User talk:Badger Drink

Return of the Son of Cobb

What you wrote looks fine to me. I agree it's 'weasly' and technically needs attribution, but I think Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies here: If someone is reading about Cobb for the first time, they should know his claim to fame: He is widely considered, among those who know enough to know who he is, to be one of the greatest ever. It's probably the most important thing about Cobb. It's a fact, it's just hard to cite (surveys? of who?) and hard to be specific (how many say that? who are they?). So the weasel words seem to be the best solution. Guanxi 18:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD

No, not at all, anyone at all can tag for CSD. I appreciate your work; I removed the tags because I thought that if the articles were undergoing discussion, then they shouldn't be tagged in case they were deleted in the middle of the discussion, if someone had a valid keep rationale. I was, however, definitely in error, and I'm sorry for causing you trouble. I was wrong, and will definitely be more careful about articles tagged for CSD that are in AFD; thanks for bringing the matter to my attention. Regards, Keilana_(recall) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

English?

What is wrong with my english? (on my RFA) Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, time is of affliction

Thanks for correcting that, and for your explanation of why the weird phrasing is consistent with DeNameland's character. Have a great day, and watch out for the yellow snow! RomaC (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishing Derby (event)

Can you please be more specific about what areas you still feel are a copyvio? I'm seeing a large difference between the current article and the source document. Shell ^babelfish 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that he just re-added the old article in there at first, but by the time we got to the end, it was significantly changed. Can you take a quick look at User:Shell_Kinney/Sandbox and see if you think that version has the same problems? Shell ^babelfish 04:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, if I hadn't happened to look at the right time, I wouldn't have caught it either because the first recreation was definitely a copyvio again. I've gone ahead and restored any revisions of the new article without the copyvio. Thanks for taking a look to confirm! Shell ^(babelfish) 05:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Midgets and dwarfs

A midget is more properly proportioned, while a dwarf has proportionately short arms and legs. Eddie Gaedel was a midget, as can be seen from his photo. Adult midgets tend to look like children, whereas adult dwarfs tend to look like "normal" adults only with shorter legs and arms. I don't necessarily agree that either term is "better" than "little person", but only that they are more factually descriptive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Major League Baseball

Hi.

I (somewhat) disagree with your assessment of the paragraph I removed, however, I feel that a discussion will be of more value than a revert war, since I'm a bit frustrated with Wikipedia at the moment and may not be seeing things clearly. If I may be a bit pretentious/patronizing for a moment, the history behind the article is that I started it from scratch, sent it through a peer review, sent it WP:GAR and, after some tweaks, got it passed. So I'm pretty happy with that GA version, although I do agree that the sentence that removed is not really necessary. So I do admit a little bit of WP:OWNish bias. My big thing is, as you correctly pointed out, sourcing this has proved be extremely difficult; as you can imagine, there's even less in non-online soures than online ones. Given the efforts I expended to get everything cited, I'm just a bit uncomfortable with inserting a whole uncited paragraph smack-dab in the middle, particularly one on a bug. Gameplay is gameplay, and there's general agreement that it does not need to be cited, but I feel that bugs are a bit different. For starters, I played this game all the time as a kid, and I certainly didn't see the second bug. Obviously that's not the least bit conclusive, but it does get to the issue at hand: WP:V (which is probably more accurate than what I mentioned in my edit - WP:OR). The "gameplay" section of any video game can be verified by playing the game whereas a bug, I feel, cannot, unless there's a guaranteed method that can be used to recreate the bug, which I don't believe that there is (am I wrong on this?). So that's where I was coming from with the edit.

Having said all that, I'm not entirely opposed to keeping the material, but I do feel that a good compromise would be to integrate it better in the article. I am pretty convinced that it sticks out like a sore thumb in its present state, even if it is technically in the correction section. Sorry for the long ramble. Cheers, CP 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I can accept that argument. Would you mind if I tried to integrate the information better into the article? The only problem that I could see would that it would integrate the information in the middle of cited paragraphs, which would (falsely) imply that said references cited that material as well. Cheers, CP 15:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned in thread

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Badger_Drink Bovlb (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA

Badger Drink...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Force lightning

Hi. You lamented in the article's AfD that the preponderance of Star Wars fans means that trying to get the article deleted is irrelevant. You should be happy to know that I've seen at least one 3-to-1 !vote decided in the latter's favor, and the decision upheld in DRV, because the minority had the rules on its side.

However, I also assure you that the attitude in your post is needlessly grim, and ask you to reconsider or at least quiet down. In your statement you assume that editors who are also Star Wars fans will disregard the principles of the encyclopedia they're here to build in favor of having more stuff on the Force. This is not so. Fiction has its raving fanboy quotinent, but this is exactly the kind of people whose posts have to be disregarded in AfDs, and we also have a lot of fiction experts who are willing to work within the rules to improve our coverage - but we are far from guaranteed to retain them, volunteers all, if both kinds are treated as the same. In my - let's face it - considerable experience, assuming a debate or a segment of our editors to be beneath rational cooperation is an excellent self-fulfilling prophecy.

And this is just personal opinion, but to paraphrase someone smarter than me: "To be honest, I think the thing that makes Wikipedia a "laughing stock" is not many articles on the minutia of television or other fiction, but the seriousness with which we take ourselves." HTH, cheers, Kizor 00:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeking feedback only from you

Hello and greetings to you. You have been one of the only uninvolved editors to comment to the Arb Committee[1]. I certainly realize that there are a lot of editors who truly hate homeopathy, and therefore, don't like me. This is why I am interested in hearing whatever thoughts you, as an uninvolved editor, have on my participation on wikipedia. Although there are many more voices against homeopathy and me at the Arb committee hearing, I hope that you are reading some of the responses from the editors who support my efforts. You can comment here or at my user-page or via email. If you have any personal thoughts about homeopathy (pro or con), I'm open to hearing whatever is. DanaUllman^Talk 05:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)