms of quality. This is generally because I don't care about the subject, but saw that the article needs to exist."Klaus (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point, and not completely without merit. But creating a crappy article that did not yet exist, in the hope that others will improve it, is not quite the same as adding crap to an already extant article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you redirecting Batavia away from Jakarta? Could you please cease until you explain and get consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I've done. Batavia has been redirecting to History of Jakarta, there is no place that it does not do so, as far as I know. I've merely been making it go directly to the article, instead of a redirect.

But if I was to seek consensus for this "change", where would you suggest I seek it? HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not direct to Jakarta? THe first place to ask the question is on the article talk page: so I would use Talk:Jakarta. You could also put a link to that discussion at the Indonesia project noticeboard (among others). cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did already start moving them to Jakarta ([3][4][5][6][7][8]. Then I saw this discussion in which the editors decided to redirect Batavia to History of Jakarta. It's not what I would do, but I decided to honor the result of discussion instead of sending it to Jakarta, which was my instinct. Then, another editor convinced me to redirect Batavia to Batavia, Dutch East Indies, as that would be less confusing to other editors following behind me. And that's why I've done what I've done. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do see one reason to not redirect these references to colonial Batavia to Jakarta. I've noticed that a great many of them, probably at least a third, are written like this: "Batavia (now Jakarta)" So linking Batavia to Jakarta would be redundant and reduce the immediate accessibility of information to the reader. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan to bring up a discussion for a possible move later, but at this point, it's unimportant, as what I am doing has no actual impact on traffic. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou, getting notes like that make it all worthwhile, Tom B (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010–2011 Arab world protests was moved to 2010–2011 Middle East protests earlier today, and once a page is moved, the old page is converted to #REDIRECT [[2010–2011 Middle East protests]]. However, probably because there are alot of people editing this article, it was changed back to the old batch of text. This created what used to be the same article under two different names, and with editors editing them both, this would create a divergence over time, if left unattended. So I reverted it back to a redirect.

However, the move was made without consensus, and it was subsequently moved back to 2010–2011 Arab world protests. So any links on User talk:Tpbradbury are all screwed up again, and out of context. Hope this makes this clusterf*ck a bit clearer. --Natural R_X 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that moving an article that is being rapidly edited without extensive discussion is a major no-no. Hope I never make that mistake (I've made plenty of others already). Thanks for clarifying. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the changes and writing a NPOV caption for the image--Muhammad(talk) 10:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. HuskyHuskie (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I agree that my change was just as POV as MMK's.  :) Yours is a great alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moomima (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal on Batavia has confused me. As I understand it, there are two issues (which of these is your proposal about?):

1. Batavia redirecting to the disambig page. I think that is fair enough, but this is already the case. But your proposal seems to be calling for it. mmmm?
2. The piped link of “Batavia” in an Indonesian historical context to History of Jakarta. That’s confusing. Batavia (in an Indonesian context) equates to the geographic entity known as Jakarta. Peking doesn’t redirect to History of Beijing, and Calcutta doesn’t redirect to History of Kolkata. Whatever page it links to, the Batavia term needs to be readily accessible (ie, the first sentence or two).

My thinking is based on assuming many people looking up Batavia, or more significantly clicking on it from an Indonesia-related article, don’t actually know what the term means.

Anyway, sorry for being a bit thick headed on this one. Please let me know which of the two I’m meant to be commenting on. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than partially responsible for the confusion. Some chronology may clear it up.

1. I discovered a few weeks ago that Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta. This puzzled me (in fact, I didn't understand how I had ended up at History of Jakarta for a while, as I had never heard of Jakarta being known formerly as Batavia [Full disclosure: I'm a baby boomer]).
2. After some searching, I came across this discussion from two years ago, which explained how that redirect came to be.
3. Rejecting their logic, I changed Batavia to redirect to Batavia (disambiguation).[9]
4. My edit was reverted on the very reasonable grounds that there were hundreds of links to Batavia, most of which referred to the colonial capital, and that these should first be fixed so that they went to where they were intended to go, prior to my making a big switch.
5. I proceded to make these changes, by piping [[History of Jakarta|Batavia]], to all articles that referred to Batavia in the colonial sense. All other uses (and there were dozens of these as well), I left alone, for the time being. My goal in doing this was twofold: a) to preempt any further claim that I was creating a lot of work, by doing said work myself, and b) to demonstrate (by leaving the other links intact) to the Jakartaphiles that there are a lot of people out there that do not automatically think of Java when they hear Batavia (though some, clearly, remain unconvinced.[10]).
6. I then went ahead and once again changed the redirect of Batavia from History of Jakarta to Batavia (disambiguation). In retrospect, this was a mistake, because while my ultimate goal was to have Batavia simply be the name of the dab page, it confused some editors (such as yourself), because it seemed to be that I was proposing a solution where there was no problem. Had I instead left Batavia redirecting to History of Jakarta, it would have been much clearer how badly change was needed. I'm not sure what I was thinking in doing this, other than I knew I did not want the discussion to be at Talk:History of Jakarta, where it would likely be dominated by a small group of Jakartaphiles. Having the discussion at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation) seemed to me to be neutral ground (though now I realize I could have had the discussion there without changing the redirect).
7. I then went and posted at WP:RM to move Batavia (disambiguation) to Batavia. I chose to move it to Batavia instead of leaving it at Batavia (disambiguation), because I wanted to make it clear, once and for all, that (contrary to the opinion of a small, dedicated group) the Jakartan connection to Batavia is not the predominant usage. And, as it turned out, another editor has pointed out that it is actually prohibited by WP:MDP to have Batavia redirect to Batavia (disambiguation); either it must redirect to one of the articles on the dab page, or else (as most of us seem to prefer) the dab page takes on the base name (Batavia), without the "disambiguation" in the title.

So what am I trying to accomplish? Simply that when one clicks on Batavia, they get a dab page and nothing associated with Jakarta. I am certain that while people into colonial history may think of Jakarta or Indonesia when they hear "Batavia", that there are literally many millions more people in the world--especially the English-speaking world--who do not share this association. I think the evidence that I posted with this edit makes this abundantly clear. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, saw that the page Batavia now redirects to Batavia (disambiguation) and i feel that is very much fine. As it was an old name of a famous city, its relation with Jakarta was important but it seems it is kinda obsolete now and a good case for disambiguation. You may post in WikiProject Indonesia to know whether anybody have an objection. Keep editing :) Aravind V R (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to leave some comments on the article's talk page when I have more time, but in the meanwhile, I just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for all of your help there. The work you did on that article was excellent, and your talk page comments were quite sound. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks! HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently contributed to Big Ten Conference. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Talk:Big_Ten_Conference#Which_new_logo_version.3F. Thank you. Levdr1 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite; looks like it's already been settled, though. For what it's worth, while I do see your point that the Big Ten has made no official announcement, they are clearly using the other logo. The best argument I can see you making is that both logos have standing, but since the article can only have one, the winning argument is probably to use the one that the Big Ten themselves is using.

I blame the Big Ten for putting you in this situation. They announced the powder blue and white logo with much fanfare, and you've just tried to adhere to what they announced. But I think they were embarrassed by the reaction to the new logo (as well as the divisions), and they have probably made the change quietly this time, hoping that everyone will eventually forget the wimpy logo that they rolled out before. I think your beef should be with Delany, not the other editors. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have no beef with the other editors -- except for the one shouting that I must be "stupid" (I've since ignored him/her). Secondly, the Big Ten never rolled out a single logo. There were multiple versions shown on both the Big Ten network special and on the new logo link on the Big Ten website here. The conference never "changed" the logo -- rather, most of the versions have since been removed from that link (I'm guessing b/c they did not want high resolution graphics up indefinitely). The remaining black-blue "B 10" version has been around since the initial announcement; it was not created as a replacement. Having said that, I realize most editors are leaning towards that version rather than the one I prefer. It will be interesting to see which versions are actually used in the coming months.

Thank you for your input. Levdr1 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for that extra information. You obviously know a lot more about the subject than I. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Though I wasn't involved in that dispute, the whole thing left me exasperated.

Looking back, User talk:Bongomatic was probably right in pointing out that the template's purpose was more to prevent edit conflicts than to inform readers about how incomplete the info in the article is.

The template's intention is to inform readers that the information on the article may be inaccurate [because of the edit conflicts that may be occurring]. The reason "[because of the edit conflicts that may be occurring]" does not appear in the template is because the process of editing the article is a behind the scenes matter that should not concern readers who browse Wikipedia without ever editing it.

The documentation should have been very clear on this. It was not, and that was what caused the dispute.

I'm about to repost what I said here on the template's talk page. - Yk³ talk • contrib 01:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 01:20 Jim Michael
2 00:53 HuskyHuskie
2 00:50 HuskyHuskie
3 23:16 Bongomatic
4 19:56 WikitanvirBot
4 19:12 Jim Michael
5 18:31 Funandtrvl
5 18:14 Funandtrvl
6 17:16 Alexf
7 15:17 CutOffTies
8 15:14 24.59.11.73
8 15:13 24.59.11.73
9 12:34 Okmjuhb
10 12:21 Iste Praetor
11 12:20 68.100.206.71
12 12:18 Mato
12 12:18 68.100.206.71
12 12:17 Iste Praetor
12 12:17 68.100.206.71
13 12:06 Niteshift36
13 11:52 CutOffTies
14 10:50 188.28.91.82
14 10:49 188.28.91.82
15 10:24 124.169.158.112
15 10:22 124.169.158.112
16 08:45 Rudolph89
16 08:42 Rudolph89
17 07:18 Redthoreau
17 04:28 HuskyHuskie
17 03:59 Bongomatic
17 01:38 HuskyHuskie
^Bongo_matic 01:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HA HA! Oh, my god that is hilarious! This post positively proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you just don't get it. As far as I know, no one doubted that your edit/editors counts were correct. That was never the point! This may be the most clueless post I have ever seen.

Well, Sheriff B.M. Pepper, I must say I can't wait until you get your badge, because until you do, no article will be safe around these here parts. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "template update" suggested you believed the edit frequency was a prime reason to keep the template affixed to the article, and that it should be removed when it became clear that the frequency had reduced further from the activity at the time of your message. You suggested that the editing activity might hadn't settled down to your (unspecified) threshold at that point, while the edit list above demonstrates that on a prospective basis, it had reduced significantly. If your comments about edit frequency and Africa being asleep were only general observations, and unrelated to your rationale for including the template, my apologies for being unable to figure that out from a paragraph called "template update" and dominated by discussions of edit frequency. ^Bongo_matic 06:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, I realized (having had it pointed out by you) that editing frequency was a major issue in the use of the template. My bemusement stems from the fact that your post here indicates that you still believe that precise numbers of edits or editors found at an article is the measure by which the decision to remove the template should be based. BM, those numbers are not precise, but more importantly, the numbers exist because it was apparently believed by those who established the numbers that said numbers would provide a good general guideline for the use of the template. And I never questioned that they do, in fact, provide a good, general guideline for placement and removal of the template. But that's just it--it's a general rule, which probably serves us best 99% of the time. But on Wikipedia, ALL of our rules (with the distinct possible exception of WP:BLP) are general guidelines. From my viewpoint, you were more concerned with enforcing the letter of the law than you were with recognizing what the purpose of the law is. And that's why WP:IAR exists, not so that rules can be flouted, but so that we recognize that some situations are best handled a bit differently than the rules state, and that we, as intelligent humans, must make those calls. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (correct, in my view) suggestion that "precise numbers" should not be the threshold in all case doesn't mean that the numbers are irrelevant. Each number in and of itself is precise. I would have left the same note for your whether the number were 13 or 23—it happened to be 17. I wouldn't have removed the template had the number continued to hover around 55 (or gone up). 13, 17, 23—they are all "imprecisely" much, much lower than 100. ^Bongo_matic 06:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

BM, I not only agree that the numbers are relevant, I want you to know that I pretty much agree that the time had come to remove the template. But you see, I didn't need to know that the number of editors was 17 and actually, you may want to recheck your figures!, what is more important, is the article is no longer undergoing changes (Look here; the only change in 24 hours really was the reversal of the order of two paragraphs.) Of course, per the suggestion of another editor who said There's not much of a point to tell our readers that the article may change if the article itself is saying exactly the same thing, there was one more thing that helped me to approve of the template removal, and that was this edit, because, as I said to that editor if the article acknowledges the uncertainty of the circumstances of death . . . I might be willing to consider it if this fact regarding the uncertainty was made clear very early in the article.

So anyways, all looks good now. I don't really think you and I see eye-to-eye on this (or, probably, on what it means to be a Wikipedian), but it's unlikely we'll conflict again, so I'm okay with leaving it. Sorry you didn't like the barnstar. :-) HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to keep up with it but I saw the page moves. I wasn't sure whether it was consensus accepted or Eraserhead just made a WP:Bold move. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you mind enabling email? You do so in the first tab of Special:Preferences at the bottom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to this user's request for the same. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we I would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Italian beef. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but perhaps you misunderstood. Read my comment again; I had no "civil criticism of the article" to make. The article was fine, but someone tagged it with no explanation. Your new edit summary indicates that there are untagged sections. Yeah? Big hairy deal. Over 50% of all the sections within articles on en.wikipedia are unsourced. Are you gonna tag them all? Look, the purpose of the tag is not simply to indicate that there is unsourced information, it is to indicate that there is unsourced information that the tagger suspects may be questionable. If you don't believe that, then try tagging every unsourced section on the encyclopedia.

So if you believe in being "civil", why don't you do the civil thing and go to the article's talk page and provide some guidance as to what you believe needs sourcing. Chances are the major editors who work there don't recognize the article's shortcomings, and they need someone from the outside to let them know what is weak about the article. But tagging the top doesn't do squat to help them know what you want. I can put a "source" in every paragraph, but that doesn't necessarily mean I've done the article the service it needs.

Now of course, I'm sure you're not one of those editors who gets off feeling important because they put a big banner across the top of every article they can, but such editors do little to help improve the encyclopedia. You wanna help? Then don't put a tag on an article without taking the time to go to the talk page and explain your reasoning, so that the tag can actually do some good. It's drive-by taggers who are responsible for tags that sit on articles for three or four years or longer. I tag articles, too, but I either try to improve them myself or else, if it's beyond my abilities, I at least leave an explanatory section on the talk page.

And if I had attacked you, you would have known it, and someone else would have come to my talk page before you did. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're here to chide me for my recent edit summary that included the statement, "Don't be a fucking moron.", then you should know that I know I was wrong, and I apologize. I was not speaking to anyone in particular, but of course, it was still unacceptable, especially since someone may have taken it to be directed at them personally. HuskyHuskie (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask that you move your opposition rationale for one into the same comment where you explain your support rationale for the other? It'll be easier to tally if it's "users for this" counted against "users for that," instead of "users for this, users for that, oops, this user voted twice, how many of these numbered comments are supports and how many are opposes..." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to fix things to your satisfaction. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry - it's just that this has gone through so many repetitive and tiring discussions, and now that we've got a consensus for parallel titles, I want this to be the last discussion we have to have, so I want it to be organized. ;) Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten consensus for parallel titles? Where? HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movement came out with, IIRC, about a 2:1 consensus for parallel. It was about evenly split as to which titles were preferred, but there seemed to be agreement that parallel titles were necessary. If you disagree that that was what came out of the last discussion, I can change it (or show you my summing-up). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm cool with all that. I don't think that having parallel titles is critical, but I do regard it as desirable. Of course, as I've stated several times already, I don't think we'll ever satisfy enough people to obtain a true consensus on this issue, and I think the only chance for peace lies in a complete merger of the articles. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in an ideal world that would be preferred, but average editor quality (and interest in creating that article specifically) is simply not high enough to maintain it with due weight, no original research, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to put some time into it, but I have other topics that I find more interesting. Frankly I think formal or informal mediation is probably the best idea - the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal could be a good solution - the issue isn't actually that argumentative rude/tense??, its just that people have different strongly held views. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also that previous discussions on the issue have been incredibly disorganized and fraught with improper closes. Hopefully this will be the last one! I tried to make it really organized. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've done that but there is the big spanner in the works that the articles haven't started with matching titles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that will be a major obstacle. They used to have matching titles, and nearly everyone seems to be in favor of their continuing to have matching titles. It's mostly the question of what those titles should be. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well quite :). My point is that its very hard to pick which set to go for. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To hide a discussion add {{hat}} at the top. {{hab}} at the bottom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I want to jump into the mediation. I would like the term "pro-life" continued as an article title because it describes practitioners views on four subjects, not one: right to pre-natal life, no capital punishment, no euthanasia and anti-war. These are all consistent views with "pro-life".

The other side does not hold consistent views about "life" but that is their problem. I don't really care what they call themselves. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to take a look at abortion.71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your question on Materialscientist's talk as I was leaving him/her a message, and I can tell you that it was definitely a test page: the only edit in its history was by User:117.211.85.34, and the entire contents of the page were as follows:

jdsgnbvcxmv

Hope this helps. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I and many other admins, also on Commons, delete newly created test pages (like the one Nyttend mentioned) instead of blanking them. There is a minor difference, and I'm not sure which way is better. I delete them to remove repeating characters clutter from my filter logs. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both for coming by to clarify. I had no idea what was there, and was just curious. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For doing all the notices. That helps a lot. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Hope it turns out to have been worth it. Oh, and NYY--thanks ever so much for having my back here. I was really shocked by SW's post, and had I know you and VK were going to jump in, I probably wouldn't have said anything in reply. Again, thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I know you spent a lot of time doing it, and I found it maddening that he would describe your hard work (which was fair to all sides of the dispute) as "disruptive". And we're getting a lot of fresh input because of what you did, so it's definitely worth it. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to try something like User:MessageDeliveryBot in the future instead of laboriously copying and pasting notices to 300 users manually. Also, FYI - you are being discussed here. —SW— ^gab 18:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted with some amusement that you invited that user to participate in a renaming discussion... 14 minutes after he was banned from wikipedia. These things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did notice, as I made my rapid cut and paste posts, that I was posting to some blocked users, but I wasn't sure how long their blocks were, nor was I inclined to spend any time investigating. But just 14 minutes after the block? That is funny. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re these problems - the fault lies with the barnstar, which wasn't closing the table that it opened. I've fixed that now, so you should be able to move your thread to the bottom. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (By the way, did you notice that your rose is actually blue?) HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. There are such things as blue roses - see right, I spotted these about two months ago in Oxford. But, the link is not always blue. Visit the page, and it changes colour... to indigo under Vector; purple under Monobook; or green if you've amended your Special:MyPage/skin.css like this. The important thing is, the word "Red" does just what it says - on a rosy-pink background. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on the effort it must have taken to leave all those talk page notifications. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't know if we'll get anywhere, but at least people are talking, and some of them are even addressing the issue at hand! HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that number is quite small, and it's turning into even more of an "Abortion sucks, bitches!" clusterfuck than such discussions normally do. (Your comments are not helping.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Steven, of course that was foolish of me to be so intemperate. Thanks for fixing it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is to notify you that I have refactored a comment on the mediation page. You can see my refactor here. My main reasons for refactoring your comment was because that this is a heated dispute, and there will be heated discussions, but I don't feel that using bad language against another editor will, in my opinion, make the discussion more heated than it already is. I would ask you to keep discussions as civilised as you can manage, in spite of what other editors may say. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said already[11], of course you're right. Would it be helpful if I just went and made the change myself, and get rid of the template? HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you could do that. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, I picked that subject header because I thought it clever, on a nano-level; no meanness was intended)

Hi, SW. Thought I'd share a few comments in reply to your posts here and elsewhere. While I will try not to let it become a problem, I apologize in advance for any redundancy.

1. You might want to try something like User:MessageDeliveryBot in the future instead of laboriously copying and pasting notices to 300 users manually. I have no idea how to use bots. And I'm too old to learn. But thanks for the suggestion.
2. I want to thank you for being completely civil in your comments. Yes, I actually am able to distinguish between criticism and incivility, and if memory serves, you have nearly been a perfect gentleman/gentlewoman (with just a tad bit of slippage in your final comments on NYY's page, when you let at least a hint of sarcasm come through). And I must acknowledge that I know that at least a couple of editors would point out that it is I who have had a problem with civility in this matter, not you. Also, thanks for your notification of the comments at NYY's page.
3. Just because someone took a long time to do something doesn't mean that it was a good idea or well-executed. Well, obviously that's correct. I understand NYY's comment, and it was based in emotion, but of course, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge, his intents were good.
4. I thought it was rather careless for someone to mass-post a notice to hundreds of users. SW, I kinda doubt we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this. I don't know if you had a chance to read my diatribe[12] before Steve deleted it (and, by the way, I support Steve's reasons for doing so), but I stated there that The notion that it is somehow "disruptive" to post a large number of messages absolutely astounds me. What's the logic there? If I post the exact same message to, say, five people, that is "non-disruptive", but to 200 editors it is? Why? Each individual editor had exactly the same message. If it was not disruptive to five people, how is it disruptive to 200? Am I disrupting the individual editors or am I disrupting Wikipedia? Is it because the units of disruptiveness accumulate somehow? I just don't get it. That's still how I feel. Now, of course, on NYY's page, you kind of answer this when you say, If it takes 20 seconds for each of 300 users to remove an annoying notice from their talk page, then that is nearly two man-hours wasted unnecessarily., so I guess you do see this as a problem of accumulated wasted time. Sorry, but I just don't see it that way. While your math is sound (given a substantial degree of rounding), your logic (IMO) is not. I simply don't believe that anyone failed to accomplish anything in their life (be it on Wikipedia or RL) because of my post. I just don't see it.
5. Most importantly, even above the fact that I totally fail to understand why my posting could be seen as "disruptive", is the fact that I believe that the demands of transparency and just basic fairness require the kind of posting I did (with one caveat, explained below). I won't go into details here, but I explained it here, and I'd be genuinely flattered if you'd read my comments there and reply to them here. But what it comes down to is this: I strongly believe that whatever "harm" is caused by behaviour such as mine is completely overshadowed by the positive good it achieves.
6. As to that one caveat, I've already noted elsewhere "Your point about posting this to editors who had already been notified is a valid point, I guess. I hadn't really thought of it as being "disruptive", though it was obviously unnecessary . . . . I will grant you that if this was a regular problem (editors receiving multiple notifications of the same discussions) that it would really suck. I should have been more careful." Interestingly, however, if I was to take your suggestion above and use a bot, wouldn't the duplication problem be exacerbated? Perhaps not--as I said, I don't know anything about bots. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'm over it. I've said everything I need to say about it. Just hoping to promote more care going into future mass announcements. Thanks for listening. —SW— ^converse 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a cursary look at the comments do not suggest a consensus for the merger, but if no-one challanges it so be it. What is an issue though that the new article is created without attibution to the histories. Please check Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing_the_merger and bring the nedw article into compliance. Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not anticipate a significant challenge to the merge, as the overall quality available to all interests has been enhanced. But your point about the histories is clearly an important one, which I did not anticipate (nor fully understand now how to fix). But I will look at it and see what I can do when I get a chance. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, obviously it would've been best to have done that at the start, but hopefully, it's better now. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you thanked me here for introducing you to Reflinks. You thanked the wrong person - just thought you oughta know. :) Mark^Dask 07:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh wait lol I see what you mean - you're welcome. Mark^Dask 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Hereby I award You the Copyeditor`s Barnstar for this edit to Sucker Punch (film). Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was a resident in Watterson from 2009-2010. I changed the numbers to letters because the levels were identified as such. The elevator buttons were labeled as letters as opposed to numbers. For example, Adams-Pickering was level C. I imagine the reason for this is because the third stop from the lobby (Adams-Pickering 3) was not technically "level 3" due to the unique design of the elevator only stopping on the third floor of each house (it would have actually been the 13th level, not including the lobby). I'm not sure how much sense my explanation made. If you feel this was an inappropriate change to the article, feel free to revert it =] MarkMc1990 (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes total sense to me. I spent one week there in the summer of 1977, and I guess that wasn't long enough for me to remember that detail. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by August 26, 2011. 

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, fuck. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

Shocker! HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise you're replying to a bot, right? :P Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I knew there was something strange about that message, but I just figured it came from Down Under. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its highly likely that a clerk will ask you to remove your comment from my section. Personally I'm not too fussed as I don't go over the word limit, but really it should be in your own section :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to remove it. It's not important, and I really don't understand all the rules about this arbiation/meditration stuff. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it clarifies my point so its fine. Its just sometimes people can get upset over trivialities during these cases :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HuskyHuskie. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Abortion Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 856 words and 17 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 08:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In RfAr Evidence pages, response to other editors go on your own section. I have moved your reply to Eraserhead1 as such. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HuskyHuskie. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
Message added NYyankees51 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

See my comments on the New Meadowlands Stadium talk page. I cited two sources, one of them showing Yankee Stadium's construction cost was only 1.5 billion. Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! After you brought it up, I looked through the article and saw that the 2.3B was there in the Yankee Stadium article. Sorry I didn't notice it the last two weeks- they actually made me work at my job the last two weeks haha. Anyway, good catch on the stadium costs, that could have sat there forever if you didn't notice it. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you kindly. I think a great part of that money corresponds to UIUC, as it's the flagship. I took on the initiative to find the budget, to no avail.-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  03:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finally did find it, and have made the correction. The big shocker to me was that the UIC budget is bigger than the budget of UIUC, the flagship (although I ascribe much of that to the greater costs of doing anything in Chicago). HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HuskyHuskie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding your recent actions. Thank you. The discussion can be found here. --Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 20:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HuskyHuskie. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to carry out a thorough search of your nor Erpert (talk · contribs)'s edit history. However, judging by Erpert's edit summary in article TV dinner here copyedit and here tag followed by your reversal response here Wikipedia works best when editors COMMUNICATE with one another about their concerns, even when (especially when) they disagree. If you're too big a pussy to do that, then maybe you should reconsider your role here. (my emphasis) I would suggest you were not assuming good faith and are arguably becoming uncivil. If, as you say at the Wikiquette discussion, that you have "... touched upon probably 5-10 of these [edit summaries belonging to Erpert]", that is up to 5-10 potentially uncivil comments. Erpert has not been providing excellent edit summaries and may have even made the odd honest mistake (as you have for example here) but this is no reason to continue the debate as you are doing --Senra (Talk) 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I been uncivil? Absolutely; I think I have already acknowledged that, tacitly if not explicitly. In my younger days we had an expression of certain persons, "He does not suffer fools gladly." That applies to me, except for the fact that I actually am willing to help fools elevate themselves, if only for the benefit of the rest of us. When I run into someone like Erpert who willfully remains ignorant, I do, indeed, get riled up a bit.

You, Senra, by the way, have earned my support should you ever decide to seek the mop. If nothing else, your elegant use of litotes (e.g., Erpert has not been providing excellent edit summaries) gives you a certain je ne sais quoi that good sysops always seem to have. (And I assure you, I was not being sarcastic--you clearly have just the character called for, just as I clearly do not.) Thanks for your intervention; your words came across not only as spot-on,* but also with the appearance of almost effortless charm. Don't worry, I won't antagonize Erpert any longer. Take care.HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*with one minor exception. Speaking to both Erpert and myself, you wrote: your writing skills could be used more effectively. Senra, I believe the record contains a dearth of evidence that Erpert actually has any writing skills. But other than that, you nailed every comment you made. :-)

It happened on July 8th when you were trying to archive it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those bold-faced, deep red font edits removing 70,000+ characters really stand out on the ol' watchlist, don't they? HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Definitely an attention-getter. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I do have to say that your rapid response belies the message on your talk page. Suggest you change it to merely "demisemiretired". HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be twice as retired as I currently am. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Well, then, I say you are only semi-octi-retired. Yeah, I know the new coinage violates WP:OR, but it's my talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. And I wouldn't call it OR. Just semi-OR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've gotten the last word; I can't touch that. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HuskyHuskie, please see WP:AN3#User:HuskyHuskie reported by User:Tigerwiki2 (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification; I have made my reply as you suggested. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA is now open for !voting/comment: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who might wonder why I posted here, this user posted early, before the nomination was open and then reverted self. See [13] for details.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The NAC list, where NAC stands for non-admin closure, is located here. →Στc. 21:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I've heard of that--that was the issue the Colonel was (incorrectly) alluding to, right? Is that list to which your link sent me something that Steve had to create, or was it generated automatically? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the list by hand. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. You know, Steve, I do understand what you're saying, but to someone of my advanced age and with my gray hair, "by hand" means something quite pre-this. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

By the way, if memory serves (not a given, in my case), this is only the second RfA I've ever participated in. I hope I haven't accidentally and unknowingly said something stupid that could hurt your cause; I certainly look forward to your promotion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), 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) 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that my RFA really opened up your eyes. But no need to scare the candidate :) . They might do just fine. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your question is soapboxing more than anything else. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, that !votes at RfA knows that RfA is broken. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this question might derail what looks like a promising RFA... Maybe best to remove it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that you should remove it. Yes, RfA is "broken", I know. As Sven says, we all do. But the solution certainly isn't to add drama to RfA by asking questions that do nothing but blatantly soapbox. That's just counterproductive. I'm sorry Steven's RfA was your introduction to the process, but there's no reason to drag it into CET's RfA. Swarm ^X 16:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

per request of Catfish and Swarm. Didn't mean to cause any trouble, nor was I trying to add drama. I was being . . . cynical, I suppose, would be the best word. I'm just going to stay away from that page. I'm sure CharlieEcho is a great guy and all, I wish him all the best, I really, really do, but if he can get in with his very limited resume, and someone like Steve cannot, then Our Father Jimbo needs to step in and fix the process that all of you acknowledge is "broken" (a better term would be "completely fucked up") or this place is going to go down the tubes. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I was always gonna be a controversial candidate. Don't let my failure affect your view of the process. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}