User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive006

JAN 2009 - MAR 2009

Happy New Year!

Compromise

This is a kitty

This is a templated message

Happy New Year!

Hey there, Baseball Bugs! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro^(talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell res must you be running at for that to happen? :S — neuro^(talk) 01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me at 1024 and 800. What's your browser? — neuro^(talk) 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blame IE ;) — neuro^(talk) 01:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise ;) — neuro^(talk) 01:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and...

I trust you've read this article analyzing Baseball Bugs? [1] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Great stuff. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules

Resolved

– The gallant admin smites the uncivil heathen with the Wrath of Indef Block

As gleaned from User talk:Jakezing ...

>Rules for my talkpage.

Try keep your posts short and to the point.
If I told you not to edit my talk page, don't. If it's a warning, head to rule 4.
If you're going to post threats, insults or harassment, I will revert your edit and I won't reply, but an admin might.
If you've come to talk about rules with me, don't expect much. I know the rules Damn it, and I'm tired of telling people that. Leave me alone about it, and go fix the bigger problems.
As this is my talkpage, I reserve the right to remove comments.
Do not EVER edit my rules.

>"If you edit these You shall incur my wrath."

That seems a little harsh. Maybe the Barney Fife approach:

"Here at 'the Rock', we have two basic rules. Memorize them so you can say them in your sleep.

Rule One: Obey all rules!
Second, do not write on the walls...as it takes a lot of work...to erase writing...off of walls."

Or this time-honored variation:

I am the boss, and the boss is always right.
If the boss is wrong, refer to rule 1.

Famous last words just before indef block, a.k.a. "D'oh!"

In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Film09

"I am a member of the New York, Michigan and California Bar and now you are crossing the line. I plan to subpoena Wilkipedia as to your information because you have committed a major error in your accusation which is actionable in a civil suit. In the spirit of the New Year I will settle for a apology on this page asap." --Carolrubensteinesq (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Eurozone

"As my talk page history showes; annoying me is a quick way to get insulted" --Ssteiner209 (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely non-creepy notification

Teledildonics. I'm not a sex fiend, I swear. Dr. e X treme 00:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, you actually knew about it. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at the editing situation at Self-hating Jew [2]? Untwirl keeps adding material to the article that I moved to the talk page so there would be time to discuss it without reverts. Or would it be better to take it to a noticeboard? I want to prevent this turning into another mess like Hummus did. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate Yogi quotes

I just added 38 quotes with their respective origin in the discussion page. If my fellow Yogi fans allow, I'll delete the current text and substitute it with mine. Please place a note in my Talk page. Thanks. - Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to.

(feel free to delete once read). I know Wikipedia is not a chat room or forum, but I'm sorry, I just had to stop by and drop a line. I've seen so many of your posts, I had to mention your down-to-earth viewpoints, your total ability to spend so much time here, and still have the ability to not get all caught up in the who-ha ... hell, your sense of humor just blows my mind. I hope I can maintain that same perspective after I've been around a while. Thx for the smiles. Ched (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wellford Leavitt

Hello. I noticed you removed the stadium photo from the Leavitt article. The photo accompanied the article when it ran recently as a DYK piece. I assumed the photo was available for reuse under Commons policy. Was that not the case? Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I would like to add the photo back, as the person the article is about is the designer of the stadium. Where would I post such a fair use description? Thanks.MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entered a request for use of the image under the fair use rationale. I can hardly see a more valid use of the photo than to illustrate the biography of the architect who designed it. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So my question is this: does the request for use of the photo on the stadium's architect page need to be cleared, or can it now be reposted to the page? Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help with this. Enjoy your evening.MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Forbes

Because the "grainy" photo is in public domain and the other one is not. Per WP:NFCC non-free photos should only be used if and only if there is No free equivalent. The photo might be a little blurry, but it basically depicts the same thing. Being that WP is supposed to have free content, then we should have as little non-free content as possible. The emphisis should be on the prose, not tha pictures anyway. black ngold29 21:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would always pick quality over quantity. I was thinking that there's got to be other free pictures (anything pre-1923, which is more than 10 years that Forbes was around) of the stadium somewhere, I'll try to find some if I can. black ngold29 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recreation

It kind of surprised me too, according to the Pirates' Encyclopedia (which is an awesome book, but I think it's now out of print) there are "no known photos" of it left. Which could simply mean that there are some somehwere, just not in the team's archives. I've never seen one of the first or second Exposition Parks either, although that gets pretty confusing because apparently people weren't too creative with their naming back then. black ngold29 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live too close to the city and wouldn't know which library to look in anyway, though that is a good idea. I tried searching my school's research database, but I guess I don't have acess during my break. I bet someone that has a picture of it just doesn't really know what it is... who knows what might turn up? it took them a few hundred years to figure out who the Mona Lisa was. black ngold29 03:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mayallld

You're stupid. Mayalld (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User:Mayallld

Thanks. I didn't know who they were impersonating. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism only. Was already warned."

Yes, but did he receive his obligatory 9 warnings? All the way from "Sir, we're running out of walls for you to write on" right up to "Now I'm not kidding mister!"? Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 06:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usefull addition

Thank you for adding a tune to a lengthy and tedious thread. Tumbling Tumbleweeds I often think Wikipedia editors need to sing more often, and say less. --KP Botany (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman & Franken

Perhaps Minnesota should declare Coleman & Franken half Senators, with 1-vote between them. It would be hilarious watching them trying to sit in their Senate chair, simultaneously. Hmm, I like the idea of appointing Barkley Acting Senator, until the Coleman/Franken stuff is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo

Hmmm Bugs has a fan. "ignorant = unsigned" ... would that we all could have such a devoted following. Hey Bugs, I noticed there were some reverts of your work over at the moon landing hoax article, I was gonna undo, but figured you're a big boy (well, for 13 1/2 anyway), and would rather handle it yourself. (Ched cracks open a Bud, "I love ya man") ... LOL Ched (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I think Bubba73 has it covered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blockage

Actually, that was the admin who issued the block. I noticed, checking my watchlist, that I had been blocked before I was officially notified. And if you look closer at my talkpage, a former admin (Nousernamesleft) who resigned due to inactivity reasons, defended my position. When I brought it up at ANI after I was unblocked, there were several editors in favor of the block and some not, so it was not unanimous that the blockage should occur. Dr. Blofeld, who has racked up 200,000 edits and has been repeatedly offered adminship, also supported me. I honestly understand why editors opposed my proposal, but I am still baffled as to why it took so long for a RFU to be checked and everyone in support of the block disregarded the fact that the supposed "edit war" (actually a few reverts and a lot of discussion) was over even before I was blocked. I am an editor in good standing, am a rollbacker, have written 2 FAs and several GAs, and have contributed 15,000 edits. I'm just pissed that I have this huge blotch on my record and no way of dealing with it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the blocking admin. I don't know what happened, maybe they were all away from their desks for 12 hours. I think their answer would be that you violated 3RR, so the block technically was valid. I'm not saying it was valid or that it was 3RR, since I haven't looked that closely at it, I'm just saying that would be their answer. I've got more blocks than you do. Just put some time and distance between then and now, and try not to get in a rough situation in the future. I don't know if there's an "appeal" process, but if you try for adminship and someone asks about it, you could give a detailed explanation and hopefully that would work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Just a quickie - I've protected the IP's talk page as requested, but as you'll see from this diff, the bots will automatically, and pretty promptly, remove any entries where the user is already blocked. WP:RFPP is a better bet next time, as there's no likelihood that the request will be archived or removed by a bot without it being dealt with. Thanks. _Gb^T/c 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrels

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this squirrel has already gotten deep into the supply of bad nuts that I can't possibly make him worse. And yes, I assume that the page will be wiped and locked down, so this was my last chance to laugh at the pathetic little sod, since his main user-talk page was locked-down by the time I found out what was going on. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

I think you're talking about two different talk pages. User_talk:65.31.103.28 is protected (by me) for 1 year. It looks like Tan protected a different IP talk page for 6 hours. _Gb^T/c 18:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he protected the user page, not the talk page. I mis-read it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Bugs. Although you often drive me insane, you did have a perfectly legitimate question. I shouldn't do that; I guess I'm not in a very good Wiki-mood today. Maybe I should do some real-life stuff. Tan | 39 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

It will be interesting to see you prove that Einstein never had any mental "illness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

What do you mean about geolocate placing me? 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of this page. [3] Not foolproof, it just provides your ISP's location. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? Why are you being a jerk? 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your behavior, I should be asking you that question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letters from fans

BASEBALLS BUGS IS AN UGLY IGNORANT FOOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.166.166 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're stupid. Mayallld (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about that obviously immature Basebuggs? Tanninglamp 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehhehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe! ROFLMFAO! @ Baseball Bugs. That guy makes the dumbest jokes. You gotta love him for trying though. LMFAO! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! =D Cheers! Cheers dude 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehehehehehe! Baseball Bugs is a cutie. 65.31.103.28 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? Why are you being a jerk? 69.14.244.157 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BO is a muslim

I have a reliable source - http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama and want to add it to the article. Also please stop beaming messages to me via my TV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. But how did you know about the TV? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein

Am already composing an email to oversight the offending edits, which should help. (FWIW I'm surprised the page could be deleted, as there were over 5,000 revisions - I suspect the page crashed on Toddst1 as he was dealing with it.) Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, how true. Anyway, email sent. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing has come to Wikipedia

When a Talker spells Christian as 'christin' (or whatever), it occurs to me the wingnuts are outsourcing the actual work of their smear campaigns to cheap labor in other countries. It's a reasonable explanation for the odd grammar and spelling of some of the trolls. Reminds me of when the Republican Party had a calling campaign about protecting jobs and outsourced it to an Indian call center. I think that's right - I remember it was outside the U.S. Flatterworld (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second transitive verb definition for 'flaunt':

'To treat contemptuously' HalfShadow 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/EW note

Not that you have anything to worry about, but Tanninglamp apparently believes you're a repeat violator, and this issue was wholly created by you... --Onorem ♠Dil 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. For the record - I don't do sockpuppetry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me once...

...whatever happened to that guy. Well, speak of the devil, here he is. It's an open proxy (i.e. not really in Poland). Oy. Makes my head hurt just looking at it. Antandrus (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I have posted a reply on the talk page of the article. Cheers! 82.230.24.185 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Re your question at AN/I about Tales23. The exact requirements of GFDL about tracking contributors are murky (in my opinion). But if a user is concerned that his edit was 'misappropriated,' we could get him to add the same edit again in the new article. The thread seems to exist because dougweller thought that NittyG's material was taken without proper attribution. So, if the article gets deleted, the problem is fixed. As to whether material should ever be copy-pasted between articles, that sounds like a question for a policy talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is of more use to define the content which is in debate of ownership. In particular NittyG besides my polite asking at least 6 times refuses to define his so called material. The same NittyG told me to make a new wiki btw. Further EdJohnston proposed a deletion, argueing its a fork - which again fails. So maybe ask the authors of the claims first about it, before we have a policy discussion which is based on pure populism and accusiations without proove or any substance at all. --Tales23 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama & Roberts

It took a few seconds longer, but Roberts (mainly) & Obama got through the swearing-in ceremony. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts

agreed. i just finished reporting him on the BLP noticeboard. a warped ethic at work here - slander and defamation are okey dokey for robert's article, but not for other people's articles. check out these edit summaries: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ruth_Parasol&diff=prev&oldid=264824272

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=263735307

Anastrophe (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 DegenFarang (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not attempt to threaten me

This ridiculous back and forth you're attempting has already been pointed out by moderators. This is your SECOND warning to cease threatening me when all five of us have refuted you and shown that your source is invalid, unless you can find an actual reason we should include your racist comments in the article we will CONTINUE to revert it. And pretending you have any power to ban me when moderators have already warned you to stop is laughable. Cease it or I will report you after your third warning. 121.221.33.231 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Harlquin[reply]

You must have me confused with someone else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ideas what 121.221.33.231 is referring to, but I'm as confused as confused can be. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your THIRD and last warning

And I have reported you. I see you've stopped reverting the article since the last warning, but for some reason believe it is ok to then insult and threaten wikipedia users outside of the discussion page. No, its STILL against the rules. 121.221.33.231 (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

Re: AN/I and your latest "fan"

Hi Bugs, hoping to slip under the radar since you've been "reported" and I don't want to be seen to be associated with you in case the "moderators" link me with you...

Doctor Who is a time traveller; it looked to me like the anon IP thought they could travel through time and edit their previous comment to justify their "What are you talking about?"-comment. Now I come to think of it, 1984's "memory hole" might have been a better analogy.

This IP is funnee!

Cheers (and good luck evading those "moderators" now you've "been reported"!), This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators make me nervous. But moderators really scare me. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's those scooters they ride. Terrifying. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth warning

And reported again. Its truly amazing that you actually think that you cannot be reported for threatening and insulting users outside of an articles dicussion page, really. We are all happy you've ended your ignorant, racist revert war, but im more than happy to see you blocked for this continued harrassment. :) 121.221.33.231 (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

Not that I'm sure you care, but this IP has now been blocked Fritzpoll (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping he might give me enough info that I could find the previous, similar message on this subject. But the block should slap that mosquito down for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidential names

Might you take a look over there? I inherited criteria from Cumulus Clouds (I know - amazing) but the new criterion being offered seems to be "if I can find it in Google, it belongs, no matter how pejorative" or the like. Merci! Collect (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing that, and biden' my time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One of the few things CC and I agreed on, I fear. I can find several hundred pejorative nicknames to add if that is how the consensus moves <eg>. (and "biden" <g>) Collect (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Biased removal"

"Biased removal" I think you have miscontrued a later talk page comment from me about not supporting the miracle angle, as being the reason for this removal which pre-dated it. On the contrary, I merely removed it because a bunch of news links had been removed previously, and this new one stood out like a sore thumb. I don't care either way, its not like EL sections are hard to manage. But your edit summary confused me is all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hope you have a great day DegenFarang (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back at ya. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

I noticed, there actually were editors suggesting Obama's assumed office date shoul be January 21, 2009 (due to the re-swearing in). Were those folks, serious? GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously ignorant, at least. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was amazed -- in CT at least, al that counts is the "intent" to take an oath for it to be binding. I suspect this is true elsewhere as well (example abound wjere people goof on wedding vows etc.). Collect (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball articles

You have been interested in vandalism on baseball pages in the past. Just a note to let you know that I have found Jackal4 to be disruptive of late on such pages.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me what the dispute is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the park home runs

Hi. Is it correct that if runners fail to touch a base or one overtakes another then they can be out on appeal in all games of baseball? If so, surely this is a rule of the game as a whole rather than a rule of MLB? Dancarney (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a baseball rule. It's a fundamental of the game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, the puns... they hurt

I hope you don't mind that I want to appropriate some of the userboxes you have... and thank you for all of the humor on your page. If you ask me, the fourth pillar of Wikipedia should be "Remember to laugh." ("Memento ridere," in homage to the Roman version of the saying.)
Separately, I see you just peeked in at SPLC - thank you for that as well. arimareiji (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try also "Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuavabit." Collect (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you knew how apt that is for me these days. Thanks for the reminder. ^_^ arimareiji (talk)

I don't know how to proceed and could use the advice of someone more experienced, --if-- it's not unduly burdensome. If you'd rather not risk entanglement, I'd completely understand. But if you're feeling brave... Out of curiosity, I started digging around in SPLC. (I should have done so before saying anything at AN/I, but I try to burn my bridges while I'm crossing them.) When I did so:

Dooteyr's very first six edits were to jump into SPLC Talk with a long commentary on why a source is inappropriate. I partially agree with him, and change it so that it's attributed it as opinion and not fact. He later removes the source entirely. I revert and explain on Talk.
Spotfixer's first edit at SPLC is to restore Dooteyr's edit and say in the edit summary that he agrees. I revert and explain on Talk.
Tom/North_Shoreman jumps in right after and restores Spotfixer's reversion, claiming "see discussion page where it appears to be one editor versus everybody else". It was his first edit at SPLC in quite a while, but it's entirely plausible this was opportunistic rather than coordinated.
BBiiis08 adds edits primarily to agree with the others or join in removing criticism; one being to simply echo Tom/NS's wording on the abovesaid source.

Dooteyr, created last week, demonstrates advanced knowledge of policies and tools almost immediately. After 21 edits on SPLC and a creationist's page over two days, he disappears.
Spotfixer, created not quite three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily in creation/evolution, gay rights, and abortion.
BBiiis08, created a little over three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily on creation/evolution and creationists, SPLC / Morris Dees, and televangelists.
Tom/North_Shoreman dates back to 2006, almost all of it in the Civil War and none in religious issues that I found, though the huge number of edits he's made may have obscured it. To me that makes it seem much less likely he's directly tied in, but I'm not sure.
My actual guess as to the original sock farmer would be Ramdrake, even though he didn't weigh in until later (with the Westboro Baptist Church edit you saw). He was editing heavily in creation/evolution near his start in 2006 and has spent some time on religious issues, but of late spends almost all his time on race. He got dinged twice in late 2006 for 3RR; my nastily cynical mind speculates that he "learned" how to get around it. In an equally nastily-cynical vein, he's made several tweaks to WP:Tag team. Some were to soften criticism of tag-teamers and make it harder to assert tag-teaming, like this and this.

Any suggestions? Is it more likely that I'm being overimaginative, or does this merit bringing up at SPI despite the fact that it comes across as forum-shopping? arimareiji (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would take some time to research. Have you raised this question with a trusted admin? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can; I was just looking for a reality check first. arimareiji (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind my having used you as a sounding board; my apologies if so. I wound up bringing it back up at AN/I, for better or for worse. arimareiji (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just Curious

hey bugs, I'm just curious .. how come you're not an admin? I know you have a sense of humor and all, but you've been around for a long time, and you clearly know right from wrong. just wondered. Ched (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I'm not that interested in the job, and even if I were, others have made it clear they would torpedo any such nomination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more time I spend on Wikipedia, the more I'm reminded of my college's drama department. (If I elaborated on why, I would just be stirring up trouble - so I'll just hope that your college's drama department was similar enough to clarify.)

I can't say I blame you, but it's a shame. arimareiji (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know from drama departments, as I was in the sciences. But I get the point. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto; chemistry/biochem. If I were to compare to the sciences, I would compare to PhD's serving on grant boards and reviewing postgrad work, while competing for grants with the same MS's and BS's. arimareiji (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update

i changed the wording of my last entry to jgr talk so your 'yes it is' does not make sense, as i did not end with the same statement. as i said i did this as you wrote yours, it was not in response to your comment. DegenFarang (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Markosjal thinks you're my sock

Ridiculous with a capital R. Willking1979 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's birth, Peabody and Sherman

ROFLMAO. Sarcasm, written at the educational level of intended target, is perfect. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wallace & Katie Couric

Hiya Bugs. Concerning their remarks on Obama's Inauguraton. Don't it just drive one fire breathing mad, when those TV personalities, don't do their research? It's bad enough CNN people, kept saying Clinton's Senate seat was vacant, way before Clinton resigned it. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would sooner trust the legal advice I might get from Mr. Peabody. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, apparently the Governor of Illinois styles himself, in the mold of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela & Martin Luther King, Jr.. Luv the Blago show. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things will be mighty dull once Quinn becomes Governor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to canvass but...

...I can't let rants like this go without addressing them. I let WLU know but he may deffer because of COI. I don't see why, the need to block this guy is pretty blatant. Or should I just take it to AN/I? Padillah (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dog got it

Hee-hee! Enjoyed your comment at ANI. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, hadn't spotted that... Nightmares await! Bencherlite ^Talk 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by 74.72.196.226

Well, that was fun. First Talk:Barack Obama, then your page, then mine. I am worn out with all the reverting. Newguy34 (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We get a 3-hour break from that yokel. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray. I'll head to bed now and maybe when I wake up I'll realize it was all a bad dream. Newguy34 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A dream, to some... A NIGHTMARE TO OTHERS!" >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crackthewhip775

Hello, Sir. I wonder how you are feeling during what is likely to be your last few months editing Wikipedia. I would like to have been a fly on the wall during one of your sessions with your priest regarding your contemplated retirement! I will remember you as one of the most engaging figures I have encountered on Wikipedia. Are you a member of SABR - the baseball study group you mention from time to time? I plan to join the organization when I get older and bigger. Do you have any comments - pro or con - about SABR? Happy New Year and Best Wishes. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I'm Jewish, and I don't belong to SABR. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superbowl

Hey there Mr. Bugs, how you doin? Just to avoid the obvious humor, yes I do know there's a difference between baseball and football, but I thought you might enjoy other sports too so -- being from Pittsburgh (yep, I remember being at Forbes Field when I was young), I had to ask - do you have any picks or predictions for the Superbowl this year? Ched (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the Cardinals win, as they are the Cinderella team - but I suspect the Steelers will win, simply because they are the better team. It is kind of funny that the Cardinals will have finished their season against the two teams with which they were merged for awhile during WWII. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't thought of that! I was born in 57, but do remember reading about the Steagles or something like that though. ;) Ched (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, it was the Steelers that did the double merger - the Phil-Pitt "Steagles" one year, and "Card-Pitt" (a.k.a. "Carpets") another year. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Falk

(O/D)re: Falk ... Are you fishing for verifiable "facts" that can be cited, sourced, and meet policy guidelines again Bugs? ;) Ched (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, trying again to follow the rules. Shameful, ain't it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flies right in the face of IAR - but then again, my feeble mind might not grasp the difference between the "spirit and intent" of a law, and the "letter" of the law. Ched (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the letter of the spirit and intent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Peter Falk (and Columbo (TV series)), the theme of the NBC Mystery Movie is so ingrained in my head from my youth that every time I'm carrying a flashlight somewhere, I have to whistle the theme song of that show. Every time. And reading this thread reminded me of that theme, so I just had to pull it up again. Curse you, NBC Mystery Movie! --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memories. [4] :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Excuse me, Sir" GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is why

Some administrator was picking on me so I had to leave Wikipedia. My mother asked me to review edits with her to prevent trouble. I think I should not have brought it up because administrators back each other up and start attacking others, like me. Ipromise (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions of the Church

If you want to restore the Catholic Church to traditional values, finding a way to keep child molestors out of the priesthood would be a good start. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ugly truth is that a HUGE percentage of molestors are also gay. Therefore we have got a BAN on all gay seminarians, see for example Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. If you had a similar rule for teachers, lawyers and doctors, I suppose it would have the same kind of impact. ADM (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This public service announcement was brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Republican view would be that if someone's living in a shack, it's by choice.

In the U.S., that is the viewpoint, not for the rest of the world. If I had not gone to college there is a 90% chance I would be living in a trailer and not a house. Yes, it is by choice. You choose to go to college or not to go. You choose to work or not to work. You choose to look for work or not look for work. I have worked jobs from the menial(tobacco fields, Kroger, etc.) to the not so menial(military and teaching). They were all my choice, not someone elses, not some hand of some higher power that placed me there. I got to the teaching job by a set of choices I made, not by luck. Am I rich? No. Is it anyone's fault? No. I made the career choice. That choice places me above "shack" living and well below rich and evil. The only things you are guaranteed are life, liberty, and the ==pursuit== of happiness. Note pursuit. If I lose my job due to poor output is that your fault? No, it is mine? If I lose my job to the economy that is every single American's who has contributed to this situation fault from the poor to the rich. Does that mean I sit on my ass and draw off of the gov? No. I will utilize the opportunity I have in the country to look for a job, even if it means going back to the fields.76.177.225.127 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. If you're living in a shack, it's by choice. That's the Republican view. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am not a Repub, Dem either. I have a strong belief that my life is shaped by my individual actions and choices, not the collective herd or government.76.177.225.127 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We all like to think that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PCH

You're wrong: I value your efforts to counter this incredibly persistent vandal. —EncMstr (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. It takes some level of involvement to keep guys like this from getting their way. tedder (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Things should be OK as long as the page stays protected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, I appreciate that you are trying to help, but I think the back-and-forth is useless. The idea is to induce boredom. It's attention he wants. He's no dummy. I think we need to be dispassionate, and not goad him on by replying to his every asinine comment. Oh well, I tried. I'll take it off my watchlist instead. Report him at WP:WQA if he gets personal again. Katr67 (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong. And actually I'm not yet totally convinced it's the same guy. But we'll see, eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

taking discussion back here- getting confused with it being in 12 places. My point on my talk page was a level of interest is necessary to keep problems at bay. I mean, if I find vandalism I'll check contribs and revert other pages. Reporting problems to AIV, or checkuser, or anywhere else, is necessary. Now that needs to be tempered with WP:RBI, and cases like this get tricky. And the lock on PSQ makes it almost impossible to entirely ignore a case like this, since WP:AGF should be assumed with new users, right? (I'm a little testy, I'm dealing with other oregon-related bureaucracy right now too!) tedder (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl Edition

It doesn't matter now, 'cause they lost, but I thought you might have lamented the fact, as I did, that there was not enough said about the Cardinals' existence as the Chicago Cardinals and Comiskey Park. Or "Card-Pitt" or "Phil-Pitt." Also--in reading a biography of Pete Rozelle I recently came across the fact that when the old American Football League in 1960 put player names on the backs of jerseys it took the idea directly from Bill Veeck, who was the first sports owner to do so (1960 season). Or so it says. My memory goes as far back as, I think, '67 or '68, and the Sox had names on the jerseys (Joel Horlen, Walt Williams, et al). Lantana11 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All ancient history, I suppose. Last week's Sports Illustrated had a pretty good overview of the franchise. The Sox were the first to use names on a permanent basis, I think. I would have to check the Okkonen book to be sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Okkonen book is one of those things that occasionally make me wonder "Am I taking this stuff a little too seriously?" The answer is usually "no." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantana11 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is right. If in fact the commissioner's directive is to do what is "in the best interests of the game," then ours is to do what is in the best interests of our love of the game! Of course jerseys without names are usually considered "cooler"--with the possible exception of the Cardinals' and Tigers', which with the Sox carried players' names in the 1960s. Lantana11 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You almost have to wonder if there are not those who might be pondering related ideas. As for me, baseball telecasts offering exploding stat-line graphics set to booming Fox Sports music are quite enough (what was so insufficient about, say, a simple "Bud Harrelson/1 for 3" in unobtrusive type at the bottom of the screen?). I don't know to what extent keeping score at the ball game (with the scorecard and a pencil) is losing popularity, but it is a historically good way of keeping track of who is on the field; I confess to have occasionally considered myself to be showing off at the ball park by diligently scoring the game--fool that I am. As for Manny, he gave Dodger fans a hell of a lot of fun for two and a half months, and who wouldn't want his big bat in their lineup? But I started the task of learning to shrug off my favorite team's losing players to free agency when Peter Seitz deeded Andy Messersmith to the Braves. Lantana11 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Baseball Statistics.com, Dodger Stadium saw one rainout (April 1967) from its 1962 opening until 1976. Then there were no rainouts betwen 1988 and 1999 (a record 856 straight games). I have sat through a couple of drizzly football afternoons at the Coliseum, though. I wonder--does the Twins' unflamboyant, corporate-mold style still stem from Calvin Griffith? I remember some very bitter statements from Rod Carew about Griffith, and perhaps some vestiges remain today. Lantana11 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Twins are as much of an old-fashioned, old-style sports franchise as exists today; that is, a long-time owner quite devoted to the team who not only is not given to impatience and to turning the organization upside-down in the wake of some rough seasons, but exerts some influence on the team's character for better or for worse. Like, I imagine, the football Cardinals' Bidwell family, for all the flaws, intransigence and idiosyncracies, there is a consistency there that is somewhat admirable. Owners like this are kind of a throwback to earlier times when men did not own sports franchises as a trophy or a showpiece, or to exert a bullying influence on the league and game itself (although such as George Halas was pretty much a co-commissioner), but regarded them as prized possessions, as family heirlooms. God knows the difference between what the O'Malley Dodgers were and with what has followed in a dozen years. And who knows what the Cubs will look like under whoever turns out to be the highest bidder. It seems to me just now that the Twins, which are not one of baseball's "beloved" teams (Red Sox, Cubs, etc) don't get their due for the success they have had over the years--many more celebrated franchises can only dream of their achievements. Much like the Athletics and Giants; as a northern California resident for a time it seemed absurd how the tremendous history of the Oakland A's--definitely not beloved--is generally passed over in favor of the Giants' mostly star-crossed time in SF. Lantana11 (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I write "Bidwell?"...of course I meant "Bidwill." And no, I don't think the Phillies were baseball's best team either. Like the '88 Dodgers and '03 Marlins, they simply started doing everything right at the perfect time. At any rate, to finish with the Twins it is true that everything they've done, since 1965 probably, has taken the general baseball fandom by complete surprise. Kind of like a "who knew" attitude, and if no one knew it was because no one was paying much attention. Like the Athletics; in the Bay Area, when the team chalks up another division title or playoff spot, people say "hey, they've got a pretty good little team." When the Giants finish under .500 they ask "What went wrong?" And you are absolutely right about the Chicago baseball; the Sox' ending an eighty-eight year span between world titles (and winning a pennant for the first time since '59) wasn't that much less notable than the plight the Cubs are still battling. But of course every season begins with the question "Is this the year for the Cubs?" One more rambling rumination--as an LA-area fan of certain vintage I remember when Rams owner Dan Reeves once said that it was more fun losing with coach Harland Svare (1962-65) than winning with successor George Allen ('66-'70). Try getting that kind of philosophical attitude from today's sports owners. Lantana11 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

This is to invite you to add your views regarding my proposal at the MOS - capital letters talk page. That MOS should be changed to reflect standard English, rather than The Chicago Manual of Style. SMP0328. (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Name Pronunciation

That's a good question. It's pronounced ROZE-uh-velt by both Tweed Roosevelt and everyone else in the know. In my case, (unfortunately for me), I grew up pronouncing it ROOS-uh-velt from my dad who was a real Franklin fan, so it was a "little" (actually a lot) humiliating at a 2006 symposium on TR at Dickinson State University (See http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.com/Symposia_2006.asp#Speakers ) when the moderator, Clay Jenkinson, during the first break in a 3 day event, told me, "Well Keith, if your gonna become a TR fan or eventually a scholar, the FIRST thing you gotta do is get the pronunciation of that last name right. It's NOT ROOS-uh-velt. It's ROZE-uh-velt." My red-faced reply, "OK, got it." was about all I could blurb out. Since then, it's a funny thing, I NEVER say it incorrectly! Doh/Doy! SimonATL (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 audio recordings of TR pronouncing his last name. One is of him commenting on Cavalry Bugle Calls. My old Alma Mater, Michigan State University has it at the following URL: http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/record.cfm?recordid=509 This recording is about 33% too fast and it can be slowed down by downloading a great video-audio player called KPM Player which can be downloaded at http://www.filehippo.com/download_kmplayer/ and the other one is an incredible 10 min 1912 audio recording of TR at his political best defending the Progressive Party against US political power brokers. Stand patters were those totally opposed to change. The Abyssinian Treatment refers to his unwillingness to treat with any special interest while President. To easily download this speech, go to the Yahoo Theodore Roosevelt Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tr-m/ and ask to join. Once you join, you should be able to go to the files section at download the recording at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tr-m/files/ but you won't be able to download that file from the Yahoo site until you join the group.

Also - Tweed Roosevelt pronounces it "ROZE-uh-velt."

Some more support for that pronuciation: According to the Roosevelt Cylopedia, in a letter written to Rev. William W. Moir on October 10, 1898.) Roosevelt indicated, "As for my name, it is pronounced as if it was spelled 'Rosavelt,' That is in three syllables. The first syllable as if it was "Rose." See http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/TR%20Web%20Book/TR_CD_to_HTML571.html SimonATL (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ani#User:_Honeymane

Poster child indeed. The Fife visual had me laughing out loud. Toddst1 (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment. Heh. AnyPerson (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Baseball Article

Hey Bugs, I was patrolling new pages and came across 1949 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Didn't know if it was anything you'd be interested in working on or not. — Ched (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and check out this edit summary. Oh well, in for a penny, in for a pound I guess. — Ched (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) (by the way, if you think I'm wrong - Please feel free to tell me - I do value your opinion)[reply]

There is no shortage of helpful advice out there, ja? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bugs ..... Just ..... Thanks - LMAO ;) I just may be headed to the principles office before it's all said and done, you wouldn't happen to have any more Fife to Gomer quotes I could use would ya? — Ched (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit Transit

You said the cartoon is its own source. The cartoon named "Rabbit Transit" came decades before York's public transportation took on that name, so it is impossible for the cartoon to mention York's buses. Do you have an actual reference that York's transit is named after the cartoon? Sebwite (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was coincidental. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PCS

I knew about the on-going additions. As for the block, I was confused, since the admin tab still said "unprotect" I assumed it was already semi-protected and that the user was autoconfirmed but unused. Either way, it was more appropriate to do a 3RR block, since it wasn't technically vandalism (or at least your wouldn't think so if you randomly showed up or checked the block log). I'll reprotect the article forthwith so when the block expires it'll still be safe. Steven Walling (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's Cabinet

Hiya Bugs. I noticed in Obama cabinet at Presidency of Barack Obama, we've got Gates as Secy of Defense (2006- present). It should be (2009- present), a pratice we (and other encyclopedias) have done on other Prez cabinets. Example: William Seward in Andrew Johnson's cabinet is not listed as Secy of State (1861-69), or Dean Rusk in Lyndon Johnson's cabinet as Secy of State (1961-69). GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:WWMS19890625.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:WWMS19890625.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll

whats your problem? any reason you cant post on my talk?ㄭㄭ (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above user blocked indef for trolling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not to sound dumb....

Inre this diff. Hate to ask a dumb question... but did you clear your page cache? I was suffering the same thing over at AfD... it never happened at all and then one day my edits began acting as if they never "took"... but in "edit" they had taken. It was freaking me. I am not trying to make a dumb suggestion, but your situation sounds eerily similar. If you have cleared your cache, then the problem is a server one. If you haven't been clearing your page cache, and depending on your browser, you may be able to set its default to always clear the chache and so always look for new versions of previously viewed pages. Its possible that the internal command of your browser has been turned to "no" when it should be "yes". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't do anything special other than waiting a minute or two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halt this!

A classic case of evil hand versus good hand. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now they can clap those two hands together, in the wikipedia "phantom zone". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent. And I love that he was OUTRAGED that we'd sweep him into the sock discussion. Gee, wonder why. quack, quack. tedder (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you went through the trouble...

Yes, Baseball Bugs, those were my changes. Truth to tell, I am a writer by trade and writing means editing. Even though Wiki communications aren't really "writing" as such, I suppose, nevertheless my habit is to reread what I've done and see if it holds water a day later. A little goofy, but that's the real me. In this case, I thought you might not have yet seen my latest comment and thus made the revision, feeling it was more accurate and closer to what I wanted to say. To compound the confusion, I was going back and forth between Web pages and inadvertently logged out, thus the credit went to my IP address. Thanks for scrupulously wondering what happened, although I regret that you had to take the extra time. Lantana11 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks. I am surprised to find the wide range of articles that are subject to malevolent POV pushing, warring, sock-puppetry, and outright vandalism (not that my history is entirely pristine). As you say, even subjects that you'd never think could get people fulminating sufficiently to resort to these pastimes receive such treatment! Lantana11 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Changes to "Super Bowl Edition":

Did I write "Bidwell?"...of course I meant "Bidwill." And no, I don't think the Phillies were baseball's best team either. Like the '88 Dodgers and '03 Marlins, they simply started doing everything right at the perfect time. At any rate, to finish with the Twins it seems, (though I've never lived in the area) that much of what they've done, since 1965 probably, has taken a lot of fans somewhat by surprise. Kind of like a "who knew" attitude, in which those who didn't know weren't paying close enough attention. Like the Athletics; in the Bay Area, when the team chalks up another division title or playoff spot, people say "hey, they've got a pretty good little team." When the Giants finish under .500 they ask "What went wrong?" And you are absolutely right about the Chicago baseball; the Sox' ending an eighty-eight year span between world titles (and winning a pennant for the first time since '59) wasn't that much less notable than what the Cubs would do if they won a championship. But of course every season begins with the question "Is this the year for the Cubs?" One more rambling rumination--as an LA-area fan of certain vintage I remember when Rams owner Dan Reeves once said that it was more fun losing with coach Harland Svare (1962-65) than winning with successor George Allen ('66-'70). Try getting that kind of philosophical attitude from today's sports owners. Lantana11 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your post on my talk page

No, I do not want to face another ANI situation. Please do not do that to me. It's brutal over there and I don't want to go through that again. You need to understand that I'm free to remove what I see fit on my own talk page. User:CadenS 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above was from CadenS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Found that Theodore Roosevelt audio I was telling you about

OK - I located an excellent source for TR's "Standard Oil Abyssinian Treatment" Speech.

The speech was recorded on 4 disks. 2 of those disks are on Rhapsody.com at http://www.rhapsody.com/theodore-roosevelt One part is here: 2. http://www.rhapsody.com/player?type=track&id=tra.21355962&remote=false&page=&pageregion=&guid=&from=&hasrhapx=false&__pcode= contains the and let me know what you think. Both FDR and TR, according to a Roosevelt Family history friend of mine, Linda Milano spoke with a NY Knickerbocker accent that was common to NY's upper classes. You can really hear an trace of England there too. Here is pronounced HE-arh, for example. This audio IS the finest sample we have of TR giving a public speech as opposed to merely reading from a manuscript. You'll also detect traces of his famous falsetto. Notice how it rises when he says, "Republican Parteeeeeee." YOU can tell ME what how YOU think FDR and TR's voice compare. FDR had a deeper baratone resonance in later years.

Short segment at:

http://www.authentichistory.com/1900s/1912election/19120922_Theodore_Roosevelt-Abyssinian_Treatment_of_Standard_Oil.html SimonATL (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir on the quality. Simply no better recording of the man's actual voice. Who would think it was made in 1912! I've told all the TR fans, Ted Heads and they all agree Check out the Theodore Roosevelt Association some time at http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org SimonATL (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit war to use invalid sources

The problem with your edit is that you are using YouTube as a reference. YouTube is not peer reviewed -- anyone can put anything there. Anything. We can't use sources like YouTube; reliable sources are things like mainstream press, peer-reviewed journals, and so forth. Please read the policy. If there are other uses of YouTube in Wikipedia as a "reliable source", then those should be removed as well. Thank you Sfvace (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Sfvace has found the "copy" and "paste" functions on his keyboard. Antandrus (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also found another admin, and not in a good way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsoring the RfC at Talk:Maltese (dog)

I hope that you will be able to help me in starting the RfC for the content dispute involving Pietru il-Boqli and myself. Tool2Die4 has also participated but is now blocked by his own choice. This was a three editors dispute.

You helped at ANI and I beg of you to help us now :)

Namely Pietru il-Boqli ceased discussion and washed his hands from the dispute but keeps on editing and "watching" over the article.

Thanks a lot.

Imbris (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really even understand the issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:South Bay and Cost-U-Less Insurance or ?

"Why does anyone do anything?" - Debra Winger, Black Widow (1987 film). I can not argue about anyone's motives, but I suspect that this user's recent actions are a pique about past deletions of articles he created. Avoid feeding the trolls. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

Blocked - LEGAL WARNING

You have been banned from editing for posting potentially defamatory claims on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not tolerate the posting of such claims on its website and takes such posting seriously. All defamation posted in edit summaries is removed from the Wikipedia website and deleted from records and archives. Those who post it are immediately banned from the site and may be reported to their service provider. If a computer in an educational establishment was used to post that claim then that establishment may be informed. You are reminded that defamation is an offence in law.

Under Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act, which governs Wikipedia, Wikipedia cannot be sued for the defamation you post. But YOU can be. Your service provider may be able to trace your edits back to you. The person you defamed could get a court order to require that the server release your name, and then sue you personally for defamation in the courts.

Remember: You put yourself at serious risk of a prosecution under the laws of defamation for any defamation you deliberately post.

Note: The above user was indef-blocked for making the above threats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Painful though the duty be, my tormented conscience would not rest easy should I neglect to warn you and/or evil of the truly AWFUL CONSEQUENCES that might redound to those who initiate a WP:USER FORK — A Concerned Non-Administrator [ —— Shakescene (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

Waitasec...Are you telling us to fork off? HalfShadow 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. You (either of you) may be unaware of the Wikipedia Community policies against WP:User Fork, or Pitch Fork, transcluded from another namespace somewhere between the "e" and pi circles of the upper deck (left concourse) of the Lower Depths. If a sockpuppet is one person purporting to be two people, and a meatpuppet is two people purporting to be two people, then what is the correct term for two people purporting to be one? And unaware of the term you may very well may be, since no consensus has yet been reached on this question after 53 heavily-oversubscribed Requests for comment and 873 randomly-archived Discussion pages, interspersed for variety with ANIs, ArbComm verdicts, interventions by Jimbo and futile appeals to the Commissioner's Office. — A Concerned Non-Administrator (—— Shakescene (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That clears it up. Thanks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I have just now initiated an RfC for the Self-hating Jew article. Since you were once briefly involved as an administrator in the article, and since you are completely uninvolved in the issues; if you are willing to take a look and give an opinion on the situation, it might be helpful. (But, if you are disinclined, because of the rather messy situation, that would be understandable.) the RfC is here [6]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't hold that against you. I know plenty of good people who are not administrators of anything. I actually intended this for another user. Clearly, I am trying to do too many things too fast today, so I think I better slow down. Sorry 'bout that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Magazine

Actually, the article by Rolling Stone is quite good.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Pass the skewers! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On page 2, Cheny refers to Rummy as "Dick", classic "mis-undirection". ;) — Ched (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bugs

← <Ched pokes the evil twin/roommate/friend> Being the new guy in town, I'm curious about some of the inside references. I've seen some posts that refer to a user "Who shall NOT be named", and while I'm guessing that would be one who starts with a G..(and ends with a)..p, I'm also wondering if the whole Willy on Wheels and Gwarp are/were the same user?, or is that something only the wiki-oldtimers are privy to? The second question stems from the my originally going to post in your "twin/roommate/friend" section, but seeing the {{clear tag}}. Is that something that just automatically deletes stuff in that section?, is it some sort of archive switch?, ... or does it provide some other function? Well, that's about all for now - just curious. — Ched (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be what they're referring to. Not being an admin, thankfully I don't have to deal with stuff like that continually. The "clear" simply means that anything after that starts at the left edge. I use it most often where there's a picture. Sometimes pictures are longer than text, and the next paragraph might start kind of scrunched up. "clear" ensures it will start at the left edge, after any picture. Just a mundane little technique for tidiness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

noted, and thx. And, given you common-sense, I personally will give you every bit as much respect (if not more), than any of the admins. (Even if you weren't rooting for the Steelers, lol) Sometimes it's what you "don't" say that speaks louder than anything. In my short time here - there's been plenty of times I wish you could just "toss" some of the idiots from the nest. Cheers Bugs ;) — Ched (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. :) I have found over time that where "idiots" (i.e. vandals and ultra-contentious users) are concerned, the best practice is, "Don't get mad, get even", by turning them in to the appropriate pages with appropriate documentation of behavior, and let the admins do their job. Edit wars are futile. Following policy usually works out for the best. Regarding the Steelers, I admire the way they run their organization. They were the dregs of the league for the first 30-40 years of their existence, and did a total turnaround in the 1970s. I can still remember that "Immaculate Reception" - one of the great moments in NFL history (except to Raiders fans, of course). And they showed the stuff they're made of in the Super Bowl. Down with a couple minutes left, and they came back to get the clincher. Great finish (except to Cardinals fans, of course - which I'm not, in general; just in this post-season). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic seeing this, and remembering the sig from a few recent boards (and not always in a good way) - I'm thinking "fast track to block land". Oh well, enough chit-chat I guess, I should be working on the Study skills article. or The Shootist, or.. Twilight (1998 film), or just about anything productive. I see the "forum/not myspace police" casting an evil eye my way ;) — Ched (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On talk pages, there is a fair amount of latitude for "off-topic" comments, as long as the comments are kept civil. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links?

Baseball, sig? i have some additional links for you, but i cant post them here since I am not sure if they wuould work, is there email to contact you, if so, thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariuschip (talk • contribs) 01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. You would have to post them here, as I don't do e-mails. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just passin' through

Saw your name and had to click, love the Blazing Saddles reference. :) Soxwon (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Blazing Saddles is awesome, and hope you don't mind the extraneous comments. Where do I sign up for the church? Soxwon (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal organization (other than SABR). Just watch Bull Durham and say three Hail Abner Doubledays, and you're in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo, also have you ever not obtained concensus with your other personalities? Soxwon (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foie gras

Hello BB; not sure I care enough about making the distinction about what is or isn't a POV-pushing image in this article, but at least I gave it a try. However, I'm not sure about how find a free picture which shows the more traditional form of gavage (as per my addition to the talk page) but maybe that'd be our best shot at finding a compromise everyine can live with.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least the various parties are no longer ducking the question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no more quackery! -) --Ramdrake (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm stupid,

Maybe I shouldn't have gone straight from the Muhammad/Images talk page which had great testimonies to freedom and anti-censorship to the "Aisha's Age" section on Talk:Muhammad. But I have the feeling I kind of walked into a tarpit there. After I read that, I clicked back over to reread your comments on the Images page, and decided to stick my toe in.

I love this stupid Wiki. (I've always been attracted to losers; story of my life...) I love the "Wiki is not censored" rule. I was so happy with Wiki for standing up to the on the Images page and not backing down. I don't want to see this argument be given the slightest nudge, and I see the "Aisha's Age" thing as a crowbar. Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine marrying a 6-year-old. Imagine having to take your wife to elementary school every day, and having to deal with first-grade teachers who say your wife is a holy terror. Metaphorically speaking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal4

Again, Jackal4 has run amok on a number of baseball pages. Pls take a look at my comments on his discussion page -- perhaps you can talk sense into him. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been able to talk sense into anyone here. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I'm just trying to do something short of again seeking administrative intervention.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can do is watch his work and see if he does anything that I consider to be incorrect. For example, I'm not so sure what the "proper" way of specifying AB is. I checked the rules book, and it doesn't say "at bats" anyplace, it says "times at bat". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And about the RBI vs. RBIs thing, column headings will typically say RBI and the figures below it are typically plural. But people very often (though not always) say "RBIs". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. MLB.com is the official baseball site, and it uses RBIs in parlance. See http://mlb.mlb.com/search/?query=rbis --Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably RBI is proper usage (and one less letter) for a column heading, while in conversation RBIs is proper usage. I guess you could say that HRs would be also, except it's usually spelled out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been discussed on the project page at all? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... user X96lee15 pointed out the most thorough treatment is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_5#RBIs ... but Jackal4 ignored this, and went about deleting "s's" wherever he saw I had edited an article that had one.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to bring it up again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was raised to him 2 days ago, and he continues to do it ... and I've again today written it on his page.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if you go to WP:ANI they're probably going to tell you it's a content dispute. Maybe go to the baseball project page and see if any other voices weigh in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this. Don't be too sure of that - just because someone's not makin a bunch of noise - doesn't mean they're not listening — Ched (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rules99

No, I hadn't spotted that, thanks for pointing it out! Do we know who he is/was a puppet of, or was it just the general air of knowing too much? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just seen the userpage now - fair enough... ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for OM reply

Hey there Bugs, how you doin this fine day? Just wanted to say thanks for chippin in on my med question at OM's page. Wasn't a question I could ask at a board or article talk page. User pages allow for some blunt replies (which is exactly what I was looking for). I'd rather someone tell me "Ched, you're wrong" than let me go on making a fool of myself. All pretty much along the lines I was thinking, (the med question - not the previous sentence in this post), but I don't mind asking when I don't know something either. Anyway, I appreciate you takin the time - hope you have a great day ;) — Ched (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind that medicine and doctoring is not an exact science, despite what doctors want you to think. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - that just may be the most accurate statement every posted to wikipedia. — Ched (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Expo Park

That would be interesting. I doubt the exact locations of Exposition Parks I and II would be easy to find, I'm not really sure if they actually had grandstands; then again the Post-Gazette article does mention a fire. If I remember correctly SABR had to use old city planning maps to find home plate of Expo III. I looked up Recreation Park on Google Maps a while back ("at the corner of North, Grant, and Pennsylvania Avenues") and it's a parking lot (not surprisingly). I'm not that great with graphics or anything, but we could probably find pretty accurate longitudes and latitudes. black ngold29 15:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember seeing that picture. Does it show the river too? black ngold29 15:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly another FP candidate?

Your enthusiasm is infectious. Found another image that's really good photographically, although it needs a lot of cleanup. Encyclopedic value is an important element of featured picture consideration. So maybe you'd know best where this would go. Suggestions? Durova^Charge! 19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable baseball players

I know you do baseball articles. What makes a baseball player "notable" enough to have an article? It seems to me that probably everyone who ever played in the major leagues has an article. In chess, most grandmasters have some sort of an article, and that must be 500-1000 people. My opinion is that is too large of a number to be "notable". Bubba73 (talk), 19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they've played in the majors, they meet notability criteria. And some who have not, as well.--Ethelh (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Age

You know, statements like this make me suspect you're not actually 13 1/2. -kotra (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Life Lesson: Don't believe everything you read. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know you're really only 7; you aren't fooling anyone. Oh look, something shiny... HalfShadow 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either 7 through 13 1/2, or older and having done time. Or, even more likely just knowledgeable about slang? Chillum 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underage, knows his slang and a cross-dresser? Hoo, what a catch... HalfShadow 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my vast knowledge about history is due to frequent voyages in my Wayback Machine. For example, see if you can find me in that photo in the previous section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's Mister Peabody, son. And obviously, you're the one in the taking the picture. You can't fool me. HalfShadow 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just sayin! A lot of the stuff you say is something my 55-year-old dad might say. Then again, my dad acts like a 13-year-old sometimes... or a 7-year-old.... -kotra (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you're the one with the gun in his hands. Clearly trouble. Chillum 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His father is undoubtedly a very wise guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second from right, wearing the suit jacket and smoking a pipe. Devious resemblance to an adult. Presumably you're 114 by now? Durova^Charge! 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make him the oldest living person, a black woman. Isn't that right, Gertrude? -kotra (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the short one in the front, right of center, copping the attitude. The building in the background is where I stashed my Wayback Machine, which works well despite being a remainder item at Wal*Mart. I went back to 1908 to see what it was like to watch the Cubs win the World Series. And to see Harry Caray sing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" when it was brand new. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Bugs?

Since this seems to be from your era, around the time when you would have been playing yourself some dude got sold by the Red Sox. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to confirm whether this photograph satisfies pre-1923 public domain or has become an orphaned work. If the copyright has expired, I'll restore it for ya. Best, Durova^Charge! 01:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Yankees had mixed-color stockings in 1920-21, and a white cap with a blue bill, according to Okkonen's book on uniforms. In 1922 they switched to sold-blue stockings and caps. So it's hard to say if the photo is from 1922, 1923, or later. One interesting point is that Ruth's weight was very much under control, in fact he almost looks thin - thinner than in some shots from 1920 or so. So I wonder if this is from 1925, when he had a serious illness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't 1925 the year ~~his drinking caught up with him~~ he ate a tainted hot dog and was out half the season? It would be interesting to find out how his weight was affected. PhGustaf (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The true facts of that situation were never made publicly known, other than that he had surgery, missed a good portion of the season; and the Yankees finished in 7th place, 16 games below .500. Ruth and the Yanks bounced back in 1926, and it would be 40 years before they would finish below .500 again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Babe's ~~drinking~~ hot dog habit, the key question here is whether this is public domain. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't determine what year it was taken, but it was 1922 at the earliest. I wonder if the photo's source knows anything about it, like who took the photo. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's always easier to get forgiveness than permission, I'd use the photo and assert that the "c1920" tag put it out of copyright. Worst that can happen is that you get yelled at. PhGustaf (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No go, Gustaf. My reputation isn't worth that. Durova^Charge! 06:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've gone ahead and written to the library's staff. The image contains a control number and a copyright registration number. They should be able to determine when copyright was filed and whether it was renewed. Durova^Charge! 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a definitive word back from the library staff. The photo was actually copyrighted in 1920. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Yankees didn't wear solid-blue stockings until 1922. Ruth's first 2 years with the Yanks, they wore stockings that were blue in the upper half and white in the lower half. Also, they wore white caps with blue bills. They didn't start wearing the solid blue caps until 1922. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This photo File:Ruth1920.jpg squares with the 1920-1921 uniforms style. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like the email address of the librarian so you can tell them? What they wrote to me was that in their notation, c.1920 and ca.1920 mean two different things: c.1920 denotes exact copyright. They double checked that the copyright number and registration date were written on back of the photograph. Could there be any way to square up the incongruity? When the Library of Congress confirms a copyright date, they're generally the final word about it. Durova^Charge! 16:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good part here is that it's definitely public domain (grin). And that you and your buddies get a new topic for debate. Best, Durova^Charge! 16:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they say it's public domain, then it is. Just don't post it with the claim that it's from 1920, because it ain't. "Early 1920s" would be sufficient. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:NOR, my friend. The Library of Congress says it's 1920. Of course, if you publish your rebuttal in a reliable vetted source we could note the date as disputed. It would help if you also published full schematics for your time machine. Best, Durova^Charge! 19:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally verifiable and totally NOT original research. My source is Marc Okkonen's book on uniforms that was published in the early 1990s, and it shows uniforms for every club in every season. According to Okkonen, the uniform style shown in that photo was not adopted until 1922. Here's a curiosity, though: the Hall of Fame website, which reproduces Okkonen's research, shows that style for 1920, [7] contradicting his book as well as the photo I showed you earlier. So maybe it really is from 1920. I'm not convinced, but the Hall of Fame says it could be. So dat's dat, for now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar props

I didn't want to make the ANI discussion any longer, but I just wanted you to know your Oscar host line (him being a huge Jack fan) was comedy gold. Nice pun, amigo. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. I am nada without my straightmen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballpark

ran across Municipal Stadium (Waterbury) while spell-checking (or is that spelcheking). Added what little I could find right of the bat (so to speak). Didn't know if you'd be interested or not. The preceding announcement is a CLD (Courtesy Link Drop), brought to you by the ever painful-to-the-nether-regions editor ... — Ched (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Philadelphia Freedom"

I agree with you that Philadelphia is a city in the USA, but the song is not about the city. It is about a professional tennis team in the old-World Team Tennis league of the mid-1970s. Think back, you must remember the team (Billy Jean King owned it). Other teams were called the Boston Lobsters and the New York Sets. (By the way, I noticed the entry above about Municipal Stadium in Waterbury. I've been there a few times. It was the home of several Eastern League teams, including the Elmira Pioneers who played there when their stadium was flooded out. Did you know that it had a running track cut across the outfield?) MCB in Boulder (2/23/2009) 67.177.195.177 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you remember when this song first came out? All the dee-jays on the radio said it was about Billy Jean King and her Philadelphia Freedom tennis team. It's not about the city. MCB in Boulder (2/24/2009)67.177.195.177 (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song is about freedom. It's not about Billie Jean King, and it's not about tennis. The name of her tennis team was merely the "inspiration piece" for the song. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you remember the media saying about it when it came out? MCB in Boulder (2/24/2009) 67.177.195.177 (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

LMAO.. Who says the only dumb questions are the ones that go unasked? ... good "catch & post"! — Ched (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Waterfall

I have no idea what it is called - I found it in a forest when I was in Switzerland working for an NGO. I'll find you some co-ords. — neuro^(talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere near 046.43756, 6.93735, I think. — neuro^(talk) 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is pretty high up the side of a mountain. Pretty sure it has a name, it's just my godawful memory. :) — neuro^(talk) 20:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Bugs

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For—by dint of your unshakable good humour—consistently and reliably lightening the mood, defusing conflicts, and making Wikipedia a better place to be. Steve ^{T • C} 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gawrsh! Thanks! May I quote you??? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Here: "A nod's as good as a poke with a sharp stick to a deaf camel." Wait. You meant the barnstar text. That too, though the plagiarist in me just put a spin on the suggested text from WP:BARNSTAR. Steve ^{T • C} 14:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to overlook the "plagiarism" from Monty Python. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy FAIL! 'tis Pratchett. Steve ^{T • C} 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?" -- Eric Idle. Hard telling who stole from who, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have responded to your post at ANI. BigDunc^Talk 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

Hey Bugs are you any good with templates or know someone who is? Soxwon (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a total ignoranimous on this topic. You might want to see who has updated any templates recently, and start with asking them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Soxwon (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I've left a message on their talk. — neuro^(talk) 09:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to neuro, the template works like a charm, it's on my Userpage if you wanna see the end result. Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Bugs, you have been mentioned [8] on AN/I. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joy of joys. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Kinsler

Thanks. I agree (obviously) with your edits.--Ethelh (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just hoping it doesn't evolve into too much of an edit war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Ethelh (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Breslow

I agree with your "comma" point and edit, btw.--Ethelh (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DON/T YOU JUST GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE!

Note - The above section header was from 71.120.14.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CEOs & Rush

Did you hear about the honest CEO? Soxwon (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that analogous to the Minnesota Vikings Super Bowl ring? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (darn it...you were supposed to say no, then I would respond me neither, probably a rumor) Soxwon (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could go ahead and give the official answer. It reminds me of the joke about a tombstone reading, "Here lies a lawyer and an honest man." A passerby wonders why they have two guys in one grave. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wise and powerful Bugs, why do Rush Limbaugh fans seem to continually add unecessary information to the article in blatant disregard for conservative principles of limiting? Soxwon (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of conservatism has become skewed over time. It once had to do with noble ideals such as caution and thrift. Now it merely has to do with a list of "commandments", the polar opposite of a similar list connected with liberals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as being "wise and powerful", I've got nothing on these guys: [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly constructive

Re: your light baiting of Tungsten Carbide. I suspect I know what you were up to. If so, it worked. Either way, it's not that big of a deal. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vulgarity has not place on Wiki, and is a clear Wiki violation that was appropriately addressed IMHO.--Ethelh (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. He gawn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parole

walks in wearing convict outfit speaking to fellow convict* Well they let me out and said I had to report this guy for parole, I wonder who it is. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- John Candy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh s***, wait isn't he dead? Jeez how am I supposed to report to a corpse, dig him up? Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - He lives, on celluloid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh man, I have Cingular! Soxwon (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        As opposed to Wired. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello "Baseball Bugs". You would have to deal with this removal. Your signature has been deleted because the sentence "Mindless little parrot", because I think it is inappropriate. Sorry for information. I would not want you posting it again, because it will just be deleted. Parappa664^{talk | contribs} 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above had to do with the joke box. Restored by User:Soxwon and then User:This flag once was red. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

FWIW, I've also got Cy Young pitching and hot dog sales outside Ebbets Field. Would take me a while to get to by myself, but if you know other baseball fans who have Photoshop (or a willingness to install and learn GIMP which is free), send them my way and I'll get them going. Have you folks ever thought of doing a featured portal drive for the baseball portal?

Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The glassworkers belong in a discussion of baserunning and stealing. The guy with the rifle suggests a whole new meaning for "getting picked off on first". PhGustaf (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Anyway, I'd like to see those other pictures mentioned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad

Please do not erase legitimate questions from the Mohammad talk page - no matter how incredibly redundant. Either ignore them, or paste the relevant link. The archive-bot will do its thing in time. Rklawton (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. The answer is part of our style manual. A link to the relevant section is not too much to ask. Rklawton (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind then leaving the trolls to me? Rklawton (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'negro'

I was clearly wrong about what I said, but I don't appreciate being made to look that I'm intentionally trying to mislead people. That is not the case. I have replied to everyone on the ANI thread, my user talk and CadenS user talk. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commented at that thread. I honestly didn't realize that - <* sigh *> sometimes it's so hard to keep up with what is right and wrong in this day and age. and while I'm here - "Hey Bugs".. How you doin these days? ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 03:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bin sick. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring avoidance

Ok, there's some "ahem" individual who seems to feel concensus doesn't apply to them. They have made three edits that have been reverted by myself and another person. My question, how do we get this person to the talk page, and also, if I reverted his last two edits (he made a mistake w/the first edit that he fixed with a second) is it one or two reverts (if I reverted again would I hit the 3 revert limit?) Soxwon (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to ask the question, you know the answer is how it works. Collect (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look into whatever y'all might be talking about. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Drudge again, though at this point I'm ready to say the hell with the article. Soxwon (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias, contridictions and abuse of power

Wow i found it amazing you would defend whoever ended up blocking me for removing something that was sourced by youtube, giving the poster the benefit of doubt (pending the original DVD as a source, which is still NOT here) yet did nothing when they vandalized my argument that had a youtube vid, even though the start of the film had a NASA SIGNED document.

i know, IGNORE it and or distort what im saying and no doubt bias admins abuse power. you can find a reason get me blocked again. if all else fails, make me take it to the talk page and use the apeal to popular opinion fallacy. i dont know moon landing has evidence for/against it, though more against it, but its not a major issue. forget this, no wonder wikipedia is a joke. bye Sfvace (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to refresh my memory on whatever it is you're talking about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Morgan / 3RR

Here's your warning. Stop the edit warring. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated 3RR. The guy who tried to trap me into a 3RR was someone I had twice successfully reported for offensive user IDs. [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you violated 3RR, however, I was warning you because it looked like you were well on your way. It was just a courtesy warning so you wouldn't get blocked. I don't have an opinion about the information you were trying to add. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge

I'm sick of this, where do I ask for it to be locked until we can sort this out and stop everyone sticking in their edits the moment they think they may or may not have consensus? Soxwon (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, little angry there (lol). I've filed for it to get full-protection, I'm sick of this edit war and want to force these ppl to discuss this thing and stop doing drive-by editing. Soxwon (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a more bright note, how many bartenders does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A "bright" note? I'm afraid to ask. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11, 1 to hold in the lightbulb, and ten to make the bar spin :). Soxwon (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes! A variation on the original Polish/Norwegian/Blonde, etc. joke. OK, now this one... How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how many opinions you want, idk. Soxwon (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good try. The answer is, "Only one, but it has to want to change." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, last one: How many teamsters does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Soxwon (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None, because they went on strike? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5, you got a problem with that? Soxwon (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No siree, Mr. Hoffa, no problem at all. Hey, there's mud on the pavement. May I be a carpet for you? 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Slightly off-topic, but I was noticed the Plaxicoed link led to his article, did you mean for it to go here: [11]? Soxwon (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... What's the original link you're referring to? Could be someone's idea of a joke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page under useful warnings. (Even more off topic, how long does it take for a lock request to get processed? Mine's going on 3 hours now and I've seen 3 others been reviewed). Soxwon (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I think at the time I added that item, that sub-section is where the discussion was. The Plaxico page has been revised since then. Thanks for noticing. I can't account for how long or short it takes admins to respond. My guess would be they do "easier" stuff first, at least that's my experience sometimes at WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. I hope I'm not annoying you with my newby questions. Soxwon (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hay problema. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi :-) Could I just make a completely nonpartisan point, which I hope you won't take the wrong way... You clearly feel strongly about the inclusion of articles until they have time to mature. But I kind of take offence at being referred to as "lazy" and "deletion-happy". Would it be possible for you to argue your case without resorting to perjorative terms towards individual editors (yeah, me, really!) - it's a broad policy/philosophical, almost, concept that's being discussed, and I'd rather that I wasn't called names.

Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 minutes adds up to "deletion happy". And it's not you in particular. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point - what you're talking about, and what is currently under discussion, is the Wikipedia-wide issue. But the thread, and the examples being used, refer to me specifically. I understand your viewpoint, and can see where you're coming from, and I'm not asking for an apology or for you to strike anything out... I'd just be happier if you could hold back the nouns, the names, the terms for and about (the) editors. Would that be possible? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. First tell me what rule requires that an article be finished the moment it's posted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're not prepared to co-operate and refrain from doing something which I have politely suggested insults me. In the interests of not wasting everyone's time, I won't take this any further, but please remember that I will always appreciate you not referring to me perjoratively. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you answer my question? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, because you are not showing me any grace. I have made the perfectly reasonable request that you hold back from unpleasant comments about editors, and explained that it is because (while I understand your points) they refer to me by association, even though you may not mean this.

You are not showing an inclination to honour that reasonable request, and that gives me little incentive to consider yours. As I said, I'm sorry, and I'm always open to you agreeing to stick to commenting on edits not editors, in future. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you a year ago, when a spammer was promoting his own privately issued CD on Superman music, and when I voiced complaints about that blatant self-promotion, I was shouted down for it on the ANI page itself? Where are you deletionists when we need you? Huh? Huh? Huh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, come on BB. S/he can't be everywhere (especially in the past). Give her/him a slack and look [you probably already did by now but anyway] at his/her comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Them Terribles and think about my comment below his/her's. Don't be so "hard minded" if I may say so.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may say whatever you like. I'm hard-minded enough that it won't stick. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you "won't stick" to your "hard mind" as super glue there is nothing more I need to ask you for. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

il garbagio

What had happened was that I was trying to edit a particular section using a template. Unfortunately, the template didn't work, because it just wiped out the section, rather than preserve it from automatic archiving, which was what I was trying to do. So I undid my revision, and by doing so, I unknowingly restored the offending edit. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of garbage, I also reverted this. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Please refrain from name-calling and insults on the Talk:Barack_Obama page. 64.53.138.18 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAUTION Stop being ~~an idiot~~ a mushroom. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for the promotion! [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they read that part on your userpage about being an admin? Soxwon (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that they read anything hear. They just fire away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read anything I hear either Bugs. In fact, most people don't. Soxwon (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was supposed be "no evidence they read anything here." But your answer works too. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as the invisible comma "...no evidence that they read anything, hear" as if the words "sonny boy" were also appended. Boy, my mind is terrible at proofreading. :) Protonk (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do tell. Take your shoes off. Set a spell. Y'all come back now, hear? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

warning

Please stop the continued insults or you may be blocked. 64.53.138.18 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING Please stop being ~~an idiot~~ a mushroom. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should call them weebles :). Soxwon (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're about to get freeped

May want to see about getting your user page and talk page semi'd. You're about to get freeped. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2202207/posts Check out post 50. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, due to an unrelated idiot's vandalisms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your userpage is semi'd. Not the talk page. But hey, maybe you'll luck out your talkpage won't get too clogged up.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what happens. Nobody need revert anything, I'll just wait for the storm to pass. Maybe they think I'm an admin or something. Shazam! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my conservative brethern, makes me so proud I want to tell them all to get a life and go out into the sunlight (though they'd probably die, Dick Cheney's the only vampire I've ever seen survive direct sunlight). Soxwon (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not conservatives, they're just morons. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, and as we all know, morons abound on all parts of the political spectrum. Soxwon (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No question about it. No group has a monopoly on double-digit IQ's. Well, maybe MENSA is lacking in that area. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freeps and Kos Kidz: Can we ship them all off to an island and leave them there? :) If you eventually do want your talk page semi'd let me know. SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll sleep on it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos, BB. It's a badge of honor. If only they were funny -- Free Republic's signal defect is a lack of humor (see this absurd thread on my talk page -- that's what I get for trying to point our our copyright policy). I remember getting "freeped" back in 2005 because I deleted some bullshit rant a "freeper" left in the article space. I don't suppose anything like number 43 ever occurred to them. Would a gang of people as absolutely identical to each other in world view as they are ever get together to build something open to all and fundamentally inclusive? Sometimes you just have to laugh... Antandrus (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 43, another excellent point. I have a new name for them now - mushrooms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping

Man, I need to stop sleeping. It's when I am sleeping that all the good stuff happens! This is just craziness!! Brothejr (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop sleeping altogether, you won't even need wikipedia - the hallucinations will come naturally. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude...

Check out the last post on the Drudge Talk. Drudge mentioned the whitewashing controversy that those Free Republic/WND users were vandalizing your page for. It's on the front page of the Drudge Report (your famous Bugs)! Soxwon (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link in question. BTW they kind of have a point. Padillah (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antandrus suggested we should have done nothing - let them run rampant for a day or so until they get bored. Next time that's what we should probably do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be mentioned (after all there's an entire article on it apparently, a link would be fine). Soxwon (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They want a foot in the door to give legitimacy to their cockamamie theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is it possible to stick it in w/o inserting said theories? I'd take a whack at it. Soxwon (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not touching it. Bring it up on the Obama talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you didn't touch it, geez. On a brighter note, good luck with the RfA. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the curt response earlier today. By then I was about fried from all the Obama stuff and was ready to pack it in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've got the same feeling. Is it possible to garrot someone over the net? Soxwon (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deal with garrots, only with carrots. Of course, one can choke on a carrot. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or one could be allergic like Mel Blanc. O_o Seriously though, that would be awesome to be able to hit a key and sit back satisfied in the knowledge that you've done your part to cleanse the gene pool. Soxwon (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess their only chance would be to hit the Escape key in time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Rimshot* Did you need a drummer? Soxwon (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a band, but it disbanded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Rimshot* I'll take that as "Neeeh, could be" Soxwon (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, yup. It was ill-fated from the get-go, when we decided to call it "Dis Band". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did your amps go to 11? Soxwon (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're asking technical questions, as if I were actually telling the truth about that band. Now I'm feeling like Kevin Costner when he asked his fellow farmers, "What's a crop?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was making a reference to Spinal Tap...Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to catch that movie sometime. I'm guessing that amps going to 11 equates to the needle going off the scale. Like when Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier and jokingly told the ground there was something wrong with his machmeter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a humorous and illogical discussion that goes on about amps are supposed to go 10 "Well this one goes to 11." Also, the drummer keeps dying, hence the reason I asked before becoming yours :P. Soxwon (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! It's good to know I'm not the only one attuned to obscure humor. :) Drummers have had some issues in the past. Keith Moon, for example. As far as I know, no one has ever died from coming to this page. Some have been indef'd, but that's not necessarily the same thing. Since I'm accused of marching to a different drummer, there's no reason you couldn't be that drummer. And I could be the fife. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amp conversation goes along these lines... "Can't you just make '10' louder?"..."Yeah, but this is 11." "But why not just make 10 louder?" "...but... this goes to 11." forget it, forget it. I'm not doing it right. See the movie. You'll also understand the joke of yelling "Rock and Roll!!!" when you're lost. And, for any that like Tap try Fear of a Black Hat. It's Spinal Tap for the Rap world. Hilarious. Oooh, I hope you don't think this is spam. I'll keep the "Escape" key handy, just in case. Padillah (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline am I thinking of?

Today, on this round of "What guideline is it?"... There's a guideline that says not to post things that change with relative frequency (sales figures, things like that)... So, what guideline is it? Padillah (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Probably the "not news" guideline, or someone's spin on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought but since everyone thinks you're an admin anyway, would you accept a nomination? Am I loosin' it or have we done this already? I seem to remember you said there are people that would guarantee your RfA to fail... I think that sucks as a reason to keep you away. Padillah (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try if you want. It might be interesting. And if someone shoots it down, well, I didn't ask for the nomination anyway, so no great loss. Just don't take away my rollback. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Padillah would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Padillah to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Bugs . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

(ec) I think you'd get plenty of support. Put on your asbestos coat though; you don't shy away from conflict zones, and that has an inherent risk associated for anyone trying an RFA, especially one who has been an editor as long as you. People are surprisingly nasty and bad-faith-full at RFA these days. (Being an administrator is grossly over-rated, but that's just my opinion -- if you're a regular editor, it's much easier to be wrong once in a while, and people readily forgive you -- not so if you're an admin). Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I am totally prepared for, and OK with, rejection - just don't take my rollback away! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe WP:RECENT? It's not exactly what you are looking for but seems to have some of the same focus. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I can absolutly use it. It's not quite what I thought I remembered though. I swear I saw a guideline or policy that said not to post things like "most popular videogame" because the sales figures will change and we'll have to keep re-editing it. Well, I'll see what comes of this, thanks. Padillah (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to avoid "peacock" terms anyway. "Most popular" or "best" or whatever is endless POV battleground. Like when someone was trying to say the Beatles were the "best ever". That was settled by saying "among the best", because that's easily verified. Closer to home, it's like trying to argue whether Cobb or Ruth was greater. You can cite polls that say such-and-such, but you can't overtly say so-and-so was the best ever, just "one of the best". With those two, it's apples and oranges - both tremendous impact players, great stars, great drawing cards, but different styles of play - though not as different as popular legend has it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to be coy. I'm trying to get the "Best selling game" crap off of the PlayStation 3 page. It's just going to keep changing and there's never going to be an end to it. Padillah (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you take it to WP:ANI and get some different opinions. It's theoretically a content dispute, but what you're wanting is advice on how to handle the content dispute, which would seem to be an admin area. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: RfA I'll withhold my Support until you either accept or decline the nom Bugs. I strongly suspect that we would/will not agree on a number of issues, but then again, I'm never quite sure how to take some of your comments - you do have a sarcastic touch when you want to. I'm probably a bit more conservative than many of your supporters, but either way - I think you would make a fine admin. (and I won't nom a repeal of your rollback, if you don't flush mine .. lol) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. Your politics don't worry me. I have a big tent here. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, he has some conservative supporters lol. I was 10/7.50 on the Political Compass test (economic/political). Soxwon (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Soxwon well, Bugs remembers (or looks up in history books) a lot of things I remember growing up - that's good enough for me ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have said before you ought to be an admin! (Although I can't find in your archives). You'll probably one of the very few admins out there who keeps a sense of humor when dealing with crap that would normally set off any other admin. Especially last night on Talk:Barack Obama and 64.53.138.18. Ironically, it's his cheeky comment about you being an admin that probably gave Padillah the idea to nominate you, so it would be great karma and would probably teach users like him to be careful for what they wish for! --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 22:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Obama, that place is nuts right now. Soxwon (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<* Ched slams on the brakes, and does a 180 in order to avoid that article at the moment *> I noticed a few posts at AN and Help Desk, thought something might be up 0:-) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I think it's under control as far as what's going to be added. We're just waiting for the spammers to get bored. Soxwon (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←It's fully protected for a bit - nothing anyone can do now (other than admins), besides argue on the talk page. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me I know, I've been deleting vandalism on the talk page for an hour while trying to show this guy what an idiot he is. Soxwon (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: RfA (revisited). Getting back to the real issue, I'll be adding my support when/if you accept the nom... which I gather you do by placing {{helpme}} on someone's talk page... but I digress. I've watchlisted the RfA. Good luck! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to see you running for adminship. :) Acalamari 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Oppose is reluctant. I actually appreciate your humor and insight. Most often you are helpful and forward the discussion. It's just those few times when you get lost in the joke and the talk spins out of control and off topic. As an Admin, you should assist rather than hinder. And, sarcasm rarely works in RL. I know. I have to control my own "court jester tendancies" and sarcasm!...Go Cubs! also, summaries make Wiki-life so much easier. Good Luck--Buster7 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine either way. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Bugs .. you should probably type in the "I accept" at the top. I assume since you've answered a few questions that you've decided to give it a go. Also, I posted links to an edit summary tools on the page - since the regular toolserver accounts appear to be having difficulty. Good Luck by the way — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I posted a few answers over the noon hour. Since then I've added more, and each one is getting longer. My strategy is to bore the readers so much that they'll nod off and hit the "OK" button in their sleep. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to remove the userbox you have saying that you don't want to be an admin.--Giants27 ^T/C 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything in the RfA that says I "want" to be an admin? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to go with the essays you wrote for questions 3 and 4. ;)--Giants27 ^T/C 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ the 23:50 post. While they're all busy over at the Obama article, we'll sneak ya in the back door. ;) And, in my best Streisand voice ~ Memories — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrant reporting in. Go get em, rabbit boy. — neuro^(talk) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can take on the Gas House Gorillas, I am sure you can handle this crowd! Good luck with your RfA! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It would be ironic if the final tally turned out to be 96-95. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Streisand, what about Sherman? "I am not a Wikipedia Administrator..... I would not run if nominated............... and if elected, I would not serve." So am I supposed to dig up this well-hidden RfA (meaning, of course, République Fédérale d'Allemagne = Bundesrepublik Deutschland = Federal Republic of Germany) and agonize over whether to support a dithering goldbrick who won't even take the job if offered? All those big taxpayer/voter dollars to support the munificent salary of some freeloading no-show while millions of newly-unemployed would jump at this priceless opportunity for public service? —— Shakescene (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You know, they told me this job pays nothing. If I get the job, I think I'll demand that my salary be doubled. Tripled, even. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that they include a cost-of-living escalator (10%-20% per annum should be adequate in this deflationary economy) and all the customary fringe benefits (carrot leaves, etc.) And consult your shop steward and business agent before you sign anything. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of advice, Bugs—responding to opposes at RFA is a mug's game; it doesn't make you look good, and it doesn't make the rubes look bad. Try to stay above it all, cool and inebriated, like William Powell as Nick Charles. Deor (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I expect you're right. I'll confine myself to answering questions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I've supported based upon our meetings this past week, despite Caden taking the opposite view and opposing you. I think you mediate quite finely. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Anyone who looks closely will discover that some of the opponents have a personal axe to grind, while others are raising legitimate concerns. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually oppose someone who always agreed with me -- some of the oppose votes are based on the opposite premise. Did I word that carefully enough? Collect (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you're always trying to help people out, but did you really have to try for adminship just so this guy could get you de-sysoped? ;-P (Now watch some of the way too literal Wikipedians take this wrong... should be fun.) Best of luck, if not this time then next.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on ANI

Please note my thoughts on your comments with respect to Nadia Suleman as posted here. Risker (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs and ageism

Somebody named Mentifisto (talk · contribs) suddenly accused me of being an ageist worst than sexists out there and people make a fun of me and badger under my vote, I am bluntly asking you. "How old are you?" and "why do you introduce you as a "13 and half years old" schooler?

I get to know that your name comes after the animation, Baseball Bugs in which the fictitious character Bugs Bunny stars but neither of them were created 13 and half years ago.--Caspian blue 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Three and a half years old" plus 10. Or maybe a few more decades. But well under "Ninety-three and a half". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is answer for the other question? --Caspian blue 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is, "I won't say." But you can infer my generation from topics that I talk about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share any cultural background (the bunny is not called "Bugs Bunny" in my home town by the way) with you, so I do not know (not that curious but the question was thrown due to the annoying badgering people). However, the posting on your page still can make others confused[13]. --Caspian blue 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the RFA, I'm far more worried about your interest in a bastardisation of The One True Sport than the fact that you're a 13½-year-old rabbit. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that's rabbit years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, he has at least some idea of what a "humuhumunukunukuapua'a" is. PhGustaf (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But since I couldn't find any studies on senile dementia in rabbits, I decided to AGF... Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He could be a killer rabbit.Soxwon (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, then he'd be a proper Cricket fan. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to recognize that ridiculous game and its continuous campaign to besmerge the name of a very fine insect! Soxwon (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That name would be "Jiminy". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the age thing... I am beginning to think you should put on your userpage, in 72 point bold, "I am not 13^1/2!" It's slightly worrying how it can be spelled out in the RfA and yet there are still oppose votes coming in due to your "age". This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, at least, explain the joke. I know it ruins it but then people will stop being so frickin' literal. I don't know how, on a userpage as covered in satire as yours is, people can ignore everything but the age comment. Or do they honestly believe you found a time machine for $100? Hmmm, next time you run into one of these guys let them know I have some property they would be very interested in. Padillah (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They take me as I am, or not at all. :) I felt like giving them this stock answer: "...and if you believe that, I have a slightly used bridge to sell. Some assembly required." [14] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs - I feel that I've been mislead .. nay ... duped! I'm starting to doubt that you are truly in possession of a working "way-back" machine. The hopes that I could borrow this rare item, in the desire to travel extensively with Sherman and Mr. Peabody throughout our wonderful history, is what drove me to support your RfA. If indeed, you do not possess such an item, I think it is shameful for you to have hornswoggled your loyal and trusting fans in such a manner. >:-) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 22:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I don't have one - someone else made that assumption. :) Unfortunately, it's in Wal*Mart's repair shop right now, and they have been known to take their time. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ya gotta admit - at least everyone is showing up! — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, but it reminds me of a punchline to an old joke about the family patriarch on his deathbed: "Then who's up front minding the store???" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! what a relief; I thought you'd left the Wayback Machine in the repair shop of Circuit City (where by now it would no doubt have fallen into the retentive catcher's mitt of the Receiver in Bankruptcy.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is, for sure, funnier than my idea. :) I should add a "Shopping" section on my user page, indicating all the places I go to: Circuit City, Linens N' Things, Krispy Kreme, etc. And any number of banks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at ANI

[15] [16] → Where in the hell do you get this stuff? I think your uncanny humor and Wiki-comedianship are a couple of reasons many Wikipedia editors stay sane around here. Not everything has to be uber-duber-serious all the time; a little miscellaneous metapedianism never hurts and can be indeed helpful, like you have shown time and time again especially at ANI. I wish I had the same iron tongue as you, but I don't. MuZemike 01:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I get these things from my vast (or at least half-vast) fertile imagination and uncanny memory for things that don't matter. :) Alas, my sense of humo(u)r is not appreciated in all circles. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, some of us do. Whether you become an admin or not, you will continue to be appreciated. As you have not doubt become aware, not everyone understands the importance of humor (and I'm being, paradoxically, serious). This is from The Mysterious Stranger, Mark Twain, one of his last works, written during his misanthropical twilight years: "[the human race], in its poverty, has unquestionably one really effective weapon -- laughter. Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution -- these can lift at a colossal humbug -- push it a little -- weaken it a little, century by century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." So much of the garbage on ANI would blow away under the sustained blast of laughter. Needless to say I don't like what's going on at your RFA, but -- sometimes you just have to laugh. And so it goes. Antandrus (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the votes reveal a great deal about the voters. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Oh, and by the way, I'm only 14. Older than you, neener neener. :) Antandrus (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. But as we grow older, the percentage difference will continue to diminish. And if we get sufficiently old, we'll reach the point where we're the same age. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still using the old Abbott and Costello show? Collect (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... "Third base!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thru-you

Wow: http://thru-you.com/#/videos/ HalfShadow 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy, man. Further evidence that YouTube is the greatest invention since the microwave oven. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you can't cook burritos or popcorn in it. I tried. Ever try getting melted cheese out of a hard drive? Just...don't. HalfShadow 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Reminds me of the "2000 Year Old Man", played by Mel Brooks, who was asked what the greatest invention in the history of the world was. His answer was "Liquid Prell", a shampoo in an unbreakable bottle (innovative at the time, hence they advertised that fact a lot). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original was "Saran Wrap". "You need to wrap a sandwich in it you use a little Saran Wrap. You need to wrap a whole roast you use a big Saran Wrap. You use whatever you want. It clings, it sticks, it's great." Which, in Mel Brooks "Jewish voice" is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Padillah (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the expression, "That's a wrap!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought it dated to the days of King Tut ... Collect (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, King Tut, the Boy King. He gave his life for tourism. Always wowing the sight-seers with jokes. But he fell ill while playing Faro, and soon he was at death's door. He cried out, "I want my Mummy!" and they pulled him through. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured portal drive?

The two latest baseball featured picture candidates got promoted. Any interest in the featured portal idea? Regards, Durova^Charge! 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually an internet ignoranimous, so please explain in more detail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Portal:Baseball is a pretty good portal. The question is whether a group of editors would like to take it to the next level. Looks like it was seriously worked on about two years ago, but not much updating since then. The project has plenty of GAs and FAs, for instance, and I've found a couple more high resolution pics that could be restored for FP candidacy. It would be good to come up with a list of anniversaries, such as the 'in this month' section at Portal:Feminism. Durova^Charge! 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA (Part I)

Sorry, I screwed up on your admin bid. You're a good guy, but you really should walk away from the ANI. I actually don't watch it intentionally, even when I post something. You're smart and well-spoken, so I think you can do a great job. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already walked away from it. It's off my watch list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not as sure -- "This above all" still strikes me as good advice. We all are who we are, and when we try to pretend otherwise, we are really harming ourselves. In fact, it is likely you do a lot more good being who you are than you could ever be becoming an adminoton. (neologism contrary to WP guidelines, to be sure). Collect (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like what that one highly-educated drive-by called it: "Admisitrator". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I could make a recommendation, don't respond to the opposes. They're not going to help you, and you'll probably convince no one. Do you know what I and a lot of people like about you? It's your intelligence combined with a wicked sense of humor. Use that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your Al Franken analogy was right on the money; if you had known, you would have started behaving sooner. I still think there's a chance that even if you're an angel for 3 months, there may be problems next time, and I'd like to get to work on that. Do I have your permission to open up a topic on your RFA's talk page titled "Post mortem"? I'm pretty sure this RFA won't make it, so all the "he's great" "he's awful" stuff is probably water under the bridge. What we need to be talking about for your sake is "Would you vote for him in 3 months?", and for the benefit of the RFA process, let's see if we can get people to talk about whether this tough RFA has resulted in any new understanding of what RFA is about and what we're looking for. Feel free to say no; we have almost always held off in the past from discussing the repercussions of an RFA until after the RFA to be fair, but I'm dissatisfied with the results of that. After the shouting is over, everyone wants to go home; I think we may need to catch them while they're still on the playing field and make our pitch (sorry, you started it). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I've already kind of started that idea by listing some needed points of improvement. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, we haven't worked together yet, but I've seen you at several articles I monitor closely for certain types of POV hanky-panky and outright policy violations. I was happy to support your RfA based largely on your activities in those difficult and controversial areas. There is one very small point I disagree with you on, and I hope we might discuss it soon, but I know you're busy right now and it's not a major concern. In the meantime, let me just say that OrangeMarlin usually knows what he's talking about and gives useful advice. Good luck with your RfA! Doc Tropics 00:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fire away. I can handle it. After that drawing-and-quartering on the RfA page, I can handle pretty much anything now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, there's nothing scary in the Post Mortem thread yet, which I take as a good sign for the future. Best of luck. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You thanked me that quickly! I'm even more impressed. You are most welcome. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your RfA has turned out the way it did. As someone who has been twice burned by that process, I know what it's like, which is to say it's not you, its the process. Just focus on the high number of editors who supported you and keep up the good work here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, it has been a useful exercise. Thank you for your support. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Limbaugh Jokes

"There's a new organization being formed. It's called 'Feminists, Homeless, and Blacks for Limbaugh." And they're meeting in a phone booth in Wichita." Soxwon (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, you've got a sense of humor. What scares me from that RfA discussion is how many wikipedia users don't have a sense of humor. But they must laugh at something. Maybe at axe murders or other fun stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris, putting the laughter in manslaughter. Soxwon (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that those folks think professional wrestling is on the level. I recall something from the days when Earl Weaver and Ron Luciano used to duke it out. Luciano was an umpire who tried to make the game more fun. Weaver was the acerbic manager of the Orioles. Weaver said Luciano wasn't taking the game seriously. Luciano said, "Weaver probably takes The Three Stooges seriously." That's kind of what I have to deal with here sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ROFL re: flaming Nazi gasbags. It's a pity that the reason I was lucky enough to see it was that someone was meta-offended by it. Something is horribly wrong when 1) it's a sin to openly air your viewpoint, and 2) it's a virtue to pretend you don't have a viewpoint except inasmuch as some people might coincidentally see it from that viewpoint, and those people just happen to be absolutely right, but you don't really hold that viewpoint, because you're above such petty mortal concerns and even your farts are NPOV. arimareiji (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to chance misunderstanding, and on review I didn't know if it was clear: By "you" in the last sentence I mean "a hypothetical person". Not "you, Baseball Bugs". arimareiji (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I never wanted that job. I always wanted to be... A LUMBERJACK! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, my neighbor is going to think I'm insane from all the times I burst out laughing. Thin walls. arimareiji (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I also blame you for the fact that song is now stuck in my head, just so you know. Thought I might as well join in the "Everything is BB's fault" parade. arimareiji (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things could be worse. It could be "Sit on My Face". Oops. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard. ^_~ arimareiji (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Hello, Baseball Bugs! Just popping in to confirm whether User:Wahkeenah (Baseball Bugs) is a legitimate sockpuppet account of yours or an excuse to impersonate you! Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 00:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely one of the banned User:Ron liebman's many socks. Is that a new one? If so, I'll go hang it out to dry. Back shortly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He gawn. Thanks for the tip. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Heh...just confirming :) BTW, he's just been blocked indefinitely User:Toddst1. Proof: here. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks to the wondrous invention called WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs fan vote

LOL, little of both I suppose. Had to bust your chops on being a Cubs fan per Keeperpedia Rule No. 4 and because you'd do the same to me :) That said, I think you'd be a good admin and have no concerns, but sadly I don't think your RfA will pass. I saw your comment on someone's talk about someone nomming you so I went to RfA. Like I said, I'm supporting. I think moral support is silly for an experienced editor so I decided to have some fun. Can change the wording if you want me to. I'm leaving this here out of not wanting to over clutter the RfA. Oh and I'll be at the Yankees/Cubs game on 4.4 :) StarM 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to change it unless the literalists make a fuss over it. I wouldn't worry too much about over-cluttering the RfA, as I've done a pretty good job of that myself. :) So if you're not Cubs, what are you? White Sox? Cardinals? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees :) Thought you knew that from ANK. Don't actually dislike the Cubs, but had to bust your chops :) I'm not watching the RfA (or here) but I'll refresh both periodically to check if any issues about it pop up. Will be off line during work day though. I think you'll be a good admin -- and what I hate about the RfA process is those who are involved enough in Wikipedia to be the best admins have made too many "enemies" to pass RfA. Oddly enough, just before I got home, Dying Cub Fan's Last Request was on my iPod StarM 02:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a catch-22. A paradox, a paradox, a most insidious paradox. So, Yankees. I guess I could have figured it out, since you weren't going to the Yanks/Cubs game to root for the Cubs. I think the Cubs could have beaten the Yanks in the 2003 World Series. However, it turns out that no one could have beaten the Marlins. That's the way things go with a Team of Destiny. I've never been a Yankees fan, but I've been a Yankees admirer from time to time. If my Wayback machine weren't on the fritz, I would go back to 1932 and see if the great Babe really called his shot - or maybe try to distract him by calling him names. Hey, it worked for the Cubs. He hit it less than 500 feet. Where Ruth is concerned, that's almost a moral victory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding "Dying Cub Fan...", that always brings a tear to my throat and lump to my eye. Some of the lyrics are a little obscure nowadays. "I want to see Keith Moreland drop a routine fly." Ouch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that song gets me. It's beautifully done though, great tribute. But yeah -- I was talking to a coworker the other day and i mentioned something about Ryne Sandberg and he gave me a totally blank look. Was 2003 the series for the Cubs wehere the fan reached out? I knew the Yankees had lost their oomph after using every last iota to beat the Sox. Going to be an interesting upcoming season. I don't watch much spring training but I can't wait for opening day. I got 4.4 tickets just because they were available -- was at the last game at Yankee Stadium in September but going on 4.3 unless I got $1.10 tickets is too cold to be fun. Too bad the Joe G managing the Yankees isn't the Joe G of the Marlins, he's lost here. StarM 02:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear your opinion of the old Stadium as a facility, putting aside all the nostalgia. I was never actually in it, I drove by it a couple of times on separate occasions. It seemed huge and imposing... like the team itself. That's an interesting point about the Yankees having used up their energy defeating the Red Sox in 2003. It squares with what Cal Ripken said on TV last fall, after the Red Sox had come back to tie up the ALCS at 3-3. He basically said the Red Sox were done - that they had used all their energy to make their comeback, and that the Rays would win Game 7. And he was right. And I would likewise speculate that the Rays, in turn, used it all up to win that Game 7, and were ripe for the picking by the Phils. A blank look for Ryne Sandberg? How quickly they forget. He was just a terrific player for the Cubs; great clutch hitter, and the smoothest fielder you could ever hope to see; and unlike Ernie Banks, the all-time Mr. Cub, Sandberg actually got to play in the post-season, a couple of times. He was fairly quiet and wasn't known for being a speaker, but his acceptance speech at the Hall of Fame was electrifying - he laid it on the line regarding what was expected of himself as a player in his day, and about the modern players' work ethics and reliance on performance-enhancing drugs. He didn't need to say the name "Sammy Sosa", that was understood. And back to 2003? Oy! I remember it like it was yesterday. The Marlins guy hit that foul ball down the line, barely into the stands, and several fans tried to grab it, including Steve Bartman, the poor slob who actually touched it first. But that wasn't so much the problem - it was Alou slamming his glove down in disgust, losing his professional cool, inciting the fans needlessly, and breaking the team's concentration. That batter merely walked, and the next batter hit a rally-killing double-play ball that would have nearly iced it for the Cubs - only Gonzo, the shortstop, booted it, and 8 runs later the NLCS was as good as over, even though there was still a Game 7 to play. Seasons turn on little things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that I LOVED 2004, great year man! Soxwon (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a season turning on little things... pardon me for probably repeating myself, but think of this: Games and Series have turned on home runs. Think of the famous Kirk Gibson homer in 1988 in Game 1, that doomed the A's from the get-go. But what about Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS? Yankees ahead 3 games to none, leading in the last of the 9th. A guy walks, pinch runner steals second, comes home on a single. A guy walks. A guy simply walks... and little does anyone know that that li'l ol' walk will doom the Yankees in 2004. That, and A-Rod being an idiot in Game 6. Am I wrong, or is the "A" in A-Rod coming to stand for "albatross"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it stands for something quite different (rhymes with masshole). But the series was turned on homr runs. I'm surprised when you say that no mention of George Brett, Joe Carter, Bobby Thomson, or Mazeroski. The greatest non-turning point home-run IMO though is Carl Yaztremski. Soxwon (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say the 2004 ALCS was turned on "small ball", and then the power game took over, as ex-Twins slugger Ortiz won that game eventually, they won close ones in Game 5 and 6, and then it was bombs away in Game 7. As Sparky Anderson used to say, "The great teams will 'put you away'," and in 2004 the Red Sox were a great team. The Gibson homer was just the first one that came to mind, but all those you mention are good examples too. The Fisk homer in 1975 is famous, and it was a great game, but in reality it merely postponed the inevitable by a day, as the Reds were a very strong team that year. But it was a great Series. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a facility, the stadium needed updating. I don't know that it needed tearing down and total replacement, but it needed to be updated. Their methods of doing so in recent years had been interesting -- converting men's rooms to women's rooms -- updating some things ( I don't remember the pre 70s Yankee Stadium, I'm too young), but I think more could have been done to update. I'm not sure what the goal was: pure revenue in the form of adding luxury boxes, etc? The whole stadium thing has been a one-up. Mets got a new stadium because they were jealous of the Yankees -- and then the Giants and Jets get into the mix after the failure of the West Side Stadium. NY Sporting industry is a hassle of a checkered mess. I could go further with it, but it's nearly bedtime. I can separate the nostalgia from the function, but there's something about the ghosts and I don't know about the history and feelings in the new Stadium. I think that's what bothers me. Modern players work ethics interesting idea. Whole steroid scandal has just irritated me so much. I met Bud Selig on the eve of the Mitchell Report breaking and while I've never been a fan -- I think he's done more to destroy the game than all the steroid users combined. What I really hope I see is: Rose reinstated and Clemens and Bonds not banned from the game. I don't even know that I have enough faith in our justice system to punish them for lying, and I really wish Clemens would just move on but I think baseball needs to heal and move forward. I don't think reinstating Aaron's record will solve anything, nor do I think it's the answer. I agree re: the Rays last year -- still an amazing run for them. At least YAnkees didn't break my heart on the last weekend like the Mets did two years in a row. StarM 03:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor told me last fall that while the Stadium looks elegant from a distance, its infrastructure is still 85 years old and feels like it - dark and dank under the stands. The new Stadium is supposed to have a much more "open" feel about it, like most of the new parks. But I gather the old Stadium is going to sit there all summer until they figure out the bids for demolition - and that's trouble, because the old will hang over the new like one large ghost. Unless they win, and then it won't matter. But it's just weird to have two of them side by side, like clones. Shea is another story - a concrete donut, and the scene of some serious ignominy as far as both Cubs and Red Sox fans are concerned. But if the Yanks will be in the old Stadium's shadow, the Mets are in the shadow of the Yankees themselves - and having failed for 3 straight years, including an astounding choke job in 2007 that rivaled the Cubs flop in 1969, it makes you wonder. But at least they knocked down Shea instead of leaving it hovering over the new. The records have to stay the way they are. I still think of Ruth as the all-time home run king, simply because he hit them at a much faster clip than Aaron did. But he also benefited from different conditions, and in turn Aaron benefited (over Mays) from different conditions. Records are overrated. And you're right, Selig is the one to blame for all this, not the players as such. And I do think those guys will get into the Hall eventually, but the writers will make them sweat it out a few years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) too many e/cs -- I take the A-Rod as either all about me-rod or oy-rod. I was in Hawaii when the steroids scandal broke. Is he the reason they haven't won? Nope -- no more than Moose -- but I woldn't miss him if we could get a solid offensive 3b. We won without him, and we'll win without him again StarM 03:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on the ESPN sportswriters show last Sunday described A-Rod as "needy", and I suspect that summarizes it. He's like the opposite of Derek Jeter, who to my mind is a truly classy player if there ever was one. But you're closer to that situation, so you might have some different thoughts. And you're right, he's not the reason they haven't won, he's just a good lighting "Rod". As a lifelong Cubs fan, there's one thing I've learned: Losing is easy. Winning is hard. And winning takes more than just quality players, it takes certain intangibles. Call it "luck" if you want. Every fall I say there's a "team of destiny" in the mix. Sometimes you can kind of see it coming, sometimes the baseball gods fool you. But in the end there can only be one. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about "Dying Cub Fan..." Two things, really. One is the irony, with Steve Goodman dying a week before the Cubs clinching the division in 1984, their first clinching since 1945. And also the various local references, including the anomolous "Na-na, hey-hey, goodbye" which is NEVER played on the north side. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight change of topic: Bugs, I was looking at those photos of Sportsman's Park that someone linked in your RFA, and I noticed that an important feature of the park that I clearly recall doesn't seem to be present in them (although the resolution is not fine enough for me to be absolutely certain). At least when I used to attend Cardinals games as a kid, there was a chain-link screen between the top of the right-field wall and the roof over the bleachers there. (One of the hardest-hit balls I've ever seen was a line-drive double that Ron Fairly, as a young Dodger, hit off that screen; I swear, it was still rising as it hit.) Do you know anything about that feature of the park? (By the way, I've lived within walking distance of Wrigley since about 1990, though I only make it to one or two games a year.) Deor (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that myself. I think there were certain years when the screen was not there, but I would have to look into that. I also used to hear that that part of the park was the "colored" section. I wonder if that was still true when you were a kid? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would have noticed even if that were so. I only attended SP from about '59 until its closure. My parents weren't rich, and a game in person was a pretty rare treat even in those cheaper days. (If I haven't lost it in a move, somewhere around here I should have a certificate stating that I attended the first game at the new place in '66. It was the first game that I was old enough to drive to myself.) Deor (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In various photos in various books, the screen doesn't seem to show up, but it was certainly there. Maybe there was something about the nature of its mesh that it did not show well in photos? Hard telling. But the Sporting News guides in the early 60s indicate the screen was there, and TSN was certainly in a position to know, being based in St. Louis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule image

That edit was a joke. Feel free to revert it! (lol) Yesitsnot (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rogereeny. Now we're back on track. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

Could I get a little please? I'm simply outnumbered, I've gotten over 21 citations for a point (some are a bit of a stretch, but I can guarantee 12-15 good ones) and my opponents STILL refuse to concede the point! It's on the Drudge Report talk page. Soxwon (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I told them at the RfA that would stay off political pages. I don't have time to look at it right now in any case. I'll take a look this evening and see what's going on. But could you summarize the issue here, in a paragraph or so? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it in a sentence: I want label the Drudge Report conservative. If you want more detail, I started out with a compromise edit between those who didn't want it labeled and those who did. It labeled Matt Drudge conservative, touted a couple sites that claimed it was conservative and left the slant of the site up to readers. That wasn't good enough and so they demanded that I remove the conservative references. I decided that the original was best and have submitted 21 cites (coming from the likes of NY Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, among others) yet I'm being rebuffed for "OR" and "SYN." I admit I submitted a first batch of results that I didn't read through as well, but my last couple of sets have definite references (at least 12-15 call it conservative explicitly). Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservative" is an absolute. How about "conservative-leaning" or something like that? I mean, I'm a "conservative" on some issues, even though I don't call myself that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it sounds kind of wish-washy, it's called conservative by most, not "right-leaning" or "conservative-leaning." I'll see. Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you talking about the Drudge Report, or Drudge himself? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge Report. Soxwon (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does he himself characterize it? Or does he? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know that he has, can't find it. Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does he characterize himself at all, or does he just kind of say, "Here it is"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to pop in here like this, but I did wanted to point out something that did disturb me after looking at the argument going on over on the Drudge Report article talk page. I noticed that the editors who are arguing that the DR should not be classified as conservative or to push it all the way down in the lead, also were quick to say that the opposing news aggregation Huffington Post was a blatantly liberal page? This is not to say that it is not liberal, but it kind of seems like a bias to me? Quick to call others liberal, but ignores or downplays the reverse for the sites they follow. (Sorry just some social commentary.) Brothejr (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the two of you could go over to the RfA page, and make a case FOR or AGAINST my throwing my two cents in on the Drudge Report page? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might jump in, but then again, CoM and I don't fully get a long and I might blow up. But, give me time and I might post something. Brothejr (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it didn't take me long to think it over. I hope you make it. Brothejr (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support Brothejr, I think I've finally got the support I need Bugs, I don't wanna mess up your chances for Admin. Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) yYou could, of course, point out that I am a horrid stickler that cites must specifically back the claims they are used for, and where they are opinions that they must be cited as opinions, and not as fact. Collect (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit some of them weren't the best, but I still have 12-15 quality citations that explicitly call DR conservative. You try and dismiss them for one reason or another, but I want another persons opinion, thank you. Soxwon (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- WP:V is clear -- editorial opinions must be clearly cited as opinions, and not presented as fact. And of the fifteen you gave me, only one even made the explicit connection you asserted for the full set. My background is one of checking every single cite given in a blitz list. Collect (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, I don't think you are really reading the refs he posted, due to the fact at least a couple are straight news articles and they clearly say "conservative Drudge Report" or report the site as a conservative cite. That in itself easily satisfies WP:V. Brothejr (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go back in the talk page history to see the deleted cites he gave -- and tell me that I did not accurately represent them. The new set is not the same as the set I commented on, which makes it easy to misread my comments. Collect (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the first ones weren't that great, but that isn't the point. You've still yet to give reason why the CURRENT ones shouldn't be used. (I apologize for this discussion spilling over into your talk page Bugs, plz move it to mine from here on out Collect) Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then simply say the first batch was bad <g>. Note that I wanted "widely viewed as conservative" lest the floodgates be opened for dozens of uses of the word- Note further the current version of the article and tell me the floodgates are not wide open. The purpose of insisting on using WP guidelines is to prevent the stuff now going on, it is not to frustrate anyone. We agree on more than we disagree, I am sure -- can you say the new article is an improvement? "Conservative" now appears a multitude of times -- when one use would have been sufficient. Collect (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely viewed as conservative" would be a good way to go. It's like calling Babe Ruth the greatest player ever. I might think so, but that doesn't matter. "Widely viewed as the greatest player", with umpteen citations, is easier to get away with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Exactly my point -- right now the article is littered with "conservative" every tenth word or so it seems. And two cites are more than enough when it is not stated as "fact." Look there and see how nicely NPOV the page is <g>. Collect (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that part of the original issue, that you don't need to say "conservative" 10 times? The Ruth article makes a case that he's considered the greatest player, but it doesn't exactly restate that 10 times, it just lays out details of his career. "Drudge is conservative. And he's conservative. He's also conservative. Did I mention he's conservative?" That seems like a tad overkill. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my contribution and I also feel that way. However, I felt that the lead should be a place where the word was located and if the it has concensus, I'll move on to the "convservative section" which might just be cut altogether. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not cut the cites to 2, use "widely viewed as" and let's get rid of the trash littering the article together? Collect (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You can state with the best sources that he's widely viewed as conservative, and let the rest of the article "prove it" by illustrating what he's had to say about things. If he says he's in favor of gun ownership, for example, it's not necessary to say, "Hey, notice that's a conservative position," as that would be fairly clear to the discerning reader, and in fact there might be liberals who also believe in gun ownership. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a misunderstanding, I've labeled the Drudge Report conservative. Drudge I said was "more populist than conservative" which is how he characterized himself. Soxwon (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No left(handed). :) Soxwon (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the way the brain supposedly works, opposite from handedness, one left-handed ballplayer used to say that, "lefthanders are the only ones that are in their right minds." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just call me the "Southern South Paw." :) Soxwon (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to me, the right-handed northerner, or "Northpaw". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a totally different note, it's said when you have to put that your page is satire, it takes away from the humor of it. Soxwon (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a joke within a joke, as I say it "may" contain satire. :) That point will be lost on the humor-impaired, but at least they can't say they weren't warned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should put in one of those "pure coincidence" warnings as well. :) Soxwon (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds vaguely familiar, but early-onset Alzheimer's (at 13 1/2, yet) is preventing me from recalling the context exactly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that's a joke :P, but in a couple of older cartoons they would run a joke ad at the beginning saying something to the effect of "Any similarities between this cartoon and any other people or events, both real and fictional, are puuuure coincidence." The program would then go on to totally rip-off another character or event. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from your RfA...

Annoyingly, there's a bit of a "black and white" situation with image policy- images are either free, or non-free. Unless you can get an email from the copyright holder (forwarded to the OTRS address, along with a link to where the images are uploaded) explicitly giving permission for the images to be released under a free license or into the public domain, then they have to be considered non-free. If they are non-free, they have to meet the non-free content criteria- they have to be irreplaceable, low resolution, no more uses than needed and absolutely necessary to the understanding of the article(s) in which they are used. Further, they need a rationale explaining how they meet all these criteria. As such, you have two possible routes to go down- you can either contact the copyright holder and get them released under a free license, or you can expand the rationale, while ensuring the images are absolutely necessary to fully understand the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are CROPPED photos, which is why he was willing to let me do with as I please, and are high-enough resolution to be able to settle the question at hand, although they're certainly not truly hi-def photos. They are actually portions of photos he posted at a publicly-visible website. Copyrighted, but visible. And unless someone else can offer free photos of a ballpark demolished 43 years ago, I don't see how. I had already looked through Google and found nothing else. I could forward you the e-mail chain with Mr. Waxman if that would help explain the scenario. I can't do it now, though, as I have to get to a meeting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying- the conversation, though polite on your part, doesn't help the matter much- the images are still non-free. Perhaps they are irreplaceable- no chance of anyone releasing any images. However, it's still up to you to provide evidence that the images are necessary. An image of my house from ten years ago would be irreplaceable if no one was willing to release an image, but including an image of my house from ten years ago isn't actually necessary on any article. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are contradictory claims about the dimensions. This is the only proof I can find. If information about the dimensions is "necessary", then so are the photos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, if you're just using the photos as a source, you could just cite them and provide a link? We don't need to copy out chunks of text from every webpage we cite. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The versions on the websites are not large enough for them to show up. Unless I cite them anyway and see if anybody claims they are insufficient proof. Then I could ask the guy to post the cropped and enlarged versions, and everybody would be happy. Except the owner, who might be annoyed. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a note to Mr. Waxman asking if he could upload the cropped versions to his website. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hey BB, I went ahead and closed your RfA per your comment on the talk page. I want to encourage you to continue working on the project and continue your contributions. Take what others have said to heart and if you want to run again, do so. If you don't, don't feel pressured to run. I know it can be disenheartening to fail (I recently was buried in an RfB) but I think you will come out better for this. Take the comments and turn them into positives.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what an RfB is or what it involves. If someone wants to nominate me for RfA again sometime, that's up to them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this RfA has made me want to withdraw support. You could easily find better people than me to nominate you but I'd be pleased (nay! honoured! With a "U" like Queen Elizabeth intended!) to support you. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice after close but failed RFAs. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rfb = request for beauracrat.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey Bugs, I just wanted to say that I appreciate you going through that whole RfA - even if it wasn't the most pleasant thing around. You're stepping up and addressing everything just confirms my vote, and belief that you're a great guy to have on any team. There's sadly few people in life that will actually "Man Up", and your willingness to respond to all concerns and questions really impressed me. (*poke at no one in particular regarding responding to questions and things). The only thing I see down the road, is maybe the edit summary thing - maybe check that in your preferences. Just a suggestion, not even a "you should do this thing". I may not believe in some liberal ideas, but I do respect your ability to discuss those issues in a mature responsible manner with anyone willing to approach the subject with an open mind, and mature attitude. I'm not sure we'll ever work on the same articles together - I tend to avoid the political and religious stuff, and my sport of choice is NASCAR (and maybe some NFL Steelers / NHL Penguins), but I do think you are a good wikipedian. Of course that and $2 will get you a cup of coffee. I don't expect you to remember me/my sig .. but know that there is one more editor out there that respects you and your work. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 21:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes? Nope.

"I'll take that as a nice way of saying that you learned from my mistakes. :)" you said.

No, it was a nice way of saying that until my interaction with you and W. marsh I had no clue about the community side of teh wiki existing. I had spent a few weeks of active editing doing vandalism patrol, but I had no idea of the depths that extend to run this show that we call Wikipedia. My lack of support or opposition was due to the fact that I was neutral. I sincerely mean a thanks in getting me involved in this project, however obtuse it was. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iksh loik vish...

Why bother running again, because if you follow the general advice given you will not be Baseball Bugs - and that wouldn't be fair to either you or those who appreciate what it is that you do. Of course, you are not going to win friends by being caustic in your responses or by displaying a sense of humour which precludes those factions who are being gently barbed by it but as you pointed out yourself sysopship is not about being mates with people (especially when peoples perceptions about admins being friendly in respect of one group of editors over another is one of the major issues as regards "admin abuse"). Also, stay on ANI - because someone with a great fund of technical knowledge who is not an admin is a real bonus for those with the flags; advice and comment from someone who isn't "admin club" is very useful - and never mind whose sensibilities you bruise. In short, do what Baseball Bugs does and never the other thing (and especially for something as transient as "adminship").
If you must, run for ArbCom next time... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there...

You've been able to go through this whole RfA with your trademark sense of humor intact, and I salute you for that, my rabbit amigo. Not everybody gets you, but I think that's just because some people take this project with differing levels of seriousness. I appreciate the humor, and look forward to you being done with this whole RfA so you can get back to helping out at ANI and other places. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I was highly impressed with the grace and gentle humor that you brought to the discussion. If you should ever decide to go for RfA again, this Carrot League Baseball fan will be rooting for you. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reverts

And check this out. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it meant 'Right From the Ass'

Because it seems anyone who wants to become an admin has people line up to throw shit at them...

And I still expect my cheese sandwich. HalfShadow 02:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, we have a saying where I come from: the word love is so overused, it equates to saying cheese sandwich. Soxwon (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you can't eat love. On the bright side, you can't get crumbs all over you, either. HalfShadow 02:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you're dating. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to know that. HalfShadow 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is love? a couple of things come to mind. It's the only game that was never called on account of darkness, and like a radiator, keeps you warm even though you know it's only hot air. Soxwon (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In tennis, love means nothing. In love, tennis means nothing." -- Johnny Carson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you start breaking into the Haddaway song, I am so going to punch you. HalfShadow 03:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From me anyway, you're safe. I'm more from the "Love Is Strange" generation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People Are Strange talkin 'bout m-m-my generation — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why don't they all just fu-fu-fu-fu-fade away?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

It was pretty rough... sorry about that (too). It is a quick way to learn though! Sarah sko1221^talk 05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for you, today... was rough. I can see that you are softer, and i am a bit sharper and both are good outcomes! I salute you. Sarah sko1221^talk 05:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already do. And you know, yours might be the first conversation i am going to keep on my page. It makes me happy, thank you! Sarah sko1221^talk 05:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA

Fuck off with your awful puns. :( — neuro^(talk) 06:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite to the contrary, sir/madam/procedure: puck off with your lawful funs. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that backed up by third party sources? Seems dubious. — neuro^(talk) 23:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious... Do you mean St. Dubious, the patron saint of questionable data? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling. — neuro^(talk) 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I'm under such severe scrutiny now that I can't even troll my own talk page. :'( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn straight. — neuro^(talk) 01:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that one of those scientific, rigorously-controlled, carefully-framed random trolls (like the Gallop Troll or the Field Troll), or just some highly-dubious ask-whoever-walks-in-the-door (or down-the-rabbit-hole) internet trolls?

¶ But if you can't troll your own army of eager readers (en français, «voyeurs»), how can you know what they really think? (short of another RfA, that is...), especially now that the Economic Crisis has forced you (and/or your Evil Twin Identity) to lay off and shut down your entire Complaint Department. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal4

FYI, Jackal4 has been blocked for the second time this month -- this time for a 30-day period. See [17].--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's math poser: If they quadruple a block length each time (a week, then a month, etc.), how many blocks will it take until a user is effectively "blocked for life"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends if they give their age in human or bunny years. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see... next would be 4 months; then 16 months; 64 months or 5+ years; 21+ years; 85+ years. So 4 or 5 more blocks should pretty well wrap it up. Reminds me of a story attributed to Commissioner Landis, when he was still a judge. He sentenced a 70-something criminal to a 50-year sentence or some such. The guy said, "I can't serve a sentence like that!" The judge said, "Well, do the best you can!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thank you...

No problem. I don't support RfA candidates very often (you're the second, but I have a third lined up for when/if they decide to stand). My deciding factors are hugely variable - the first candidate I supported because of their timezone! In your case I believe Wikipedia benefits from a diverse range of administrators, from humour, and from detailed knowledge of (Wikipedia) history.

I actually prefer the US spelling of "honour", etc - I believe Noah Webster's greatest failing was not getting his revised spellings international acceptance. You seem to exemplify the "you" in honour, however...!

Anyway, all the best, and do let me know if/when you decide to endure another RfA (or RfB, or...)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 08:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal4 Sockpuppet?

Important -- I think that Jackal4 created a sockpuppet, which among other things attacked you immediately after you had him blocked. See [18]--Epeefleche (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could they even be Tecmobowl?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a similar "F.U." attitude, but I'm not sure it's the same M.O. The Racing Stripes guy was the third user of a series, that I managed to get the first two blocked strictly due to offensive usernames. I don't see the M.O. as being the same there, but never rule anything out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts about the "baseball player born outside the US" category that he is introducing?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the point of it is and how it can be managed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA closing

Why exactly was the RFA closed(as you had a leading margin of support)? Either way, I will support you again, when/if you decide to go up for RFA in the future.Wacko Jack O 12:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wouldn't take the criticism there too hard, you did get 90 some support votes. So, a great deal of editors obviously supported your candidacy for admin.Wacko Jack O 12:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important point: basically, opposers can be put into three categories:

Those with legitimate concerns (which can be addressed in the coming months);
Those who were confused by satire (which, again, can be addressed - I have a few ideas which I'd be happy to share if/when you run again);
Those who won't support you ever, for whatever reason. Some of these are good faith editors, some aren't, but either way there's nothing you can do to win them over.

I'd suggest that groups 1 and 2 combined with supporters could make another run at adminship relatively straightforward.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many successful admins did not get anywhere near the amount of support you have! And at least one nay vote has now been banned. Do not change for the sake of gaining support from the naysayers -- some were simply using the "any convenient excuse" for opposing when their real reasons may have been more personal. And do not take a left at Albuquerque. Collect (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you all may notice, I did make some changes to these two pages to try to address some issues raised. I would be glad to entertain additional ideas. I was told that it takes about 70 percent acceptance to be given serious consideration, and I would have had to somehow find about another 25 votes in 2 days without doing any canvassing, so there seemed no point in continuing. Besides, maybe I'll look so much better next time, by comparison. :) I'm also trying to mend some fences. Please note the pleasant exchange I had with sko1221 earlier today. For some, there is no hope - except the possibility that such drama queens will have been indef'd by the time (if any) that I run again. :) You're saying one already has been. That was fast! I'll have to look into that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the old days (2007), there used to be votes along the lines of 22-3-1. Usually the only people who showed up for RfA's were a few that seem to troll RfA's to the exclusion of all else on Wikipedia, and friends of the candidate. The no-canvassing is bogus...please tell me why, in a supposed democratic encyclopedia, we can't campaign for things. Makes no sense. But we let sockpuppets go. Sheesh. Go Marlins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the 2008 Marlins were an anomaly. It'll be another Red Sox year if a) Ortiz stays healthy and b) Varitek bats Ortiz' weight rather than his own. We'll make our half of the perfect (Sox/Cubs) series. PhGustaf (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment from Patton123

Hey. If you no longer want to discuss this then just say so and I'll stop. Anyway, I found your "If you want an admin who will kiss up to you, then I'm not your guy, and we're done here." comment rather disturbing. Your definition of "kissing up" seems to be "accepting critism". If you plan to continue editing Wikipedia for the forseeable future I suggest you leave your ego behind and try to take to heart comments people make about you ;-). Hard as it is to accept, they're trying to make you a better editor, and would love to see you become a superstar editor who everyone looks up to. I certainly would. Btw sorry for any stress I may have caused you :-).--Patton^t/c 15:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully willing to accept criticism. I just won't capitulate to someone who just wants me out of the way on ANI or wherever. Not you specifically, just overall. Like with the very first guy on the Oppose list (no names, though, please). Any constructive comments you have are welcome here. I appreciate your comments above, and welcome more helpful advice. Please note I have already made some changes to the user and talk page to defuse some of those criticisms and/or to make some things clearer. And I have tried to limit my activities on ANI to things I could help with, or possibly inject a little harmless humor (did you notice the one about "sockpippetry" that everyone picked up on?) My door is open any time. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your leporid nature, wouldn't that be "My hole is open any time"? And that motto might be even more apt if/when you get wrangled into becoming an admisitraitor. But only if you're willing to accept helpful critisms. arimareiji (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MLB

link Edit summary can be fun — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link - see, edit summary has its perks ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These got caught in a massive revert war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on that page about the Yankees, yes, but you have to admit the $ signs were on the money. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh .... isn't free agency a wonderful thing? ... lol — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Prior to free agency, the Yankees won all the time. Once free agency came along, they won all the time. Free agency had a major impact, for sure. The only thing that really changed was that the prices of tickets, and performance-enhancing drugs, went through the roof. In Babe Ruth's day, his idea of PED's were hot dogs and beer. And he took plenty of them, although those drugs were ingested strictly by mouth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random idea

While in the midst of a debate on whether images in an article were forbidden by policy on trademark, when said images are already 1) blatant original research and 2) add nothing important to the article, it occurred to me that Wikipedia might be able to use an essay on "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Something in the same vein as dead-horse beating, but this behavior is a much more specific strain of pathogen.
Would you think the behavior is common enough that it would be useful to have a WP:THISLOOKSIMPRESSIVE link to it? For that matter, would you know if there's any specific format, style, considerations, etc to keep in mind when writing essays? arimareiji (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already said they were unneeded, but ran into the Preserve bit that if it is sourceable, it must be used <g>. Hence looking into the legal status of the images - something which is not debatable (except by one person). Collect (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what y'all are talking about, but I have an answer for the "head of a pin" question: The answer is either (1) all of them; or (2) none of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I wasn't asking for commentary on the specific debate that put the idea in my head. Rather, 1) do you think a WP:ANGELS essay about not getting in such debates would be good? and 2) any particular advice about essay-writing? arimareiji (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the issue is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble brewing

I could see the potential for problems, but it all depends on how it is used. I'd prefer not to pass judgement until he's actually done something. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's always tomorrow...

I'm really sorry about you not getting adminship, because you're one of the few users around here that I know who truly deserves it. Your RFA was really a carnage, your qualifications were getting ripped apart simply because you have a sense of humor and they expect you to be a stiff robot in order to be a serious admin. If they want to know what a real "dramamonger" is, they should check out this dude. At least you toe the line with your Jon Stewart type of humour, and even when you cross it, you will apologize before push comes to shove.

File:Pie.jpeg

To cheer you up, Crackthewhip775 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Besides, you look like you need it :). --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pie! In the face! How thoughtful! :) Well, I didn't ask for the nomination, I merely consented to it. If nothing else, it will probably be awhile before I get nominated again. And in the interim, we'll see how many of the critics get excommunicated. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark

There is no unified mythology of Abrahamic religions. However, there are myths associated with the Abrahamic religions and Noah's Ark features in them. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Abrahamic is it? I could've sworn I heard the same story w/Gilgamesh. Soxwon (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Epic of Gilgamesh. The parallels are noted at the end of this section. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got "myths" but you're linking to "mythology". Silly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't he married to Joan of Arc? Soxwon (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And their marriage was a Covenant of the Arks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Harrison Ford conducted the wedding. Soxwon (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And mumbled under his breath, as the rains started to fall, "I have a bad feeling about this." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Joan of Arc is typically referred to in French as "Jeanne d'Arc" or some such, roughly pronounced "Zhawn Darc". And that is sometimes mis-translated as... what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A WITCH! BURN HER! (She turned me into a newt!) Soxwon (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. The one I heard was, "The light's out in the bathroom." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can't be serious. Soxwon (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious, and don't call me Surely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you surly, I reserve that word to describe Ann Coulter during her time of the month exclusively. Soxwon (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not surly. And I thought Ann was on perpetual PMS. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by PMS you mean preaches mundane s*** then yes she does. Soxwon (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least now she knows how the Democrats felt for 12 years - on the outside, looking in. But the pendulum will swing the other way again eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with each swing gets closer to slicing us. Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And dicing us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you shoot the pendulum, it stops swinging." --Mao Zedong Plrk (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Violence is justified in the service of mankind." --Attila the Hun Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love violinse Jack Benny Collect (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manslaughter is a terrible thing, but womans laughter is even worse. Anon. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was from a pastor who pre-ached on Sunday ... Collect (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your Collective wisedom. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance is futile! Plrk (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so far, apparently, so are the efforts of the #Texas Rangers. (Do they have a futility infielder?) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of File:RipkenCert3000.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:RipkenCert3000.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:File:RipkenCert3000.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Plrk (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Rangers

Stating facts is not a violation of neutrality on Wikipedia, but it is stated in the opening paragraph that the team has had struggles throughtout their history, especially in the playoffs. So why do you have to make a a seperate section for playoff futility when you are basically critizing the team. Ositadinma (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This probably belongs on Texas Rangers rather than here, but while I think the section and its content should stay, perhaps a less-pejorative heading that still conveys the meaning might fit better. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

Your opinions appreciated at User:THF/Obama and User talk:THF/Obama. THF (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Baseball Bugs/hidden

User:Baseball Bugs/hidden, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Baseball Bugs/hidden and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Baseball Bugs/hidden during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mrbzns (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the smell of hosiery. Well, let's just say that when you ask a user some probing questions and their answer is a cluck-clucking "assume good faith" comment, that's usually a red flag. Or a Red Stocking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another humor-challenged editor. There's actually some useful content on the page, but luckily I have it backed up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're perhaps the only one of your furry species to have your own personal spa. The guy came aboard, diddled his user page a bit, and hit you with the MfD right off. I noted that in the appropriate place. PhGustaf (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. And it's not even Liebman. Not at this hour. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the main effect of the MfD will be that a whole lot more people know about the page. Maybe you should rename it "erstwhilehidden". PhGustaf (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or "the page formerly known as the hidden page..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←←It's probably just me, but early in the whole thing (the MfD, not the page itself), I saw the argument of WP:NOHARM; and I'm looking at the page titled "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", - now I'm wondering if that means we should avoid using NOHARM argument, or the wp:harmless part, because it does no harm to anything - if we are to avoid using the avoid pages (essay I might add, not policy or guideline) - then how does one avoid something we're to avoid .... Oh for heavens sake, will some one please stop me, I'm slipping in to a dark void with flash-backs of a Harry Mudd episode of Star Trek where robots can't figure out what a lie is... — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC) (note: This user knows the essay in question is not referring to user space - this user also fully expects a "Clinton" comment on the "figuring out a lie" part)[reply]

"...And God says, 'I hadn't thought of that!', and vanishes in a puff of logic." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NOHARM exception, however, is userspace. Collect (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reading that section, coincidentally it suggested part of the answer to another topic. It lists a fictitious user name "Hippocrates2". That's the answer to the question, "What object, and how many of them, did Noah order in order to store the hippos?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hippopotami,

cannot get on a bus,

Because a hippopatami's

two hippopotamus.

But hippopotami,

can ride the mythic ark,

if they're stuffed in great big crates

that are extremely dark.

I'll be here all week. PhGustaf (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T'anks, Allan! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to tip your server (preferably landing on the side) Soxwon (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, like cow-tipping? Or tractor-tipping? Or Tippy Canoe? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Tyler Too! Don't even try to sneak that past me ;). Soxwon (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who comes here is required to have a Hah Tylerence for "corn". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madoff investment scandal

Hate to be the one to break up the mirth, but was I wrong in trying to cut back the Madoff investment scandal page? It seems like an enormous wad of prose. Soxwon (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should summarize the facts, not write a book on the subject. There are lots of folks angry at that guy, and for good reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it's swiftly approching 120 KB. Soxwon (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's over the recommended limit. If the facts are all relevant, is there any way to break it up into sub-articles? (FYI, obviously I have not actually read it. I'm trying to steer clear of hot topics.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BB. That's a good solution. Its important in breaking it up to not bread off items that are pertinent to the scandal (e.g., access to washington, which was originally broken off).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried removing unneccessary info, but I was berated for it. Just to give you an idea of how bad it is, they included a blurb on the poet laureate comparing Madoff's predicament to that of Satan in Dante's Divine Comedy. Soxwon (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he refer to Madoff being on ice? Collect (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doubles over in pain from the pun-ishment that he has just received* Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't they pointed out the obvious? That "he [insert his last name here] with billions"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Letsdrinktea's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lets drink Tea 02:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Baseball Bugs. You have new messages at Yarnalgo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 06:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ANI

[19] I don't know if it was your goal to become the number 1 contributor to ANI, but wasn't one of the suggestions given to you in your recent RFA to take the page off your watchlist? It's unhealthy to spend so much time there and you needlessly drew out that thread much longer than it had to be for what was essentially a non-issue. –xeno (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

Bugs is back! To "Plaxico" the wrongdoers of the wiki!

Seriously, glad to see you return. Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denied

I deny you of retirement! Especially when NWA.Rep is back lol Dengero (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He better stay away from the Delta, or he might get absorbed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Inning Stretch

I suspect this is the seventh inning, and BB is singing "Take Me Out To the Ball Game" ... Collect (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The seventh-inning stretch in a 22-inning game (before inclement weather forces a postponement). Maybe Grady Little will come to his senses and change pitchers. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someday someone should start by singing the song's verse, about Katie Casey, and leave the audience wondering what planet the singer is from. And if it's Ozzie Osbourne, that would work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to further the confusion, sing the 1902 version of Tessie at some game between two National League expansion teams. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might Tess their patience. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yer'right, Bugs. The utmost limit of some NL expansion teams' crowds' patience (enough sssuccessssive sssssibillants fer'ya, Daffy?) would be tessed ^{[folk-contraction of "tempest-tossed"]} merely by staying past the sixth inning. The seats might be empty for the 8th if the singer pressed his/her luck. — Even if the singer were Daniel Rodriguez (NYPD). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except in L.A., where the singer shouldn't take it personally, as the old story is that everybody leaves in the 7th inning anyway. Maybe if they converted the song to a heavy-metal production with laser lights and the volume level set to knock the letters of the Hollywood Sign and stuff like that there, then maybe the folks would stay. Or maybe not: "Been there, done that, yada-yada..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if the singer was Rosanne, at that volume it might knock airplanes out of the sky. That would save a bundle on our military budget. Just record it and ship it over to Afghanistan. Taliban rebels and Bin Laden would surrender immediately: "Make it stop! Make it stop!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which woman would disorient a Talib more: Katie, Tessie or Roseanne? Sounds far more effective (if not more humane) than the amateurish reverse-engineered techniques they tried at GTMO, Bagram and Abu Ghraib. (Although the technique might land somebody at The Hague for war crimes and violations of the Geneva Conventions.) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they used music in their efforts to smoke out some South American dictator (Noriega?) a couple of decades ago. They bombarded his compound with high-volume rock and roll. Or maybe it was Lawrence Welk. I forget which. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bugs, it wasn't Lawrence Welk, it was (bada-boom!!) Manuel Noriega holed up in the Papal Nunciature (= Vatican Embassy) in Panamá City. But heavy metal at physically-intolerable levels was played 24 hours a day to some U.S. detainees according to their own accounts. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. And the ones who liked it, they had to hear Lawrence and the Lovely Lennon Sisters, wunnerful-a, wunnerful-a. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Using a whelk sounds pretty fishy to me. Collect (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissist that I am, I'm working on trying not to be shellfish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to put a whelk to your ear to hear Roseanne Barr, then Uncle Sam's 24-hour, all-heavy-metal/all-the-time/pump-up-the-volume treatment really did destroy your eardrums and auditory nerves. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't know I could do dialects, did you? That was my "Canadian". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-retired

Yes, sports fans, due to an incredibly underwhelming response, I've decided to make a comeback. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YEAH! *wild applause* Soxwon (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back! You had me worried for a while; glad you came to your senses. : ) Doc Tropics 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge, I haven't come to my senses, I've taken leave of them. That's why it's called a leave of ab-sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You went 13:39 without posting to AN/I. I'm impressed. PhGustaf (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record to be broken someday. But since you mentioned cold turkey, that reminds me of a joke by Lenny Bruce that's so dirty I'm ashamed to think of it myself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back bugs. I find it is important to take wiki-breaks here and there to avoid the need to take a permanent vacation. Chillum 02:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome home! Now, don't ever do that again. And if you must do it, don't close off your talk page - I didn't feel comfortable complaining about your retirement while the shutters were down. Now they're up, however... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a scary time. It made me shutter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a green thingy from wormwood -- a leaf of absinthe? Collect (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Leastwise, don't do it after getting creamed in an RfA I started. I honestly did feel bad. Good to see you back. Padillah (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did this for a specific reason that had nothing to do with the RfA. But thank you for your support. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the removal of warnings

Any editor, including IP editors, may remove warnings from their talk pages. They are not Scarlet Letters to be warn forever. If that is your only complaint about the user, I am not sure that is a blockable offense. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is right, people should not be reverted if they are WP:BLANKING their own talk page. However since the IP seems to be on a campaign of vandalism returning to the same article, I've enacted a lengthy block. –xeno (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All good then. Next time BB, focus on the recent vandalism and not on the talk page blanking. It makes the AIV report look like that is your primary complaint, and its an easy complaint to dismiss out of hand. If you focus on the actual vandalism, it makes it easier to investigate and block them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no, you should not return the warnings for "future reference"... Any admin can check his talk page history and find them, should it be necessary... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, anyways. Just keep up the good fight! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke 'em all... nuke 'em all... the long... and the short... and the tall. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni

Hey BB ... since you are an editor whom I respect, and the subject may interest you, feel free to chime in at [20] on my home page. A fellow editor has done good work taking a starting stab putting together a template and standards for "notable alumni" from a AAA baseball team.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery will get you somewhere. OK, I done chimed. Now, aren't you sorry you asked? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty hilarious

I want to thank you for illustrating my point regarding CENSEI on the ANI discussion :) Ray^Talk 14:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might say he got me in-CENSEI-nsed. But I'm all better now. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah :) Welcome back. I didn't know of you before the RfA, but I intend to enjoy reading your stuff from now on. Ray^Talk 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh. The pressure mounts to produce some new material. I'll have to hire some more writers. Or one, even. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought you were violet, I could recommend a writer of the purple sage? Collect (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of a red, white, and blue. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now your interest is flagging? Collect (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just serving my pennants. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I weren't so polite I'd work in a riff on "jack". PhGustaf (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mighty good thing you're polite. I could learn from you. Perhaps you could adopt me. But be warned: I've got "trouble" written all over me. That's what happens when you run into a tattoo artist who used to work for Xerox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Hello Baseball Bugs.

These kinds of comments: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] are not conducive to a collegial working environment. May I suggest that if you wish to discuss politics, there are better places to do it than Wikipedia talk pages?

Regards, henrik•talk 20:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm dealing with a brick wall there anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Figured I'd give you fair warning that I partly plagiarized your page here. Too good an idea to let it pass. Just read it twice. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Achievement Hour

Did you see they told O'Reilly? OH NO, whatever do I do? Seriously though, I was thinking the same things when i saw it, but I like to take a more diplomatic tact, at first at least. Wildthing61476 (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an O'Reilly Factor siege occurs on wikipedia, someone else can deal with it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did they tell him? (I lump O'Reilly into the same group as Franken and Limbaugh, pundits who make the political process unappealing) Soxwon (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Franken's funny, at least. "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me enough to make me a senator! Almost." PhGustaf (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

42 percent of Minnesotans did! Unfortunately for him, 58 percent didn't. Which is why Minnesota currently has only one Senator. Which might not be such a bad thing. Maybe it will start a trend. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce the size of our government Bugs? ... come on now - next you're gonna suggest that our elected officials start acting in a manner that actually represents the wishes of the constituency that put them in office. Before long, you'll be suggesting such ridiculous notions as "responsible spending", and ... dare I say it ... common sense. Bugs, please - grab hold of your senses! What would become of our country? </sarcasm ends>. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 08:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I avoid discussion of O'Reilly, and many other political topics. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 10:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate you for avoiding drama. Especially here, where drama is forbidden. Common sense, you say? Nah. It's the age of cable TV and the internet. Common sense is a dead issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't know what he said though lol. Soxwon (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor I. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←The thread above mine where Bugs mentions it might not be a bad thing that Minnesota have only one Senator => smaller government. I personally feel the US government has gotten too big and spends too much money. To me, a smaller government that spends less money would equate to common sense. Apologies for the poor segue. The reason I don't discuss politics here is because I personally like O'Reilly, McCain, and many of the conservative platforms. In the past it seems (to me at least) that the Democratic party has a tendency to create more government programs, which leads to bigger government, which produces more government spending of our tax dollars. The fact that Bugs and I don't share the same political views doesn't mean that either one of us like our country any less than the other, or that one of us is less patriotic than the other; simply that I'd rather maintain a friendship - than debate political ideologies. I can understand the many feelings of distrust that have grown over the last 8 years, and even admit that Dubya wasn't exactly our "shinning moment". I'll even concede that Limbaugh gets on my nerves with his arrogance and ego - but I still agree with the bulk of "what" he says, (just not the "way" he says it). I respect the views of what many people now refer to as the "liberals", and on occasion will admit that they have valid points. If I normally avoid these types of political threads (along with the religious ones), I feel I have a better chance of maintaining friendships with people even if I don't agree with them on certain topics. I come from a state that thinks Arlan Specter is a republican, and that Ed Rendell is a good leader, so I often have problems with people who are supposed to be sharing the same political values as I do. So, where do we go from here? Have I dug my own grave on a page that often supports what I would consider "my political opponents"? Feel free to grab the shovels boys, and start filling up that aforementioned grave. But I still love my country! — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my 13:38 (UTC) posting was a poor attempt at sarcasm laced humor. Without the voice inflection, it obviously didn't play well. Duly noted for future reference. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blinders on again! I'm not sure which item you're talking about. But "freedom of speech" is fairly free on my talk page. Just try to keep it no worse than PG-rated. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I took your PG-rated hint to heart when I commented at AN/I on Ax's possible banning. Thank you for saving me from doing something foolish. Do note, however, that smilies are against my religion, and you have to figure out for yourself when and whether I'm being sarcastic. PhGustaf (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Steelers

I don't know what the deal with that is. They retired number 70 for Ernie Stautner and haven't done any since. I'm sure they could retire some, but they simply don't let anyone new wear some of them instead. Even if they did start retiring some I would be surprised if they had the fifteen the Yankees do. black ngold29 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know who decides that stuff. The last rumor I heard was that they've had the same trainer handing out numbers to rookies since all the big guys played in the 70s and he just decided not to give out certain ones. That seems plausible, but I haven't been able to confirm it. black ngold29 00:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I wish they could still open it, I believe the remodling has made that no longer possible. It's heyday has gone by, but it's nice to see that its consistently selling out every game. black ngold29 02:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's coming down. Next season will be its last. It was built before the Pens showed up, by that time it already had the nicknamme "The Igloo" which led to the naming of the Penguins. I bet it's the only arena that had a team named for it. I was suprised that they didn't design the new one to resemble that somehow. black ngold29 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about the Arenas, their article says they were named for the "Toronto Arena Co." not sure what they did. I never thought of it like a UFO, though I can see the resemblence. I think the last time it was opened was during a 1995 Beach Boys concert. It has a huge list of tennants over the years. black ngold29 03:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure you've seen the highlights of balls flying into the Allegheny River from PNC, it's literally right there. I bet they have some way to stop it flooding in the event of a major storm. As for drainage, Heinz Field is consistently ranked as one of the worst fields and the players pretty much unanimously love it. So as long as they win on it, I love it too; a little mud never hurt anyone! black ngold29 03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

I changed my mind back and I will retire after all. (from Baseball Bugs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smithton (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{trout}} for not asking for a SPI there.

IP blocked because you're lucky I patrolled AIV ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am forever in your debit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but.... but... but they only made one post, and .. and ... sigh - you're right, guess I'll be having trout for supper tonight. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's talking to me. But it's Friday and it's Lent, so fish works. Maybe some sock-eye salmon? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Retirement? Are your 401(k) and Future Carrot Fund really strong enough to allow you to retire at the tender, young age of 13 yr 6 mo.? (That's 46 years before you can draw without penalty upon whatever might be left of your IRA, and over half a century before you can collect Social Security.) Is your employer still making contributions to the 401(k)? Is your IRA a Roth IRA? And hasn't the IRA retired (decommissioned) anyway (have you checked with Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams and the Provisional Army Command)?

And what's in those accounts anyway? Circuit City? Linens 'n Things? Lehman Brothers? AIG? Cohmad Securities ? AOL Time Warner (of course). Fuddelity Investments? Orange SA?

And don't forget Krispy Kreme. It seemed like a sweet deal at the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely concerned for your future, Bugs. Sincerely —— Shakescene (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He can always be a greeting bunny at Wal-Mart. PhGustaf (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more openings at the Playboy Club? Is Christie Hefner a Concerned Wikipedian? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, isn't that what cottontails are so famous for, instantaneous retirement from view on the slightest provocation or premonition? —— Shakescene (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got that right. Especially when assaulted by socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear of such unfortunate past (if fleeting) encounters with Presidential ~~pets~~companion animals, especially after Socks' sad recent passing at age 18. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the dog that bit the reporter? It was obviously well-trained. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small mammals, I'm very sorry to say, who can't distinguish between canines and felines are not assured of a long life or a comfortable retirement. (Wikilink added above to aid the taxonomically-~~impaired~~ ~~challenged~~ ~~different~~ developing.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that one. So what was the name of the Bush dog that snapped at the reporter? I'm pretty sure it wasn't called Cheney, though it could have been. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Buddy, Bugsy. Oooppps! Right name, wrong President! How quickly we forget! (...the dog that is, not the VP). Neither of us, I fear, will be hosting Today soon — in retirement or not. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could I have lived so long without this invaluable reference? (...and how could it ever have been nominated for deletion?): List of United States presidential pets. It must have been Barney or Miss Beazley who was advancing the long-established Bush-Cheney-Fleischman press policy. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Irrelevantly interjected incitement to criminal activity, but honestly, setting fire to people is fun if you ever get a chance to try it. No, really; stop looking at me like that.]

I'm bored. Quick, let's set fire to someone. HalfShadow 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There shall be no flaming here. Soxwon (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, look for Spike Jones' recording of "My Old Flame". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what thread about flaming would be complete w/o a mention of Ryan Seacrest. Soxwon (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Ortiz

Dunno if you're still watching his page. You might want to comment on my edit there. PhGustaf (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but thanks for pointing it out. Your change from 235 back to 230 seems fair if that's what the semi-reliable sources say. We need to avoid undue weight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I speak to you through two-way radio

I'm Itallian so please don't be racist, but I believe some women are very good at reversing out of driveways. So maybe, you don't need protection from the guy who is up. --Itallian With A Two-Way Radio (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In inglese, per favore? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the post makes no apparent sense, it's more like a one way radio, si? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you're retiring again

See?

Oops, never mind, old message. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's going to open a new store: Socks B Us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rfa

I wouldn't put it as an achievement, I might be annoyed too if I was in his position. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just don't watchlist your RfA. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Thanks for helping me out. Please tell BQZip01 the same. I can't edit his user page now. Axmannate (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been blocked as a sock of User:Axmann8. TN X Man 16:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberals

Please tell me you didn't mean your dig about liberals, and were merely playing to the audience: [27] KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stereotype about liberals that's typically made by conservatives, and he's buying into it himself, so I called him on it - as did the admin who denied his most recent (and presumably final) unblock request. With his page blocked probably for good now, he won't be able to respond to it, but maybe he'll reflect on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think reflection is Ax's forte. His pianissimo, perhaps. Now, his reflexion, perhaps... PhGustaf (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, does this mean Axmann buried himself? HalfShadow 20:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under a piano. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Probably would have been a better joke if his name had been 'Hatchetmann', but this is his fault, not mine...) HalfShadow 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under a grand piano to be precise.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New User

Hey Bugs,

I am going to start off here on wikipedia helping out like you. Let me know where I can help.Hombre ocho del hacha (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you got his very first edit! I may start to get an understanding of the ... the area down below the knees, you know - right there below the ankles - the ahh clothing that one would apply to ones feet ... if I just watch your page long enough. I don't know how the CU folks do things, and I don't think we can do a whois with logged in users. I suspect that if I watch this page long enough, I may learn a bit about a few things though. If I'm out of line for not being better at the AGF, I do apologize - just seems that BB seems to collect more socks than the Brady Bunch clothes hamper. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they're all trolls. If only I could meet a Fox in Socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hombre ocho del hacha? .. I've never done a SPI before, and I'm not really sure of the proper way to go about it. thanks — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 19:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a royal pain, and it's not worth my time. I expect the admins at AIV to do their job with this one, just as they did with his earlier attempt this morning. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC) OOPS, blinders on. I've now gone to that page and added the latest info. I'm not very good with those pages either, but we'll see what happens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His earlier attempt survived for 3 hours and 10 minutes. This one lasted 49. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He gawn. [28] Adios, hombrito. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too clever for words. That translates to "man 8 of the axe." Landon1980 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you were aware of such. Landon1980 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Axmann8...

Wow, I didn't know I had anything in common with that creep... →Dyl @n 620 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I live in Massachusetts, so I don't have to worry about Axmann showing up at my door. :) →Dyl @n 620 01:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, I'd better watch out, then! →Dyl @n 620 01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bugs, that makes me feel all better. 8-{ →Dyl @n 620 01:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too concerned with the fact that he's a self-proclaimed racist, but I am concerned about the way that he's being treated. Everyone deserves their "day in court", if you will, and banning him because he's a racist is not appropriate. Should he be blocked for incivility? Sure. Should he be banned for incivility when his prior offense was general disruption? No. That's all I'm saying. He's made his own bed and he should lie in it and a short block would be appropriate, not indef. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that between 5:40 and 6:11 you had decided that Axmann8 indeed was ready for a long-term block and a ban. He kind of put himself in Groucho's defiant shoes in this dialogue from Duck Soup:

Angry Minister of Finance: "Sir, you try my patience!"

Groucho: "I don't mind if I do! You must come over and try mine sometime!"

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To sit in solemn silence in a dull, dark dock,

In a pestilential prison, with a life-long lock,

Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock,

From a cheap and chippy chopper on a big black block!

— Gilbert & Sullivan, The Mikado

—— Shakescene (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And given the way he's being talked about so much behind (or in front of) his back:

And make each prisoner pent

Unwillingly represent

A source of innocent merriment

Of innocent merriment

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

guinea pig

Thanks for participating in my experiment. You are a gem of a human being. Time for me to move on. Naxenamight (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And the sooner you move on, the better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

experiment? .. experiments on how to get blocked? - working on a lifetime ban? and hardblocks? Bugs, sometimes reading your talk page makes me think so hard I get a headache - got any Advil?

And actually I'd like to thank N-axman-whatever. Following this has taught me a little about socks, SPI, SPA, etc., etc., etc. I'm not really sure who was the guinea pig in this case. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 20:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point. I have plenty of areas I'm lacking in, to be an effective administrator, but dealing with socks is an area I know something about, having had at least 2 years of experience with those types of characters. And you're right, he made himself the guinea pig, so in that narrow sense he performed an educational service. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like the old joke - even if you're worthless otherwise, you can always serve as a bad example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Your question about IP block is a fair one, but as he is autoblocked he must be using different IPs. You could ask a checkuser to consider a rangeblock, but I am very uncertain as to whether he would be thought disruptive enough to justify this. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I am not being intentionally negative, and wholly agree with your concern and frustration. Sockpuppetry will always be with us as long as wikipedia is open to editing by all - which, to avoid misunderstanding, I am totally in favour of. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bugs, I'm trying to get up to speed on all this Sock stuff. I'm curious - I don't see it listed in the SPI report, so I'm asking you. Are CENSCI and Axman8 the same editor? There just seems to be so much in common, from style of editing, to posting to the other's talk page, to political motivations .. just seems to me to be a HUGE coincidence that all this stuff is revolving all around a ... what should I call it - "conservative movement"?. Maybe I should keep my mouth shut, being a conservative and all myself - but then again, I avoid those articles cause it just seems to take soooo much work to get even one sentence accepted into an article. Maybe I'm way off base on the CENSCI Axman connection, but boy the coincidences really seem to jump out at me. Just wondering. And didn't know if you could shed any light on the matter. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 22:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where would I go to ask "officially" about it? .. AN, AN/I, SPI? ... I have to admit, watching your page is certainly educational! Kudos to you for that! — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CENSEI and Axmann8 are the same guy, they're just "kindred spirits". I don't do much SPI stuff, so I'll post a notice on ANI and ask if we did it correctly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone was impersonating axmann after all. There is always a possibility Axmann was behind it though, whether tangentially or directly involved. The editing style was way off though. IMO it was a lonely troll with nothing better to do, or someone with a grudge just trying to cause ax further problems. I guess we will never know who it was or why they did it. If all those socks were related to a registered user the CU should have uncovered that. Would you support an unblock now given these new findings? He was already indef'd, so the only thing tainted is the community ban. I'm still of the opinion that the block will prevent further disruption, and that he more than deserved it. His new comment calling Spanish a "trash language" is further proof he is here for the wrong reasons. He is a disruptive SPA, bottom line. Landon1980 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to unblock at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Bugs, on a different note, your e-mail does not appear to be enabled. Is this intentional? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am of course completely willing to respect your privacy. It's my job (see my userpage). But I did have something which I wanted to say privately, if possible. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must logout now, but will be here this time tomorrow. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My farts smell like tacos...

...and it's making me hungry. I'm slightly worried about this. HalfShadow 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend seeing a doctor right away. If not sooner. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First things first. You have any donuts on you? HalfShadow 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh out. You might want to visit Caspian Blue. I think he's cooking up some sort of duck dish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever hear the joke about the guy who defecated just what he ate? That is, if he had ham and eggs for breakfasts, he would pass intact ham and eggs? PhGustaf (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that joke about Taco Bell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of Luwak Coffee? Soxwon (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, thanks to a movie called The Bucket List. And thankfully I'm not into coffee, and if I was, I wouldn't be any more. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just makes you wonder though, who the hell saw a weasel crap out some berries and thought 'hmm, those look like they would make great coffee?' And more incredibly who the hell would pay that much for processed weasel ~~shit~~ scat? Soxwon (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a scam, a practical joke set up just to see who would bite, er, buy into it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about French roast coffee? "Let's roast these beans until they're charcoal and see who'll buy them. We'll call it French roast; then people will have something else to blame them for." HalfShadow 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like bottled water? (Evian backwards is naive after all) Soxwon (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh from the spring - mud and all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually water straight from the spring isn't bad, Aquafina uses a hose though so I'm not sure about that. Soxwon (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the hose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude if you have them you better be sharing. Soxwon (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I have is tap water. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]