User talk:SMcCandlish

Welcome to SMcCandlish's talk page.

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Note: SMcCandlish's comments on Wikipedia are a work in progress, subject to the thread-mode disclaimer.

Archives   [?]
Archive 1 (2006)

Logorrhoea

Hi there. I see you've done some work on the Logorrhoea article and was wondering whether or not you had read my comments on the discussion page there. IMHO the section on rhetoric is sub-par in many ways and actually I was considering expanding the mental health part and significantly trimming the rhetoric part, which mostly appears to be the opinion of people who don't like high-falutin' sentence structures.

Are you suggesting we split Logorrhoea into (use in rhetoric) and (use in medicine)? --PaulWicks 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dicussion moved to direct e-mail (short version: YES. Better to split than to remove material.) --Smccandlish 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: Logorrhoea (rhetoric) should just be merged into Prolixity anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You managed to work the word "Logorrhoea" into an edit summary of some work I did on Labile affect. Nice. --PaulWicks 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Was vocabulary practice. I'd just been at the L. page, and thought I'd try making myself use it (and even use the UK spelling); I usually use "prolixity"; it sounds less insulting! Heh.  ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Active guideline

Resolved

The consensus on the wikipedia:naming conventions (books) guideline *including notes on notability* was prior to wikipedia:notability (books) being started. There is no consensus on that new proposal. Until there is, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria is the *active* guideline on book notability. --Francis Schonken 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of plain curiosity, I'd like to see evidence of that, specifically that the passage in question was present and substantively identical to its current wording at the pont of transition from a draft Guideline on book naming conventions to a non-draft one. But it's a moot point. It is almost ludicrously inappropriate for a non-controversial guideline on naming conventions to have a totally off-topic rider in it that attempts to set a guideline in one of the most hotly-debate spheres of Wikipedia, namely "notability". If this rider was present in the original draft naming convention for books, it is entirely possible that the only reason it survived is precisely because it was a hidden rider - few who would have any reason to object would ever notice it and weigh in. If it ever represented any form of consensus at all it was only a consensus among people who a) care about book naming conventions, and (not or) b) either support the vague notability rider, didn't notice it or didn't care either way. Ergo it it not a real Wikipedia consensus at all. But even this is moot. The existence of an active push to develop Wikipedia:Notability (books) demonstrates that there is in fact no consensus at all, period, that the notability rider in the naming article is valid. If it remains, I'm taking this to arbitration, because I believe the presence of the rider to be deceptive and an abuse of the Policy/Guideline formulation process and consensus mechanism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• From proposal to guideline, 09:07, 25 January 2006 — no changes to the "Note on notability criteria" section.
• From the day it became guideline to today, 16:29, 23 July 2006 — no changes to the "Note on notability criteria" section.

--Francis Schonken 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But as I said, I think this is a moot point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Further information: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) § Notability criteria

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You reverted the *consensus* version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria to the version you had proposed earlier today. That version of yours is not consensus, and you knew that when you reverted. For guidelines one needs a new consensus for major changes. Yours was a major change. It had no consensus. So I'm posting this warning on your user page, and will then proceed to revert the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria section to the version that had consensus when that became a guideline about half a year ago.

You're welcome to discuss other versions of that section (whether that be a temporary version until Wikipedia:Notability (books) becomes guideline or a more permanent solution) on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books) talk page. But consensus is needed before it can be moved to the guideline page. --Francis Schonken 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cute, but a total misdirection (as to at least three claims, of consensus, my tacit agreement that consensus existed, and new edit not reflecting consensus, and possibly a forth, as to edit scope. I do in fact dispute, in more than one way, that the section in question represents any meaningful consensus, for reasons already stated and evidenced. I contend that it is someone's "pet" section and removable as such; that it is an off-topic insertion and thus subject to removal on other grounds; and that even if it had some merit at one point it has been superceded by the current Wikipedian editors' consensus on this topic (which is that the topic needs a Guideline, period, so one has been started as a Proposal; notably it is not a consensus that the rider needs editing and improvement; rather it is being replaced, to the extent its existence has even been acknowledged. To continue, I further assert that removing the rider would in fact be a consensus move. Wikipedia:Notability (books) would not be well on the way to becoming a Guideline if there were any consensus that the off-topic notability rider in the naming guideline already had any consensus support whatsoever. It is very notable that no one has proposed a section merger or in any other way addressed the rider as valid or worth even thinking about. It is simply being ignored. And I assert further that it is at least questionable whether it is a "major edit" to remove a small section that is more adequately covered by another article (whether that article is considered "finished" or not) that has a lot more editorial activity and interest, and replace the redundant section it with a cross-reference to the latter, as I did.

The fact that no one has even touched the rider at all since Jan. strongly supports my points that a) virtually no one who cares about notability of books is aware of it, got to debate its inclusion, or even considers it worth working on or authoritative in any way, because the topic of how to define book notability is generating quite a bit of activity on the other article; and therefore b) it reflects no consensus on the topic of book notability, period. Which is what one would expect, given that it's buried at the bottom of an article about spelling! I also dispute the notion that an approved Guideline on [Topic A] is also an approved Guideline on unrelated [Topic B] just because it happens to mention some ideas relating to how to deal with [Topic B]. If you are aware of another example, I'd love to see it.

PS: I'm posting most of this, with further (case-closing, in my opinion) facts, references and evidence, on the article's talk page, since otherwise the debate won't affect anyone's views other than yours and/or mine in User_talk.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

Months later, the points I raised were never refuted or even questioned at the talk page in question, and Wikipedia:Notability (books) is well on the way to becoming a Guideline, meanwhile Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Note on notability criteria was nominated two more times for removal, with the unanimous support of those who commented, and was replaced with a wordy wikilink to Wikipedia:Notability (books). I rest my case. One may wish to actually look into establishing what consensus actually is on whatever matter is at hand before presuming to lecture others about it. PS: The abuse of {{Test2a-n}} on my Talk page (it is intended, and instructed, to be used in series with {{Test1}} or a variant thereof) was very heavy-handed. I'm leaving it up instead of archiving it, because I think it says far more about abuse of the label "vandal" than it does about me. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jamie in American English

On the Talk page for James, you asked:

"Is American "Jaime" an anglicization of Spanish "Jaime" or a hispanification of English "Jamie"?"

Wrong Romance language, actually! ;)

I was always told that it comes from the French "Jaime" (there may or may not be an accent mark over that "e" in the original French, I'm not sure), rather than the Hispanic one. I'm pretty sure this is correct, as the name "Jaime" in French is both feminine and pronounced much more closely to the English "Jamie" than the Hispanic "Jaime" is. Supporting this assertion, further, is the fact that in Hispanic culture "Jaime" is a boy's name, whereas in French-speaking cultures, it is usually a feminine name; and in America, at least, the spelling "Jaime" is almost exclusively used for girls (I should know; I'm a girl named "Jamie", and people are ALWAYS trying to spell it "Jaime" - sometimes my own friends have forgotten and spelled it like that!).

"Jamie" in American culture has also been gaining widespread usage in recent years as a gender-neutral name (see: my own name, Jamie O'Neal's name, that woman who played Wonder Woman, etc.), and has been used more and more each post-Feminism decade as a girl's name (though it may or may not be as popular or moreso as a boy's name in that spelling; I haven't checked). For instance, the woman who played Wonder Woman on TV in the 1970s had the first name of Jamie. However, this doesn't really just seem limited to Americans, contrary to what the listing on James says; for instance, Jamie O'Neal (who though she did change her surname, did not change her given name), a relatively famous female singer in country music circles, is actually originally from Australia. In contrast, however, there seems to be no movement in America to de-feminize the "Jaime" spelling; I've never met a person named that who was male and not Hispanic as well. ;)

Hope that clears it up? Runa27 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the entry should reflect that in the UK "Jaime" is more often than not a male name, and comes from French, and that in America is usually a female name from the same source, except in the Southwest where it is fairly frequent as a man's name (yes, most often Hispanics, but not Spanish speakers, pronouncing it jay-mee, not hai-may) and comes from Spanish. I've lost interest in the article so I'm unlikely to make the edit myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability of books

Resolved

Hi. Given that you were part of the debate on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books), I'd like to have your opinion and advice on my attempt to form consensus to delete the notability section of that guideline. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 07:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I weighed in on the Talk page topic. Rather forcefully. I don't mind playing Bad Cop. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Out on a wikibreak? I had completely forgot that I had left this message on your talk page! In any case, thanks. Good cop or no good cop I have taken that opportunity to simply edit the paragraph so that it basically says: if you want to know about notability of books this is not the right place to read about it. By the way, your comments are also very welcome on the talk page of WP:BK if you happen to have an opinion on the current version. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 23:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to take a break from this stuff for a while. As for WP:BK, I'm an inclusionist, so my opinion of WP:BK will be the same as that of all of the notability guidelines (i.e., they should be abandoned). It does no harm at all (unless the Wikimedia Foundation is running out of disk space) to have "non-notable" topics in an e-encyclopedia; non-notable articles simply won't be read by many people, and the few that do actually seek out an article on such a topic will be glad that it wasn't deleted for alleged non-notability. I may drop in to WP:BK to try to shift it toward being less deletionist, though. We'll see. If it's more-or-less consistent with the other such guidelines, I probably won't bother. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[I no longer hold the "notability must DIE" opinion expressed above, and am fully supportive of a consistent and objective definition of notability on Wikipedia. Just for the record. See Wikipedia talk:Notability or its archives for the month+ (as of mid-Dec. 2006) of debate that changed my mind. In the above discussion I was really talking about WP:FAME, not the current conception of Wikipedia:Notability. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ]

Move

(grumble) as I mentioned (gripe), I can't imagine asking any of my roommates if they wanted to go down to the (grumble) Cue Sports Room for a game (mumble, gripe). Nevertheless, have you (shudder) tried to do the move, or just assumed you couldn't? As I understand, so long as the redirect (grumble) hasn't been used for anything else than to (gripe) point to the article, the software allows the article to be (mumble) moved onto the redirect. This is how accidental moves can be undone. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't actually tried; the 'graph on that seemed to suggest it would only work as the reversal of a previous rename, but maybe I didn't understand it properly.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to feel pretty strongly about this (WP technical moving issues aside.) I'd like to understand better (you say "as I mentioned", indicating a post on this topic that I've missed so I'm about to go look for it in likely places). It's my intent that "Billiards" still get you quickly into poolspace. The idea is to start moving game-specific content into articles on those games (e.g. all the talk about ball and table dimensions for snooker vs. pool, etc.) and build those articles up into something really impressive. The problem with "billiards" as "the" main ariticle name is that it means at least 3 different things, depending on where you are from, and people feel very strongly about those meanings. My attempt to rename a darned videogame sub-sub-sub-category has been blocked by Englishmen up in arms over what they see as the "Americanism" of using "billiards" in a broad generic sense, and this is certainly their en.wikipedia.org, too. Not sure how to keep everyone happy... Anyway, of course no one says "the cue sports hall", but they don't say "the billiards parlour" anymore either, unless they're my grandma's age. Us "yanks" say "pool hall", the Brits say "snooker room", etc., etc.  :-) I don't see a clear path to non-dispute without treating it from a kind of scientific classification perspective (which also meshes with attempts to promote cue sports at the Olympic level, incidentally).— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Triple deities

[I'd asked on Goldenrowley's talk page what it was that needed to be sourced in the article in question, in response to a templating of the article that it needed citations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

Hi, in answer to your question, I think this article has a lot of potential to be popular (and highly used) under the categoory of religion and mythological archetypes and could be expanded. Where did the trinity/triune definitions come from? That could be the source for the introduction. What souce said this is a "mythological archetype" (if any)? This is to enhance and validate the article. Thank you! Goldenrowley 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The "triune", "trinity", "triplicate", etc., are just dictionary usages. I.e., the words have clear meanings, so no sourcing seems necessary for them that I can see. It's like any other "list" article (e.g., there might be one on "Lord of the Rings characters", divided into "heroes" and "villains" and we don't need to cite sources for the definitions of those two words, or their usage as classifiers.) I don't mean to be argumentative on that, just saying I don't see what the dispute potential really is. I do see your point about "mythological archetype"; I hadn't even thought of that when that phrase was added, back when, but it does seem to be a specific claim of fact regarding a mythographical term-of-art, so it probably should be sourced.. Any recommendations? I don't have any Joseph Campbell on hand (I honestly don't agree with his categorization of just about everything as a variant of this archetype or that), but I do have some Gimbutas, Graves, etc. If you have good refs that can improve the article, please go for it. I created it, but I don't at all WP:OWN it; all I do is try to keep it formatted nicely and make sure people don't put fictional hooey in it like Tolkien's trolls in The Hobbit, and so forth. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Eight ball

Gad what a mess eight ball is. I'm gearing up to rewrite it if I can figure out a logical way of doing so. Regarding you query on the section about the Mexican ruleset (where you wrote "Is there a name for this?"), I don't know of a name but I know the origin, and if I can get off my ass and do the cleanup I can take care of it. In short, after B.B.C. Co. Pool was invented, eight ball went through a number of distinct ruleset periods. One of them, which lasted for a number of years, had these exact rules. Once that is defined, it can be added that these rules are still used in Mexico.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The blackball section could probably use expansion. My take on it is that it should dispense with the "possible" ruleset language, describe the intl. std. rules, and if/where they differ mention that the APA or VNEA or BCA or whatever rules differ on this little point[cite], and continue. Amat. variations like bank-the-eight and last-pocket should remain in a "rules variations" section. Yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure exactly how to do it, and I agree that "possible variations" is clunky as hell, but here's what has been percolating 1) continue the history section I started, going into the variations up to the modern era. Then define the world standardized rules. Then the standard bar/recreational rules and how they differ from the BCA (with some explication of that there is no standard because no formal ruleset, but widely followed and explain that they vary). Then we can go into game variations such as last pocket, etc.. Last pocket, by the way, is apparently very, very widely played variation in South America.--Fuhghettaboutit

I'd suggest doing the WS rules, and interspersing them with Big League differences as needed (BCA/VNEA/Blackball/APA/IPT), just to keep it shorter - might be a bit frustrating to have follow-on sections like "BCA exceptions", "VNEA exceptions", etc.; then close with a section on amat./"bar rules" variations (which will need somehow to discourage additions of "in my neighborhood..." variants; I think the present HTML comment language is probably a good start). Agreed that last-pocket is huge in Latin America; was why I added it. EVERY native Mexican, El Salvadorean, Nicaraguan, etc., that I've met plays that way (and not the "magic side pockets" way detailed earlier in the article; I'd demote that to a minor variation), and without any differences (e.g. as to 2 free scratches, etc.) It seems quite uniform. There's a bar called City Club in the Mission district of San Francisco with really great players none of whom seem to speak a word of English where what I described are the house rules. The players are from all over Latin America, quite friendly to Gringos if we can figure out the rules, and they never internally argue about the rules - these seem to be the rules they've all played with their whole lives. It's a called ball-in-pocket (not called shot) game, e.g. "cinco en está lado" however way the five gets into the designated side pocket, which I forgot to mention, so it has a bit in common with the older (pre WS) BCA rules, I think. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe it's my POV, but the way I see it the article should start with WSR as the "official rules" and then in subsequent sections instead of defining the whole rulesets, siimply state how they depart from the official rules. For instance for bar'recretaional rules (which I do think need to be prominent as they are so widely played--probably the most wide ruleset for the most common game in the U.S.) all that needs to be done, is state that (in contradistinction to official rules): wins (or not) if eight ball made on break, choice of group is decided on the break, if both groups pocketed then it's choice, no foul rules but for scratches, scratch penalty is from the kitchen (and can move object ball to foot spot if none available), most but not all venues make you call every nuance of every shot (rather than "ball and pocket"), the Player loses sometimes if he doesn't contact the eight ball when it's his object ball, eight ball has to go in "clean", and the alternating racking crap. That's may not be exhaustive but there's not much more. If those distinctions follow a treatise on the correct rules, little defining should be necessary, so the section would not need to be very long.

Doing it by defining each separate ruleset's variation for each official rule would be confusing I think, and an invitation for endless parenthetical notes. Plus, the way articles evolve, people add a one-off difference from some game to one section and then go their merry way. So then we have each official rule followed by variations from some other groups of indistinct rules, with each official rule being treated separately, some getting variations some not from the same league rules. It seems to me it would lead to an organizational mess.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Just wanted to make sure that the VNEA, etc., variations get in there, and are differenced from the mess of "bar pool" variations; many of them predate the WSR by a long way.  :-) NB: "Rules variations" or "variants" seems like a good section heading, perhaps with a three-"=" subsection header for each set discussed? I'm thinking in terms of the promised but presently vaporware article "templates" at WP:CUE. I guess eight-ball is as good a place as any to start developing that. NB: Also thinking that the "rack" article could really be folded entirely or almost entirely into the articles about the various games it covers. I think this sort of opens the more general question of what to do about equipment articles. My present take is that I'm not sure we actually need articles about cues, chalk, racking, tables, etc., rather than general mentions at Billiards (side point: Should we move it to Cue sport now?) and more specific details under particular games (nine-ball, etc.) or game-type (carom billiards, snooker, etc.) articles. This is probably a better pack o' questions for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports but I don't see any reason to not come to a two-person initial mini-consensus on the direction here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that subtopic articles should only be taken so far, but I don't think articles on specific items of equipment or specific things such as racking are too far. Let's look at rack (billiards) for example (and of course the elephant in the room is that I wrote the majority of that article, but I'm not just being protective): First and foremost, I can see someone coming to Wikipedia interested in how racking is done across many billiard games. Second, I can see someone coming to Wikipedia seeking clarity because of the confusing multi-use of the word (physical object; various types; used to describe the balls in starting position; the verb for placing the balls, etc.). Third, there is a quite limited number of specific objects and things in billiards of which racking is one. We don't and never will need an article on the foot spot--how much history can be found on that topic? How much room for expansion? It's a blackhole of content, but when it comes to racking, breaking, english, I think they can all have subarticles if someone is willing to take the time to write them (citing ulitmately to reliable sources:-). There is much room for expansion of racking, from other games, to the history of it, to primary manufacturers, to the Sardo tight rack (and the controversy that has arisen in professional play over its use), etc. Or take cuetips, they have a fascinating history and there has been much written about them. Did you known leather cue tips were invented in debtor's prison by Captain Francois Mingaud around 1823 who was later accused of sorcery for the amazing things he was able to do on a billiards table using them? Regarding cue sports, I have not really been following the debate. I'm not too concerned since if it's done or not done, the information will be retained and having been following the debate too much. If you have consensus, go for it.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the info will just have to be a little duplicative (in that the details on how to rack for eight-ball specifically need to be in the eight-ball article as well, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:fact

Self-reverted. My apologies for the trouble. — TKD::Talk 11:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just for my own edification: What is the problem that it causes, if you have some time to explain? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 12:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy who wrote to me at User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 1, in the topic called "{{or}} code", knows more about the details. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't destroy

Resolved

I've started an essay called Don't Destroy. Thought you might like to look at it. Fresheneesz 00:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Would, but it's a redlink. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Marking this "Resolved" given no response after a month; I guess the essay didn't materialize. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was just a redirect, see User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy for the essay. Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pocket billiards

Hey Stanton. How's everything? Just wanted to alert you to an edit, and try to get some clarity. My understanding was that we were going to be using the phrase "cue sports" for organizational purposes, which I think is a fine compromise. However, in the page pocket billiards the phrase was being defined in the article as if is has a wider meaning in the outside world, which as far as I know, it does not. I made an edit removing its internal use from the article. Anyway, I'm now trying to see if I misunderstood the intent of its use.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Template:Cuesports-bio-stub

[My original post was on Amalas's talk page:

Can you 'splain what that major edit is about? Some of it doesn't make any sense to me, like the removal of the documentation (indeed, of all of the <includeonly> vs. <noinclude> distictions), the addition of things like '*Peopld" (which I'm guessing is a typo), etc. I s'pect that there is some kind of general all-stubs template overhaul going on, which is cool I guess, but I'm not sure I agree with every change here. As for the general effort to clean up the cue sports stubs, I'm all for that; sorry I did not chime in when these things were up for discussion (was on a real-world-stuff-to-do wikibreak), and the changes so far are pretty much in the direction we were going with all of this. I'll try to further clean it up later, after Billiards is renamed Cue sport (which is after the article gets a substantial rewrite), and so on. It's all in-process, though a little stalled over the holidays. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied here 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

There is a standard format of creating stub templates, located at WP:STUB under "creating the stub template". I've been trying to make all the templates I come across follow that standard. Regarding the 'documentation', you don't really need to tell people what categories something feeds into because it's already listed at the bottom of the page. To me, that just seems redundant. Also, the HTML comments are not really needed because when the category needs to be changed, I will do a "what links here" and easily find the template and change the category to the new name. (I hope that sentence made sense - basically, I will find it, no need to put in comments) Finally, the "Peopld" is indeed a typo. It's supposed to say "People". I've fixed that. Thanks for your questions and I hope I was able to answer them. I also hope that I'm updating things in-line with Billiards and Cue sports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports. If you need anything else, let me know. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to make sense of the differences and learn the canonical format (I based mine on other sub templates, but I guess they were not canonical either.) I may restore (for a while) some of the HTML commenting and stuff, because they were there as reminders to self about categories to create/fix and other to-do items; the file in question is in the WikiProject Cue sports project space, not the Template space, as it is a draft in-progress. As for the overall stuff you're doing with these categories and stub names and so on, yes, it is appreciated and mostly in-line with the WP:CUE intent. There'll probably need to be some name twiddles, but it's all going in the right direction! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that many of the stubs do not follow the standard format, which is why I've been trying to bring as many as I can back into the standard. I suppose I'd be fine w/ the HTML comments. I generally find them to be unnecessary, but that's just my preference. Hopefully the Billiards / Cue sports thing will be straightened out soon and everything will stop being a mess. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Albinism semi-protection

Resolved

[My original post was on Nishkid64's talk page:

Can you please undo your un-protection of that? It's getting vandalized regularly, and always will be without the semi-protection. The semi-protection was intended to be indefinite and was well-justified on the semi-protection request page and with the admin that semi-protected it. The number of non-vandal edits by random IP-address users is so close to zero it's funny, and of the handful of good-faith edits in the IP category, most were not good edits (faith not withstanding). This is a science article (some addl. cleanup still needed, yes) that is slated for inclusion on the CD-ROMs, and keeping it clean is a LOT of work (mostly on my part). I have real work to do and can't monitor this article 24/7, so it's going to be sitting there in a trashed state every other day after some jr. high school IP vandal has hit it yet again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied here 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ]

I don't think it's really necessary now. There has been around 10 or so vandalism edits since December 31st, a span of 9 days. I have the page watchlisted as well, and I'll help deal with vandalism there. If it gets too out of hand, then I'll unprotect. Sorry. Nishkid64 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I remain skeptical. For one thing, the last major vandalism (blanking of the most important entire section) went unreverted for three days, even with anti-vandal bots watching it. For another, I fail to see how consistent almost-daily (and sometimes multiple-daily) vandalism - and it is malicious vandalism, not innocent sandboxing - doesn't qualify as problematic enough for indefinite semi-protection, especially when it often takes anywhere from 3 hours to several days for vandalism to be reverted on that article (which was the justification of the admin who semi-protected it). I'm not seeking full protection, just a means of thwarting IP vandals. As noted in the original post seeing semi-protection, the vast majority of IP edits are vandalism, and the vast majority of good edits are by established users who are logged in. The tiny consequence of people having to register or log in to edit this frequently-attacked article is worth it. I warned about this consequence on the talk page of the article for weeks before seeking the semi-protection, and not a single person (registered or otherwise) objected, so I'm not sure what your late-to-the-game objection now is. <puzzled> If you disagree with the reasoning of the admin who semi-protected the page, please take it up with that person instead of unilaterally undoing the semi-protection decision, which was arrived at through the proper processes. Albinism is not an article that will be simply the subject of occasional random vandalism; it is a frequent target, and always will be (unless discrimination against people with albinism somehow vanishes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, pages are not allowed to be indefinitely protected, so I don't know where you're getting this information from. Gnangarra shouldn't have protected based on a lack of noticing vandalism. He should have gone to WP:AN or some noticeboard, and requested people to watchlist the page, so that vandalism would be clearly detected. Also, what one admin says is not a final decision. He protected the page temporarily--I don't believe he said anything about indefinite protection anywhere (this page doesn't even warrant long-term protection). Anyway, I'm sorry if you feel this way, but I personally think the page shouldn't be protected just yet. I might change my mind if there is a significant increase in vandalism every day. Nishkid64 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm getting this information from the Wikipedia Semi-protection Policy page! And it specifically says that articles can be indefinitely SP'ed. To quote: "A page can be semi-protected by an administrator in response to vandalism from multiple anonymous or newly-created accounts, where blocking them individually is not a solution [...] Semi-protection is usually a temporary measure, and lifted once the problem is likely to have passed, but some articles with a history of vandalism [...] may be semi-protected on a continuous basis" (emphasis added). Notes: Albinism is in fact the target of "vandalism from multiple anonymous...accounts, where blocking them individually is not a solution"; semi-protection is only "usually" temporary; when it is not and is instead done "on a continuous basis", it is because the article has "a history of vandalism" and "the problem is [not] likely to...pass...", both of which perfectly describe the Albinism article. See also the primary source of WP:SPP: While Jimbo uses "minor bios of slightly well known but controversial individuals" as an example of a type of article that could use what he calls "extended" semi-protection, every rationale he gives for ExSP applies to this article, which is "subject to POV pushing [and] trolling, including vandalism", "it seems likely that ... not enough people have [it] on their personal watchlists to police [it] as well as we would like", "Semi-protection would at least eliminate the drive-by nonsense that we see so often", and especially: "semi-protection has proven to be a valuable tool, with very broad community support, which gives good editors more time to deal with serious issues because there is less random vandalism. Because the threshold to editing is still quite low for anyone who seriously wants to join the dialogue in an adult, NPOV, responsible manner, I do not find any reason to hold back on some extended use of it". (This last makes it very clear that Jimbo was making a point about frequently-vandalized articles in general, not just minor bios.)

Unilaterally reverting another admin's formal-process (e.g. WP:SPP) actions on the basis of your disagreement with their thought processes or decision rationales without discussing with them doesn't seem useful or appropriate to me (and I never said such actions were "final"; they are generally respected, though, and discussed before being undone). I guess I'm outgunned because I'm not an admin, but I think you are mistaken with regard to WP:SPP's meaning and intent (as documented above), and with regard to Gnangarra's intent and reasoning; he/she clearly understood that the problem for this article is unending, not a temporary issue, and indicated nothing contrary to my request that it be SP'd, which was a request for ongoing SP, saying only that an editor could request that it be unprotected and that "theres no specific time frame" for its semi-protection. I don't see any evidence that any editor has in fact made such a request, and you being an admin and therefore a registered user, you certainly don't need to make such a request/take such an action for yourself. Really, I don't think a discussion with me is the proper venue for you to express disapproval of another admin's handling of a situation, and I belive Gnangarra would strongly disagree with you, with regard to this article's needs: "any admin with fives minutes to spare digging through the history would have also protected the page"; and with regard to your characterization of his/her dilligence ("He should have gone to WP:AN or some noticeboard...): "I've directly asked here for some more editors to add [it] to their watchlist". D'oh. I think you've simply missed part of the discussion. PS: Note how long ago that noticeboard request was made and how little it has helped. This article was massively vandalized three or so days ago, and left completely broken for days because there are not enough eyes on it. The only consequence of SP is that it's inconvenient to a few people, the vast majority of whom are vandals (with regard to this article, anyway. Non-vandal IP edits are quite rare on it). What's the problem? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My god...you write a lot. Okay, I'll protect this page because I don't want to keep on reading your books of work on this semi-protection policy lol. Anyway, your article really hasn't been a heavy target for vandalism like George W. Bush or RuneScape, which is why I still don't believe long-term semi-protection is appropriate for the article. Nonetheless, you stated some good arguments, so I will re-protect the page. Nishkid64 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yeah, I do my homework. As for the GWB article comparison, I think it's unfortunate that the SPP even uses that as an example, because it's a misleading one. Yes, the article if oft vandalized, but it is also watched by LOADS of editors - it arguably doesn't actually need the protection at all! Heh. Articles like "albinism" need it more because they are and will remain vandal targets, yet do not have a huge, dedicated cadre of editors protecting them. GWB, though, I bet if I went and vandalized that, the vandalism would be reverted in under 30 seconds, even if I did it at 3:30am Central (US) Time. Anyway, this was why I cited in such depth to Jimbo's rational for extended SP in the first place - his reasoning is explained clearly enough that it is plain that the intent is not just to protect mega-popular articles like GWB.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Missed most of this but my thoughts I also put a notice at RC patrol when I protectd the article explaining that I had reviewed its recent edits only to find that frequently vandalism isnt revert for more than three hours. In response to SM request for how long an article remains protected I said that generally it gets unprotected when an editor requests. WP:RFPP is for an immediate problem resolution, its not a "formal-process" any decision taken doesnt require my input before the article is unprotected. Gnangarra 14:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for letting me about the discussion Gnangarra 11:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I just thought it both odd and unfair that your decision/rationale (as I understood it at the time, anyway) appeared to be being skewered in your absence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names

Are you aware of the sub-thread Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names, and the thread of which it forms part Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#capiche_and_.7B.7Balternative_spelling_of.7D.7D? Enginear 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I was not aware of it. The borderline personal attack on me there has been responded to there (at Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour) and at the policy page in question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Albinism reverts

Resolved

[My original message to Morgan was posted on his talk page:

Thanks for your interest in this article and efforts to improve it, but many of your changes have had to be reverted because there are no references cited to back them up. Please do not make factual changes to science articles without citations to reliable sources. See this talk page topic for a detailed explanation of the specific reverts. PS: The other editors of that article are well aware that the section in question is already lacking sources for much of its information, but adding unverified claims only worsens the situation; and while the article is under heavy development, especially with regard to source citations, as you can see it is from the article history, removing material that is in the process of being researched, as you did in several cases, is not helpful either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied here 08:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ ]

I am an optometrist. I corrected some glaring errors in the page about the visual signs and symptoms of albinism because they were totally and amazingly wrong, obviously written by somebody who knows nothing about the subject. Really, I couldn't believe how bad it was, almost every word was wrong. Abnormal routing of the ioptic nerve to the brain? Good grief. They claimed that astigmatism is the same as strabismus? Wow! And saying that nearsightedness and farsightedness are caused by albinism? Nonsense. I would have thought people would be happy that an OD came along and corrected it, but you came along and reverted back to the amazingly wrong text? All you had to do was ask me and I would have scanned you my optometry licence, and my grades in optometry school, which were all A's. But you reverted back to the uncited text and say I can't change uncited text unless I make citations myself? It makes no sense. Please send me your email address, I will scan my degree to you, and you can revert back to my corrected text. My only citation is myself, nobody can cite a better source than a licensed OD, that's all we do for a living. I'm not going to bother finding the names and pages of reference works and texts on visual science to use as citations, I can write any of those books myself. Please respondMorgan Wright 05:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[Sorry this reply is so long, but there's actually a lot of material to cover.]

Dr. Wright, your personal qualifications are not at issue, and no one needs to see copies or your credentials to believe you about them. Your edits were reverted ("back to the uncited text" as you put it, from your equally uncited text - that's the important part) on policy/procedure grounds, not because I think I know more about eyes than you do. As a Wikipedia editor you are held to precisely the same standards as everyone else here regardless of your professional background. Please see WP:V and WP:RS; these explain what "source" means in the Wikipedia context (not what your text above seems to indicate you think it means). Wikipedia articles (and changes to them, most especially edits that contradict prior material) need to be sourced. You express disdain for the idea that you should have to go dig up reference citations, because you feel that you are a reference yourself and could write the sources that would be cited. But you are not a reference yourself here, per Wikipedia Policy, at WP:OR (an important read, especially at WP:OR#Citing oneself!) - assertions (provable or not) of special knowledge or authority hold no weight whatsoever here, by design - only sources do. Please do not conflate personal expertise, knowledge or wisdom with encyclopedically-verifiable reference citation. I strongly encourage you to register you objections to the present article text, in detail, on that article's Talk page; and to edit the article directly with citations to reliable sources for each of those substantive edits (if you want to improve the article yourself rather than wait around for others to do it after you flag things for us to fix on the Talk page.) But just editing the article without sourcing the claimed facts will simply cause people to revert the changes, because from a policy/process perspective your changes are not any more plausible than those of anyone else, being unsourced, and (as such) are making unsupported changes to article text that is presumptively valid but just unsourced. It may not be the best system/tradition to have, but it is the one that we do have. I understand that you feel strongly that many facts in that section are completely wrong (I have suspected as much myself). But you need need to demonstrate this, not simply assert it.

I have to point out, however that some of your edits were based on plain misinterpretation of the article text (which did NOT in fact say that astigmatism is the same as strabismus, and did NOT suggest that albinism exclusively causes the very common ailments of near- and far-sightedness, though it still needs clarification edits to make the real but amiguously and vaguely [respectively] expressed, meanings clearer, and needs to cite references in both spots.) Also, some of your edits appear to be questionable overgeneralizations, in the "ALL albinos have..." vein. Such broad statements demand reliable reference citations, even more so than more specific, qualified statements. Please note, however, that most of your additions of new material, and even some deletions of rather questionable text, were not reverted, and are slated for the same fact-checking as the rest of the section.

Your input would be very welcome in this article (and I really, personally, mean that), provided the new material is sourced, otherwise it is simply adding to the sourcing problem, resulting in an article that might make you personally happier, but is precisely 0% more reliable to anyone trying to determine the reliability of the article. Any experienced editor here would revert such changes, because for Wikipedia purposes neither statement is more demonstrably true (or false) without references, and "original research" is invalid. Anyway, I will be very happy to show you how to create quick and easy reference citations if you haven't already read the docs on that. It's a snap, really.

PS: As to the "neural pathways" thing, someone else has challeged that as suspicious, but not been able to refute it, while a long-time good-faith editor here swears it is sourceable and is looking for the source. I and some others could probably be convinvced to lean in favor of removing it until it can be sourced, but I hope to show that it either can be sourced or cannot easily be sourced fairly soon, so I'd ask that you hold off before deleting it. The wording strikes me as too precise for it to be likely that someone just pulled it out of thin air, and again a so-far-trustable editor says it isn't bogus, and there's no particular reason to believe that is an outright lie. New stuff comes up in this field all the time. Heck, even the long-standing tryrosinase +/- distinguishing characteristic has allegedly been shown to be bunk (though that, or at least the fact that there's a dispute about the issue, also remains to be sourced). Who knows what's next?

PPS: There actually is an avenue of activity, or "program" if you will, on Wikipedia that does call upon field-specific expertise for article review and improvement recommendations. Let me know if you are interested, and I'll find the link for you.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Marking topic "Resolved" as it has moved to Talk:Albinism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Wiktionary talk page

Resolved

1. I added sections to your Wiktionary talk page (using the normal [+] mechanism.) However, your addition of the dysfunctional #REDIRECT [[]] prevents them from appearing. Cross-project redirects do not work. Wiktionary templates do not render on Wikipedia talk pages, anyway. PLEASE change that non-working redirect, to a commented soft redirect.
2. I have apologised publicly, rather than privately, on w:WT:BP.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Noted. I went and fixed my talk page over there.
2. Thanks, and accepted. :-)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR FIXING IT! By the way, wikt:WT:WT#Rogue shortcuts (cross project redirects) is probably what you were asking about. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was the one! The weird thing is the WT: shortcuts only sometimes work; compare WT:WT and WT:albino. So I guess I have to stick with slightly longer-form definition links like wikt:albino. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cuegloss

What a great idea! Seriously, if you knew how many times I have had to go back to a different part of an article to copy the full name of the glossary to make the link... well probably you do, considering you invented the template to deal with just that pain in the ass. Have you considered adding a a gloss about substituting the template? I can't think of any situation where it shouldn't be (WP:TTN has good language for this).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on why people want templates subst'd, other than for things like {{test1}} and so on. I kind of liked that it's not subt'd, since it keeps the source code of the aritcles more readable/shorter and it 'advertises' the template. Most uses of {{citation needed}} and other inline templates I run across aren't subst'd either, and their docs don't ask them to be. I'm guessing there may be some esoteric reason for this, but it's not something I've ever investigated... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading up at WP:SUBST, the benefits vs. costs analysis says to me "don't subst". The especially strong reason not to is that the link to the Glossary page is hard-coded in the template, so if/when it moves to Glossary of cue sports terms the unsubst'd template would work seamlessly, while subst'd templates would require hundreds, more like thousands of manual edits to fix the resulting redirects (I don't personally care about such redirects, but some wikipedians are really hard-core about that for some reason. Go figure.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, love the edits to the glossary.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Keen! Glad they are of use. I was a little concerned that I might be doing too much all at once (both at the G., and at Eight-ball, which I did a major overhaul on. And I still think it needs to be split into Eight-ball and Blackball...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying but I'm going to use it with subst: because if I make two thousand links using it, and a vandal comes along and vandalizing the template, making it link to autofellatio, that will happen across all those links.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that, I beg you; you'll be undoing the whole point of the template, i.e. prevention of incredibly tedious manual editing; I'm almost dead certain that the Glossary will eventually be Glossary of cue sports terms, and that change would require literally thousands of edits to subst'd templates, making the template useless. If the template is vandalized, it'll be fixed - it's on my watch list, and I'm on WP a lot - and if it's repeatedly vandalized it can be Protected. There are loads of templates that do similar things, used much more broadly, such as {{OMIM}}, {{OMIM2}} and {{OMIM3}}, which are used in literally thousands of medical/biology articles, and this vandalism issue hasn't been, um, an issue.  :-) Vandalized templates that affect multiple articles are easy to get protected (cf. {{citation needed}}, etc.), far more so than articles. The only common vandalism targets in Template-space appear to be the warning/dispute ones like {{citation needed}}, {{test4}}, etc. WP:CUE articles don't even get vandalized much anyway, mostly just "[insert user's name here] is the greatest player alive!" silliness and occasional section-blanking. Not such a huge deal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem opinion

Resolved

Since you've commented on the page before, please tell me if you consider this edit an improvement. Thanks. >Radiant< 15:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'd say it is "interesting". It's certainly a very different take. I think both versions could be merged to produce something as pithy as Francis's version, and as explanatory of yours+others' pre-rewrite version, with little violence to either camp's goals. I haven't weighed in on the talk page there in a long time because I think that Francis is being a bit self-evidently cranky and that this will eventually sort itself out in consensus. But not all of his points are invalid. My personal main concern with the essay is that it (in the pre-Francis rewrite) can easily be interpreted to say that citation to statements by J.W. are necessarily fallacious argument to authority, and this is not true; some policies directly cite Jimbo statements as authoritative. The issue really seems to be that it is difficult to determine (for most Wikipedians) when Walesisms are policymaking and when they are not, and further difficult to discern when non-policymaking Jimbo commentary might be leaning toward eventually becoming policymaking (because few presently policymaking Jimbonisms were not preceded by non-policymaking Jimbo commentary on the topics in question). If you see what I mean. At any rate, I think that at least some of the earlier text has to be restored or the article doesn't make sense - it does not explain that it is a reference to argument to authority at all. I'll comment on its talk page to this effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'm sure we can find some compromise version. >Radiant< 09:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fanwanking and "in order to"

Resolved

It's funny, the two biggest highlights of my allnighter — learning about fanwanking and elevating my hatred of "in order to" to the next level — are addressed on your userpage :) — Deckiller 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, full truthful an' all 'at, I done reckon I be aimin' t' please, an' whatnot. PS: Did you see the last week's episode of Stargate: Atlantis? I just can't believe what happend with the Wraith! Omigosh! I think I should go edit the "wraith" article to be a disambiguation page... >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Color of Money

Resolved

Sincerest apologies, I must've hit the bold button by accident. I in no way meant to vandalize or experiment with the article.--NPswimdude500 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinda what I guessed, which is why I used Test1 (the mildest) and commented WP:AGF-wise that I figured it was probably just a slip-up, not an intentional goofing.  :-)

Cue sport nav

Great template!--Fuhghettaboutit 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sankyu beddy mush! If you have any favorite pages that aren't in it, feel free to add them, of course. I do think it might be a good idea to keep the pool line from wrapping at sane window widths though. Or, contrariwise maybe we should just expand the thing silly. Kind of a tossup. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Eventually there will be many more article. I think its good to list most, but maybe deference should be given to two factors: complete articles and how far along articles are. What I mean is, cowboy pool is not nearly as prominent as other games, but it's a complete article; Bank pool is far more prominent but it's far from complete; both deserve a place. But where an article is obscure and incomplete, maybe it should not be included? What do you think? Anyway, for artistic, I fixed the link and think it would be better under the full name, but doing so makes it wrap--once we get a few more articles, it won't look stupid on the next line. Once we have many, maybe the text size can be reduced? By the way, I'm going to be writing finger billiards over the next few days (weeks?); we'll see.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds emminently sensible. PS: WRT finger billiards/hand pool, I know that Shamos covered it in semi-depth in one of his BD columns, I think some time ca. 2002-4, but it could have been much older (I subscribe myself, but I also bought a pack of 1980s issues off of eBay at one point...

Scorpion

Resolved

Careful, he's going to start thinking you're in on the conspiracy! Otto4711 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But, I run the conspiracy. And its counter-conspiracy. And 14 others. And the Anti-Conspiracy Task Force. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My signature

Resolved

Re. your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 2#Category:Canadian historical figures as to my signature height. I'm not certain what the problem is—do you mean the height of the physical letters? I don't think that they are very much higher than is usual. Do you perhaps refer to my habit of including a clear line between my comment and the signature? (As I will now proceed to illustrate :) )

Xdamr^talk 15:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not higher than is usual? You're using 18px type, which on my monitor is rendered at about 18-20 point type! It causes the line spacing to look funny, and is very distracting otherwise (not as bad as <blink> would be, of course, but still... Just asking for some moderation. I use a custom sig too, so I'm not trying to say don't customize. Images were banned from sigs for pretty much the same reason. Don't give them a reason to ban something else. >;-) PS: Using pixel sizes in fonts in web pages is generally a deprecated practice; use relative instead. Try something like "font-size:120%" (please, not 150, 200, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Same goes for the 14px; try 100% or 110% at most. It is presently rendering roughly twice the size of other text on the page (on my system; for others it may well even be worse, since I don't have a particularly high screen resolution!) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fiddled about with it a little—how does it look now?

Xdamr^talk 22:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Better, thank you. The "damr" part, though in a WP-unique font, is about the same height as the default WP typeface, and the big X is still kinda big, but it and the superscripted "talk" seem to be about the same height as any superscript would be, so it won't mess with vertical line spacing all that much. Gracias. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: You could make your sig even more user-friendly by reducing the line-height with CSS the way Sony-youth (talk · contribs) did. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Resolved

In light of the debate about Category:Iranian polygamists, I have nominated Category:Polygamists for deletion. However, I've made it a separate nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Polygamists. Pascal.Tesson 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go too far with that. At least the Biblical polygamists cat. seems to have merit, since it's of limited scope, 100% verifiable, and NPOV, in that it's not trying to label living people by their sexual practices. The ones for doing the latter, though, I can't see any encyclopedically valid reason to keep them, any more than a "Canadians who go down" or "Chinese people fond of transvestites" cat. May say as much over at CfD, if the debate looks like it needs more input. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish interwiki

OK, sorry. I thought that Irish standard pool and english 8-ball are the same, looking at the pictures. Aren't they? Can you explain me the difference between these two billiard games? Thanks for information, Maciek17 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They are very, very similar, which is why Irish standard pool has been slated for merging into eight-ball#UK just before eight-ball#UK forks off into the blackball (pool). Irish standard pool is not quite the same as UK-rules eight-ball - different enough that the interwiki is misinformation - but similar enough that the articles can be merged, and handled with simply an "Irish variation" section, if you see what I mean. Dealing with all of that is, I think, the 2nd-highest priority on my WP to-do list, so it will be taken care of very soon.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions

Per your edit summary question - Since the girls' and boys' junior champions are decided at the same tournament, I kept them together. More of a stylistic choice, since I don't think there needs to be two separate tables for the junior champs. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Just for my own edification, can you tell me which is which? I don't think any of the players listed are notable enough to have articles (yet?), and some of the names seem ambiguous enough or just too foreign for me to be certain my interpretation is correct. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please join WikiProject Cue sports! We could use someone of your attention to detail and obvious love of the game to help improve the pool articles. The WProj is coming along nicely as far as organization and resources go, we just don't have enough hands on deck. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done on Godwin's Law

Resolved

Thank you for upgrading my comment. "However, Godwin's Law can itself also be abused, as a distraction or diversion, to fallaciously miscast an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparison it made were actually appropriate." Excellent! 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I saw the your point clearly, just wanted it to be made a bit more encyclopedically. Someone who prefers Yankee grammar will probably revert my subjunctive to a "was" though. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Even better edit today. Thanks for saying perfectly what I said imperfectly.[1] Ilena 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just visited your User Page ... WoW! Well done. I learned alot about Wiki. I borrowed my new favorite box! Can you tell me where to find the boxes for how many countries we've visited? Thanks. Ilena 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad it was helpful! Dunno about country-visit boxes. Don't recall seeing any such things in the lists of userboxes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors participation drive!

Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

• Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
• Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! BuddingJournalist 08:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I'm actually up to my eyes in big project right now, but LoCe is where my heart is so I'll be back shortly-like. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrative functions?

Resolved

I am curious to know if you would find the administrative tools of use. I was scanning the "Administrator hopefuls" category and your name came up as one I recognized from a recent edit; I've looked over some, though not all, of your contribution history and nothing so far presents any problem. You would be my first nominee, so if you are waiting for someone specifically/more experienced, that's fine as well. Of course if you're not interested any longer, that is your prerogative.. please let me know here or on my talk page when you get a chance. -- nae'blis 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I've just been waiting for someone to do the nomination; I know some nominate themselves, but that seemed a little tacky to me (kind of like writing an article about oneself, heh). As you can probably tell from my edit history, to the extent that I am not working on actual article content (mostly in the WP:CUE realm, or discussing guideline text or template functions, I do endless gnome tasks like typo fixing, flagging POV issues, reverting vandalism, and so forth. I think both that this is good adminish stuff to be doing, and that admin status would help me do a lot of it more effectively.  :-)

The admin tools, I suspect, would be of great help, especially if they can be used (as I suspect from a lot of the admin edit summaries and patterns I see) to make identical edits to a list of articles, and the like. Right now I'm manually tagging a bunch of articles with DEFAULTSORT, the "Chinese name" template, and other geeky things, and it's very time consuming.

Anyway, I appreciate your interest and faith. Where do we go from here? I know there is a page about the admin nomination process that I need to go re-read... As I recall there's a template that is customary to fill out, too, about one's Wikipedian activities, and so forth. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the repetitive edits are probably being done through something AutoWikiBrowser, which is a program you may find useful (I haven't myself signed up for it yet). Administrative tools simplify things like reverting vandalism through use of the automatic rollback button (one click/pageload, not three), seeing when a page has been deleted before when tagging it for speedy deletion, and allowing edits of protected pages in certain circumstances. Other than that, it will complicate and hassle your life here at Wikipedia, not simplify things. ;)

I'm a bit of a WikiGnome too, so I'll have to take a day or two to review your contributions a bit more before I'm quite ready. When I have, I'll drop you a note and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish will turn blue (that's where you'll answer questions/brag about yourself, and then the RFA will start). In the meantime, I suggest you read through the guide for RFA candidates and keep doing what you're doing! -- nae'blis 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the rollback thing; there was actually a .js script that simulated its workings for non-admins, but it quit working last week. I only used it a couple of times, because I preferred to write personal notes on the offending user's Talk page, after adding a Welcome3 if it was missing, that sort of thing. Anyway, thanks for the references and such; will look them over tomorrow (need to finish my latest wave of WP geeking, do some offline chores, and then practice and go to an eight-ball league match tonight, so today is pretty much accounted for already. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When you awaken, please find that the link above has turned blue. There are four questions for you to answer before we officially start the clock/link it to the main page, but let me know if you have any questions/clarifications on what I've written so far. -- nae'blis 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Marking topic "Resolved" as now moot (RfA withdrawn by candidate); thanks anyway, it was "interesting"! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Argot, jargon, lingo, patois...and all that.

Hi! You may recognize me from the pool glossary. I'm just continuing the discussion about linguistics from one of the threads there because it's a subject I'm interested in and it would be good to talk to someone who knows more about it than me. Yeah there's no doubting there are distinctly defined uses for argot, jargon and patois as the core senses of each term from a linguistic perspective, and perhaps such distinctions are necessary in this area of study. I was just saying that they are used interchangeably in the real world, and any good dictionary (e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary) will recognize this, giving similar subsenses to each entry. As a trained linguist I'm sure you'll appreciate the evolution of lexicography towards a reflection of ever-changing word uses through tools such as corpora (e.g. the British National Corpus) as opposed to the old rigid way of telling people "this is how to use this word". Doubtless there is a responsibility for reference texts to recognize correct/chief spellings, etc., and keep things like HIV and AIDS clearly defined (which is more to do with misunderstanding than shared use of terms with similar definitions, as a virus and a disease are inherently different things). It's a moot point on the other discussion page so I thought I'd respond to you directly, it would be nice to hear your thoughts on this. Kris 11:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the terms are used imprecisely by many people, but not that they are synonymous except to certain individuals. Even in general usage, terms like slang, jargon, argot, patois, creole, etc. have at least shades of different meaning. Slang implies pop-culture or (negatively) "street" usage. Jargon implies technical or other term-of-art or (negatively) technobabble. Argot isn't a word most people use, and I couldn't really hazard a guess as to what people mean by it when they use it if they don't have a linguistic background; thinking back on some usages I've seen of this word in fiction, I believe the authors meant the same thing as "jargon" but not "slang". Patois to most people (on my half of the Pond) means English modified by French as in many Carribean countries, and creole (to the extent it doesn't refer to a long-standing mulatto subculture of Lousiana) means a mishmash of English and usually French but any other language really, such that it isn't really intelligible to English speakers even if they recognize some words. And so on. I'm sure the British general usage of some of these words is different than the American, but my point was that even in Britain, I'd bet there are meaning differences between them. In linguistics, the terms have precise meanings; for instance there is an objectively defined difference between a creole and a patois. And since the original discussion was about language, I don't see why not to use these narrower senses. Similarly, if I we'd been talking about legal terms of art like estoppel and pro per, I wouldn't call that "legal slang" but "legal jargon", even if the difference might be lost on some people.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Similarly, if I we'd been talking about legal terms of art like estoppel and pro per, I wouldn't call that "legal slang" but "legal jargon", even if the difference might be lost on some people." Agree completely. Thank you. Ilena 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK well I never mentioned slang as a synonym, that still has a distinct enough use in British diction. We seem to be echoing the same sentiments as before so at the risk of going round in circles I'll quote the Oxford English Dictionary definitions to hopefully clarify my British perspective:

• argot /ˈɑːgəʊ/ noun [mass noun] the jargon or slang of a particular group or class: teenage argot.
• jargon /ˈdʒɑːg(ə)n/ noun [mass noun] special words or expressions used by a particular profession or group that are difficult for others to understand: legal jargon.
• lingo noun the vocabulary or jargon of a particular subject or group of people.
• patois /ˈpatwɑː/ noun (pl. same /-wɑːz/) the jargon or informal speech used by a particular social group: the raunchy patois of inner-city kids.

There are other specific definitions for the terms but those are the relevant subsenses and core senses of each for this discussion. So it would seem that us laypersons of Britain have used them interchangeably enough to influence the OED to define the terms with sufficient overlap to actually be recognizably interchangeable. The situation must be different in the US, a common problem and the source of much debate in Wikipedia as I know you will appreciate! The initial premiss for my mentioning it on the pool glossary discussion page was that there's no need to strictly label the language there in particular, with it not being all that relevant to the original discussion although I did find it interesting. Just for the record, I'm a scientist by trade and I love strict definitions, if it were up to me I'd define everything precisely with at least different shades of meaning for near-synonyms as you do, just have to accept that that's not the way things are any more though I suppose.

Take-home points for me: these terms do have distinct definitions in the appropriate circles; in the real world they're all usable in similar scenarios, and such subsenses of the terms are creeping into official usage; I wish it were different and agree with your perspective on keeping them separate. Kris 10:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the OED is particularly helpful here, as it is very slow-moving, and often imprecise, being more concerned (from what I can tell) with describing casual usage than precision usage (and yes, I do have it; micro-print edition; I'd love to have the full-size version, but I don't have that kind of money laying around. Heh.) Anyway, I do get your point that there is overlap in genera parlance. From the OED perspective, there "isn't" any difference at all between these words other than "jargon" never refers to slang. I think a lot of people would have problems with these definitions.

Anyway, to get back to your real point, if these terms are used more interchangeably in the UK than they are in the US, there is no harm at all in making them more specific/accurate to Yankee (virtual) ears, since there won't be any effect at all on British ones, if you see what I mean. I think this is especially true in the case of that article because most of the terms are jargon rather than slang (some are of course slangish — "action", "velcro", etc. — but they're in the minority"). And it's not that the OED-based usage of argot/patois/lingo would be wrong from an OED-based perspective, simply vague (the meaning of all three words in the the OED is basically "slang or jargon".  :-) Anyway, glad we're not really arguing. Heh.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have the Compact Oxford English Dictionary? Cool, so do I, small world – I suspect we probably belong to a small fraternity. Those definitions are from the New Oxford Dictionary of English, which is more up to date but still slow and yes, definitely more a general language usage lexicon than one providing technical terminology. I'd love the gilded, leather-bound, 21-volume beast as well but am probably poorer than you (palaeontology PhDs don't pay too well) so I'd have to go on Countdown and get lucky. I don't use my micro-print version that much because the light in my magnifying glass burnt out and I don't want to develop a strabismus. Kris 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Vietnamese name

Resolved

I think your changing of the template {{Vietnamese name}} rendered it useless. Like East Asian practice, the family name is given first, but unlike East Asian practice, the given name is the primary form of address. Vietnamese is written with the Latin alphabet, so there's no need to "transliterate" it. The purpose of the template was to explain to a Western reader why the person in the article is not referred to by their family name but by their given name, and discourage them from attempting to "fix" it (The Ngo Dinh Diem and Vo Nguyen Giap articles had that problem many times before the template was put up). A template that focuses exclusively on the family name is misleading, if not plain wrong for Vietnamese names. DHN 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely following you.

1. The template's language was when I got there (and now is again) ungrammatical/illogical.
2. It is equally helpful to readers to tell them that a V. name more correctly spelled with diacritics is often transliterated without them, and what the correct form really is, as to tell them that it is customary to use the given name when referring to someone.
3. I suspect you may not know what is quite meant by "transliterate" and "Latin alphabet". The uniquely diacritically-marked characters used in Vietnamese when written properly are emphatically not letters in the Latin Alphabet, or even in any of the ISO character sets for European more broadly. They are modifications of them, yes, but that's beside the point. Much of Cyrillic is also a modification of the Latin alphabet, but that doesn't make them Latin alphabet characters.

I think all of this begs a question: It is questionable that following Vietnamese preference/custom for using given names instead of family names is appropriate at all in an English-language encyclopedia. It is customary, very broadly, in Russia to call people named Dmitri by the name Dima; it is more than a nickname, but a custom strongly embedded into daily language. I don't think that Russian biography articles should use this custom, though. Just a similar (to me) example.

However, I really do not at all want to argue with you about this. If you think that the articles should use the Vietnamese custom, and that articles need to be templated in such as way to prevent reversal of it, I really don't have anything against that other than not entirely agreeing with it. I do feel strongly that the Vietnamese name templates must also serve the same function as the Chinese, Japanese and Korean ones. Given how few articles there are that would be affected, the change would be trivial. I think it could be done in about 5 minutes. Including fixing the grammar, here's my take, please let me know what you think:

This is a Vietnamese name; the family name is {{{1}}}, but is sometimes transliterated as {{{2}}}. According to Vietnamese custom, this person properly should be referred to by the given name {{{3}}}.

Plus a merge of the documentation, of course. If you prefer "personal name" instead of "given name", no objection from me.

I think this would satisfy both our needs, and I'll happily update all the articles myself unless you want to do it.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm sorry that my edits messed up your system. The wording of the original template wasn't very clear, and it's usage as you intended it seemed mistaken, but I know see clearly what you were getting at. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an acceptable compromise. I don't have time to implement the changes right now so if you can please change it. Thanks. DHN 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll probably do that tonight, then. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW: I have no problem with putting Vietnamese names in Western order, but that's not the practice. Even in formal situations, Vietnamese people are referred to by their given name (the prime minister of Vietnam is uniformly referred to as Mr. Dung, not Mr. Nguyen), part of the reason is because of this. Thanks. DHN 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted, but I don't want to monkey in any way with the ordering of the names in the articles, just explain which the family name is (mostly for use with regard to sports biographies and such; lists of players in tournaments will be alphabetized by family name, whatever order it appears in and whatever local custom might be in the nation of the player's origin).  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In case there was any misunderstanding, I wasn't trying to impose a non-English way of referring to people in an English-language article, it's already the case in English (for example, see [2]). My purpose in creating the template was merely to explain why it was so. That's why the template was not included in articles about people whose names are already Westernized, such as Hong Tran, Van Tran, or Van Tuong Nguyen. DHN 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! And I wouldn't use it on those articles in the new version, either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the template should be included for Vietnamese who have their names in Westernized order, or who have a non-Vietnamese given name. This is done for the Chinese name entries. Making the second part of the template optional (i.e. not including a given name) will solve this. Does anyone know how to alter the template to do this? Badagnani 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see there's a template 2 now. That will work just as well. Good work, you guys. Badagnani 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think between the two of them we've got it covered. NB: I don't actually very often see the Chinese name, etc., templates used on articles in which the family name doesn't appear first. But it's not a big deal to me either way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates and all articles connected them have been updated (and many more tagged to use them). A copy of the above discussion has been added to the main template's talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Resolved

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, please fix your bot to not leave messages like this on non-IP user talk pages that have existed more than a month. We all forget to type ~~~~ every now and then but don't need "welcome, newbie" messages about it. [comment ported to bot controller's talk page of course.]— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is one of the few bots that respects the {{nobots}} template (so far, since it's largely responsible for its creation), and it also has an opt-out page. -- nae'blis 20:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a great bot when it comes to fixing what it fixes; it would just be coolio if was a little more clever when it came to tagging user talk pages with this notice, is all. I'm glad that it will fix it if I forget to leave a sig; what why I didn't opt out.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Marking topic resolved; took it up with Hagerman at his/her talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Resolved

thanks for your comments on Iberian Ribbed Newt and my /R userpage :) you might enjoy OFO too. —Pengo 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to be checking that out. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Thanks for the reply. I think when I clicked on the template it only brought me to the image, and not the description and talk pages. The link is back now. The template's been around for 10 months or so, and I'm surprised I'm only seeing it for the first time. I was a bit doubtful about it, because I can see some users pasting it in to guillotine an argument - but it's only an indicator with nothing final about it.--Shtove 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Guillotine usage should be reverted and criticized. I think the template itself should be udpated with a note that such use would be abuse. I think it does already say that if anyone thinks a tagged topic is not resolved they should just remove the tag. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA created

Resolved

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish - I realized after posting above that you might not have noticed my update. Please answer at your leisure, and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck! -- nae'blis 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I actually didn't notice. Have had my nose buried in WP:CUE work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As you've probably noted, it is now withdrawn-by-candidate. Thanks anyway for the effort and the encouragement. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Duck!

Resolved

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your many, many fine cue sport related edits.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

<bow> Thanks! Nice to see someone noticed. I'm only about 1/3 done with the massive cleanup/tagging effort, but it proceeds apace. I've been interrupted by a rather unexpected RfA nomination, which I'm working on tonite. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

U got a message...

Resolved

Nice barnstar by the way. I've replied to your post at WP:TOTD. The Transhumanist   03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Noted. I shortened it. Will followup at TOTD as necessary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Development at the glossary

I think you should be aware of my conversation with the owner of the tagging bot over at the glossary, as I really am unclear at this point of his intentions. Please see my post and his response at his Wiktionary talk page, his response and my reply at my talk page and his comments at the glossary talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded at the latter two places, and tried modifying the bot post in a way that might keep it from taking another potshot at the Glossary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Blackball

Hello Stanton,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the feedback!

Resolved

I'll start implementing your advice tonight (EST). Thanks so much! Goyston talk, contribs, play 19:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:Biography

Resolved

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Mocko13 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions

Resolved

Sorry for the delay - in cases where boys' and girls' champions are together, the boys are listed first. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Keen. Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed up article indicate gender now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Resolved

Im not an admin :P --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Well, you do a good impression. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Golden-Road.net

Both versons have been posted as deletedpages, and the site's founder does not endorse the site being referenced here, so I'm dropping out of the DRV bid. Sorry if i was misleading. Jeff Defender 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's up to you; I have no interest in that article at all, positive or negative, only in disruptive behavior to promote the site here, and even more disruptive behavior against well-sourced articles on notable topics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So I see the point here is whether the notibility is subjective on both pages in question, I see. I salted (but not protected) all known versions of GR.net. Although I hoped for a better outcome, the webmaster told people not to attempt recreation, so count me out as well. NoInsurance (chat?) 11:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarcastic commentary like that is uncalled for. You are really actually beginning to disturb me, in that you are evidently an admin, but do not seem to understand WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:AGF, WP:VANDAL, WP:SOCK, and other core, basic guidelines used in AfD and elsewhere. Notabilty does not mean "I have heard of it", "I think it is important" or "I like it". Please actually read and understand these guidelines. There is nothing subjective about the primary notability criterion (PNC), that a subject be featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If the problem is simply that you haven't read WP:N in a long time, please do so. It has changed radically since Nov. 2006, to fix subjectivity and interpretability problems. While WP:N is not perfect yet, it works, but you seem to be operating on an early-2006 or earlier watery understanding of what "notability" means on Wikipedia - "fame, importance and/or popularity". Please see dead proposals at Wikipedia:Notability/Historical; all of those wishy-washy concepts have been laid to rest. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Fix

Resolved

Yes it helped, as the page was a bit sloppy. I am working with AxG on a major overhaul. but that helped to clean things up for th time being! Thanks!!!--Vox Rationis 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice on Biography project tags. That will save me some time when I edit talk pages. RobJ1981 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :-) One thing I do in this vein is remember a "typical" tag of this sort, and simply copy-paste it from the original article, which I keep open in another window. I use Talk:Marlon Manalo for this purpose, for sportspeople, and paste in the WPBIO banner from there, but remove the attention needed parameter if the article is not flagged with any dispute tags. I find that pretty expedient. I'm sure others use a text file with commonly-used snippets like that, or a macro. Any method works, as long as there's a method. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I copy and paste tags usually, to save time as well. Also: a comment about your comment about mini-games. A mini-game is a small game in a video game. Mario Party is a good example of a video game with lots of mini-games. A mini-game is also known as a party game. Alot of the time mini games/party games can be played with several people at once. The whole arguement is basically over listcruft, and how mass lists of games (or even lists of examples) shouldn't be listed. RobJ1981 06:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. "Easter egg games", in other words. Pretty old concept, actually. I remember playing ASCII-art IBM PC adventure games that had them in it. There was one goofy space adventure one, where they only way to get on to the rest of the game was to cheat at gambling. You had to gamble on this very poor-odds slot machine, with something like only $10, and save if you won and reload from savegame if you lost, and keep doing this for hours and hours until you had the $10,000 or so required to buy the spaceship you needed. It was memorable. Not sure it was notable though. >;-) PS: I'm kvetching at the guy doing rampant experimentation with the {{FindSources}} template. Perhaps it will stabilize. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Wakemp

Resolved

I have repeated asked nicely for this page not to be reverted. It was deleted with Admin approval. I left for a reason and I do not want the page recreated. Please refer to WP:VAN , Talk page vandalism “The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion.“. Further edits will result in Vandalism warnings being posted on your talk page Wakemp 00:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does it even matter if you are apparently "gone" from Wikipedia? I think you are making a big deal out of nothing Wakemp. RobJ1981 01:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Nothing you were indicating appeared to be an invocation of M:Right to vanish until this very moment, and per the very WP:VAN you cite, you appeared to be simply removing warnings, which is often resisted. So, I guess, uh good bye and good luck whatever you are doing elsewhere.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RobJ's talk page.

Resolved

A mini game is a small game inside a big game. Please see minigame. Henchman 2000 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Needs"

Resolved

Yeah, the way the FA/GA levels tie in with WikiProject assessments has always been a somewhat strange point. In any case, I suspect leaving off the text will work just as well in practice; it's not like we have hordes of people trying to stick FA-Class assessments on random articles and such. Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I suppose not. Anyone who knows enough about WP to actually do that, knows enough not to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WSS/NG

More power to you. I'm pretty nit-picky, but I prefer to expend my energies on sorting rather than guidelines, so I'll be happy to look on. I was just tired of the whole go-round, and I hope everyone can Get On With It now. <g> Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Moved for likewise closure of the related SfD, mostly on policy grounds this time, as WSS/NG does not in fact contradict the proposal at all. I think NG can be cleaned up rather easily. No time for it tonite, but maybe in the next couple of days I'll toss up a draft at NG/Draft or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cue Sports/Billiards Article improvements

I just wanted to say thanks so much for all that you've done over the past months on the (now) Cue sport page. It has changed drastically and in a good way! The plethora of information was very unorganized before and now that there are templates and resolutions of different discussions all over the place, it makes it a much easier environment to develop for other WP contributors. Thanks so much again, and if I knew where to find those barn stars, I'd give one to you! --68.239.240.144 04:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That really made my week! So few (who aren't involved day-to-day already in that chunk of articlespace) seem to notice much. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons:User:SMcCandlish, and Commons Picture of the Year 2006

Resolved

I assert that I am the same user as Commons:User:SMcCandlish.
I assert that I voted for picture number 6, for Commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Resolved

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all the arduous work on Cue sport 68.239.240.144 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! <bow> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thagomizer

Resolved

I removed your proposed deletion of thagomizer as, well, I objected. Considering that the information was both referenced and intersting, not vanity or nonsence (as well as quite well liked) it isn't suitable for proposed deletion. If you feel it should be deleted I suggest that you nominate it at AFD. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine; I put prod on it to see if anyone cared about it enough to save it within a week. I'm not opposed to the article sufficiently to AfD it, though I think it dreadfully needs to be moved to the correct term and rewritten to be a serious article instead of a Gary Larson fan piece. I'm sure others will figure that out too, and deal with it (I've done nothing but gnoming all day long, so I'm not inclined to tackle it myself. Tired!  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, as the article states, the word has become "part of the serious scientific literature".[3] (link from Palaeos.com, technical). There's no other term for it (the spines are highly modified osteoderms and the tail itself is composed of caudal vertebrae, but I've never seen a word for the whole unit outside of "Thagomizer", and the paleontologists on the Dinosaur Mailing List use it amongst themselves). Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the science needs to be ramped up and the emphasis on the cartoon reduced. Regretably I'm a ornithologist not a paleontologist, but I'll try and do some research and improve it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm more bewildered than skeptical at this point. It's as if there were no scientific word for "head", only for "eyes" and "cheeks" and... <fzzt spark pop> ..does not compute...DOES NOT COMPUTE <BANG!> But I'll take your majority words for it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thge thing about science is that there are multiple words. Probably more than one for thagomizer. BTW I don't want you to think that I said that you acted wrongly for nominating thagomizer the way you did, as you said you did it right, I just wanted to explain my reasoning when I removed the tag. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly; I was responding to your aggressive knight-in-shining-lab-coat. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

About TFD nomination

Resolved

About these nominations: specifically, the third one. You seemed to have copied and pasted from the TFD-making box, but not replaced the default values. If you have a third template to nominate related to Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld (that you meant to put in there), go ahead and do so. Happy editing! Gracenotes^T § 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was me. If it was, simply a copy-paste error; there was no third TfD intended. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looked at it, and yep, it was me. Maybe the phone rang and I got distracted or something. <fzzt spark pop>. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SMcCandlish! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Resolved

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SMcCandlish! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh... thanks, but I don't need to be told twice in a row. Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics in sports

Thanks for the correction about the Braemar gathering - Skysmith 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. Did it help you find what you were looking for? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So it appears. I already knew they were Highland games but writing an article about them is another matter. - Skysmith 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. The St. Andrews Societies in various places are probably also relevant for that one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Reminder

Resolved

Thanks for the reminder. I'm normally more diligent about providing some sort of summary, but I've gotten a little lazy in not providing one when I change one letter for spelling or punctuation or something like that. That said, I'll make a better effort to get back in that habit. 70.145.159.12 18:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Keen. Yeah I see from your contrib list that you usually do. I usually don't bother looking with IP addresses, but maybe I should... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your oppose on Wikipedia:Requested_moves (Drascombe)

Resolved

Not sure if you have that page watchlisted, please see my response. —Dgies^t c 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Replied in the negatory. What you are proposing is simply not done. It is not fair to other editors to destroy their edit history on an article just because your version is purportedly (and in this case clearly and actually) better. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only one real revision. The others are just maintenance tags or pointers to the new article. What about fairness to the contributers to the new article? —Dgies^t c 07:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is one real revision is the end of the story. I have no idea what you are talking about with "fairness to the contributors to the new article"; your revision of merging the article in will be in the history. If you are talking about revisions by yourself in your sandbox, no one at all, anywhere, period on WP cares. If you mean revisions by other people to the version in your sandbox, and you think someone may care, which is quite possible, then you need to do a merge proposal, so that the edit histories are merged, by the admin who closes the merge proposal. Another route would be to AfD or SD the original stub as worthless (an iffy proposition) and then create a new article (which can raise people's hackles.) Regardless, what you have is definitely not an uncontroversial move proposal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making such a big deal of this? It should have been a simple case of replacing a stub with a real article but you're wasting both our time. Yes, I know all about AfD and proposed mergers, but it seems a huge waste of time to preserve a single line which has been entirely superseded by the new article. WP:IAR exists precisely to keep the rules from preventing people from making common-sense improvements. —Dgies^t c 08:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm making a "big deal" out of this because what you are trying to do is wrong. This is emphatically not how we replace stubs with larger articles around here; and you are unintentionally or otherwise misusing Requested moves's "speedy" process. The real question is why are you making a big deal out of it instead of following long-standing consensus procedures? My ability to WP:AGF is getting a bit strained here. Your interest in appearing (falsely) to be the original creator of the article on Wikipedia is beginning to look rather too high. Just get over it. I worked on Three-ball for months only to have someone create a very lacking stub a day before I was going to go "live" with it, and this hasn't harmed me or anyone else in any way. So it goes in a place where anyone can edit virtually anything at any time. Anyway, I don't see any point to us having the same argument in two different places. You don't need to have usertalk debates with everyone who disagrees with you in XfD processes; those forums are already forums, for a reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed to be the creator of the new article. I'm simply arguing that it makes sense to short-circuit "process" when it provides no real benefit. While WP:IAR is not a license to do anything, don't forget, it is a pillar. —Dgies^t c 08:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Process provides benefit here - honestly preserving one or more other editor's work, which you are, in my view, unbelievely and inexplicably devaluing. If you are not willing to follow process, you're not in a position to wave it at other people. And please read it more closely before you do. WP:IAR can be invoked when process is getting in the way of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; this is so not the case with regard to Wikipedia:Requested moves here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. We're not getting anywhere. I will WP:AGF that you just have a more stringent interpretation of when to follow policy if you will AGF that I was simply trying to save effort on what looked like a simple move of a new contributers article. Truce? —Dgies^t c 08:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is your friend here. The merge you want to do is trivial, and no one will oppose it at all unless they've been smoking funny cigarettes. If you tell me when you post it, I'll even go support it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I already took it to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drascombe —Dgies^t c 09:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again then. I've tried to be as civil with you as possible (while still being firm), but you're pushing my limits with your false claim that I supported yoru AfD action, which I specifically said would be a poor idea because it was unlikely to succeed and would not be received very well. Whatever. You're digging yourself into this hole, and there's nothing I can do about it at this point. I've opposed your AfD on procedural grounds again. T a k e   i t   t o   P M . — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: WP:PM is almost invariably faster than WP:AFD, especially when there's a bunch of support and no opposition. Again, I'll be happy to be one of the first supporters. I want you to understand that there is no personal component to this, and I'm not "out to get you" or any such nonsense (BTW, I think your article is quite good.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted this comment as you suggesting it was OK to AfD it. If I misinterpreted you, I'm sorry. Since you care so strongly about merging, how about you list it at proposed mergers and I'll withdraw the AfD. —Dgies^t c 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not in my userspace; I don't have a basis to propose a merge from someone else's' userspace into articlespace, only that user does. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When you do the WP:RM you may need to ask for a WP:SPLICE as part of the merge, or it might get merged as one new edit, losing the edit history stuff you are trying to preserve. Actually you can probably just do this in WP:SPLICE itself, since the actual content side of the merge would only be opposed by a total nutter! And again, let me know and I'll go support it. I think your article is vastly better, and as Fughettaboutit said, it's a good WP:DYK candidate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not my article, the article author knows the situation, and I'm wiping my hands of the whole thing. —Dgies^t c 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I see that there were several contributors, so this does to me look like a good candidate for WP:SPLICE. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In case same issues re-arise later: diff of the Requested moves debate before it was removed from Uncontroversial proposals.

Bear with me...

I appear to have left you 'hanging' in a number of fora for some time: sorry about that. I've been distracted by some "RL" matters of late, and truth to tell, several on-wiki issues are getting disproportionately stressing, and a mini-break from them has been no bad thing. I'll try and return to them as soon as possible, though. Talking of which... as you were generous enough to agree with me (not to say the MoS) on punctuation style issues, if you have a moment, perhaps you might drop in on Talk:Harold Pinter, and try to explain, where I'm evidently failing, to one editor in particular why insisting on a US-specific style, on an article about a UK writer, no less -- isn't such a great idea. (My not-so-subtle idea here being, that an intervention from a US editor might be more clearly seen as an argument for style consisency, rather than an anti-US (or is it anti-humanities?) style putsch.) Alai 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had to move internationally and cross-continent not long ago. RL happens! Also understand the disproportionately stressing bit (I got a surprise RfA nom, which went south very quickly after one opposer blatantly lied, and a couple of others opposed based on factually incorrect but emotionally string-plucking "evidence", including a convincing sounding sockpuppet out for vengeance, with the result that I went from about 21/2/2 to 30/19/1 in the matter of a few hours. Heh. I didn't expect to pass, because I'm too abrasive for some people, but I'd rather be rejected on a factual basis!) Sorry if I have been abrasive. I've found SfD and WSS/P to be incredibly frustrating, to the point that I was about a hair's breadth away from invoking WP:IAR for the first time, ever. But all this stressiness got me to (literally) just go look in the mirror and say "is that stuff why you are at WP? Is this worth your time? In 100 years will anyone care?", after I'd written a rant intended for WP/WSS's talk page. Then I came back and did the WSS/NC overhaul instead. :-) Will look in on the Pinter argument. There's pretty clear policy stuff to cite on this - UK subject presumbly original started by UK people, don't Yankeeize. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Still looking into the Pinter thing. It's a lot to read. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Resolved

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 22:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize this is a form letter, but in case you are actually doing any followup: I am already doing this, where WP:BIO intersects with WP:CUE. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting

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

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

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

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

Re: Non-authoritative

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

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

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

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

Godwin Question

Was wondering what you thought of this revert? [4]. Thanks. Ilena (chat) 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with it; we don't generally even use notable blogs as sources, and this one doesn't look notable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Whew. This is where I get confused here on Wiki. There is another blog entry there -- Zonk (2007-02-17). Godwin's Law Invoked in Linus/Gnome Spat. can't-the-nazis-stay-out-of-just-one-internet-argument. Slashdot.org.-- Is this one okay to stay? I'd like to see them both myself. I love this article and want it to be more expansive. Thanks ... you're doing a great job there. Ilena (chat) 22:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)