User talk:HuskyHuskie/Archive1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unsourced and no indication of WP:notability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 8 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kankakee Torrent, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Illinois River channel was carved out in a matter of days by the Kankakee Torrent? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank yous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lengthy reply (sorry)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jdsgnbvcxmv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 5, 2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

Eh, I was always gonna be a controversial candidate. Don't let my failure affect your view of the process. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

It's not just the failure of your RfA (NOTE: it was not "your" failure; you should not say "my failure", say, "the failure of my RFA"). Yours was actually the second one I participated in. The other one was just as bad, (though the person was not nearly as deserving nor as mature as you), and I was infuriated that he endured attacks based in his views on religion (and, I suspect, his pride in his sexual orientation), and when he attempted to merely defend himself, he grew flustered, and that was used against him. Everyone expects you to sit there and take the shit heaped on you. I understand wanting someone to stay cool under pressure, but I'd also like someone who can think and reason and express himself under pressure. They want you to go in there and cower, promise to be a good boy, and when they shove shit down your throat, you're supposed to swallow and say, "Thanks for that, old boy; while that isn't the flavor I would have chosen, I can certainly respect your choice of dogshit". Many of the people at RfA remind me of people that I know who became teachers because when they were growing up they were picked on and becoming a teacher allowed them to finally have control over the other kids. Positively pathetic. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Sounds like you'd be at home at WP:RfA reform 2011. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

You should not have removed your question and the candidate's response. If you wished to withdraw it, striking through your question would have been substantially more appropriate, given that: 1) the candidate had already responded and you thus deleted another editor's comments; 2) a discussion of your question exists in the Discussion area; and 3) your removal renumbered the rest of the questions and caused confusion in the voting area. Please see WP:REDACT for additional rationale. Townlake ( talk) 18:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Softening this a bit since it probably came off as terse, I apologize for that... I realize you were only following Catfish and Swarm's advice, but seems to me that they should have been clearer about what the best practice would have been. Learning experience for all of us here, then. Townlake ( talk) 20:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was unfamiliar with WP:REDACT. I've seen writers strike out their comments before, and was always puzzled by it. Now I understand. Sorry to have caused a problem. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 05:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC) reply

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Discuss this

Looks like great minds were thinking alike (and I wasn't paying attention). You suggested the idea of merging the 2007 and 2011 articles into one named "Virginia Tech shootings" on the AfD. I, again not paying attention, come in, click "edit" and suggest the exact same thing right below your post. :) Feel kinda silly, but glad to know there are people who are suggesting the same thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I've had similar experiences. Hope you left your post there; maybe our novel approach could actually be adopted. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 05:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I did leave the post there, so no worries there. I responded to a user who thought we were both suggestion the 2011 shooting be moved not merged to the Massacre page, so I clarified on that on both our parts. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Oregon, Illinois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Hawk ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Can you please give me your help and opinion on a issue now on debate about how to source the Salvation Army stances on life issues. I think I am on the side of reason but I need some other people help and opinion. Regards!.... Mistico ( talk) 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I will try to find some time tomorrow to look into this, but I must first caution you that, at first glance, it appears you may be involved in edit warring on that article. You may want to back off for a day or two; the article will still be here. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 08:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I am out of the article by now. I think I confused some rules about copyright. I simply wanted the article to have more information. Take care. Mistico ( talk) 17:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. I was just about to go look at it right now. Happy New Year to you; see you around. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 00:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

The article Ryan Aplin has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 14:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC) reply

If you created the article, please don't be offended.

Offended? Hardly. The guy's a choker, and really doesn't deserve an article. Go ahead and delete it. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Your logic in this edit is in error, although it's an understandable error. You say, "American" is not a language, "English" is. And of course, you are correct. But that is not the point. The box indicates what the official language is. And many years ago, the Illinois General Assembly did indeed pass a bill designating American as the official language of our state. Were they linguistically correct to do so? Of course not. But it doesn't matter; if they say the official language of the state is "Muppet", and the governor signs it, then Muppet is the official language, period.

Having said that, I won't be reverting your edit. Why? Because the law designating American as the official language has since been repealed. So you did the right thing, even if you did so in ignorance. My purpose with this post is just to expand your thinking a bit. See you around! HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for your explanation and the lesson in Illinois politics. I had no idea the GA would be so, ahem, silly as to declare a non-language to be the state's official language, so I just assumed the edit was vandalism and perhaps even a bit racist/anti-immigration, especially since a reference was removed in the process. I'm glad someone with a deeper knowledge of Illinois politics is watching the article! -- Andrew (User:90) ( talk) 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I was very young when I learned this in school, so my understanding was likely shaped by my elders' comments at the time, but I believe it was part of a whole anti-communistic, semi-xenophobic, & megapatriotic sentiment. It's not well-remembered today, and frankly, if all I had to go on were my childhood memories, I'd wonder if it had actually happened. But I know it did, because I do remember when it was repealed; made the news for a day or so. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey HuskyHuskie. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Would you mind explaining what was your motivation for this? HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I changed the font of "I" is because capital "I" and lower case "L" look the same in the original font. So to prevent confusion, a font change is better IMO. Derek Leung LM 04:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you stopped by and answered my question. I still don't agree with what you did, but I encourage you to discuss the matter with other editors. In consulting with them, try to determine

1. If other editors concur that the concern you mention is, indeed, a problem that needs addressing, and
2. if your proposed remedy is the way to address it.

The key is to try to obtain consensus. Thanks. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Please do not blank articles. I added an update tag to Reception of the iPad, not a nomination for deletion. If you want it deleted, then take it to WP:AFD. Acps110 ^{( talk • contribs)} 01:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Done. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply

What is your current opinion of the article? IMO, there are too many SPS and not enough reliable secondary sources asserting notability. Viriditas ( talk) 02:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, I hadn't looked at that article in quite a while. So I just pulled up all the sources currently on it, and wow--you're right, the dearth of sources on that is amazing. Basically there's self-published sources, fellow conservative sources, and local softball sources. I'm not a big fan of tagging, but you're quite correct to have done so in this case.

Having said all that, I will say that I now believe her notability is adequate for an article, so I would not support deletion. But how this woman can be on CNN regularly (how often? I don't know, I don't watch CNN or Fox, I'm a Science Channel/ESPN kind of guy) and not be written about in better sources? Maybe it's my age and I just don't get the blogosphere. (Actually, that I don't get the blogosphere is a certainty, not a maybe. But maybe I don't understand how a person can be famous just due to blogging.) But here's the upshot, while I'm flattered that an editor who has reached his eleventy-one thousandth edit has approached me for my opinion (for reasons that totally elude me), unfortunately, I don't really have much skin in this article. Once upon a time I looked it up to learn something, found some stupid editing had been done, and then (in my opinion) fixed it up; but I have so little interest in this woman that it was not until after your post and my subsequent reading of the sources that I learned how to pronounce her last name (I was reading it wrong).

If you have any actions you would like me to undertake, I am open to suggestion, but I do so little editing that I may not be the best vehicle for improving this. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

The article Jeff Diamond has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

No offense taken. I've added a source; if that's good enough, fine, if not, well, I'm not going to cry about it. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

For the added sources. Appreciated! -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

PS: By the way, once you've added at least one reliable source to an article with a BLPPROD, you are welcome, btw, to remove the tag yourself. I'm happy to do it, but sometimes it's nice to get that "deletion template off that page" feeling immediately. I took care of it at the article in any case. Cheers, -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello HuskyHuskie. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I modified the sentence of grafting into two, but only put my suggestion on the talk page. What do you think? Blackash have a chat 13:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi HuskyHuskie I"ve replied to your comment at the talk. In short your suggested sentence works. Blackash have a chat 10:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm quite puzzled about this edit. While I see you changed it to a bulleted list, I don't see what change it created on the actual template. Could you explain this to me? Thanks. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

It's an internal code change that isn't intended to change the way the template appears on screen. It is a (relatively--not sure how recent)(OK, near as I can tell, discussion began about a year ago, with implementation in November, with some final issues resolved in the past few weeks) new standard many people are converting templates to (EG this user or this other user or this one), for increased accessibility (specifically screen-readers for the visually impaired), as stated (albeit very briefly--EG it doesn't specifically explain that the data must be one-per-line--although I've actually previously also seen pre-hlist templates done one-per-line as it arguably makes it easier to find things in the code, especially if there are lots of dense sections) at WP:HLIST. Hope that makes sense. 71.197.244.119 ( talk) 05:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Makes perfect sense. Thanks for explaining. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 16:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited 1977 Chicago Loop derailment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Loop ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

For the Geography Barnstar. Thanks, man! Maxtremus ( talk) 02:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You're quite welcome. I appreciate what you have contributed. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		It takes a person with an enormous amount of of intergrity to post an apology, so I'd like to show my appreciation by awarding you the Barnstar of Integrity. Apologies on Wikipedia rarely happen so you certainly deserve this barnstar. Thank you kindly. 64.40.57.160 ( talk) 04:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Please don't change the indenting of other person's posts, such as you did with this edit. My post in this section was not directed at you, as your changed indenting would indicate, but at the original poster. Nageh ( talk) 10:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I am not going to deny that I have been known to get "hot under the collar" - however that certainly wasn't the case withyour recent edits which I thought were basically reasonable except that they bypassed and ongoing discussion that apparently you hadn't noticed. I have no animosity against you whatsoever - i am saving that for the nincomboobs. ;) I hope you'll be joining in the discussion on the talkpage so that we can find the best way to represent the complex topic based on the best sources available. Happy editing, I'm looking forward to seeing you around. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 19:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Ah I see you noted specifically my interaction with Academica Orientalis. He and I have a long history together - not at all pleasant. I don't generally react to most editors like that - but I am not able to assume good faith from him, based on experience. He basically turned up at that talkpage as part of an arbcom case in which we were both involved the one on ( Race and Intelligence (a hot topic if there ever was one)). I try to limit my interactions with him as much as possible but sometimes it is unavoidable or he follows me around. His request for page numbers may sound reasonable but coming from him it isn't. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 19:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict)

Oh, to make myself clear, in no way did I feel that you became heated with me--I thought your comments to me were completely civil--and even exemplary--of how one should handle a editor (such as myself ) who walks unknowingly into a maelstrom. No, I was simply referring to your interaction with some of the other editors (don't remember names), and it just made me wonder if I need to get involved.

No, no offense was taken. I'm just being a bit cautious. Hopefully I'll be back around next weekend. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 19:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have noticed, via watchlist, that you have been engaged in commentary with User:Erpert at his/her talk page. They have asked you to leave them alone, yet you persist in poking them with a stick. Regardless of how "nice" your tone is, this is uncivil behavior, and could be considered harassment. I suggest you stop. Taroaldo ( talk) 20:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Meh. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 00:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Even more embarasing than misspelled "education" are 281 "Univeristy" Tabletop ( talk) 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm just glad we have sticklers like you around. If my life depended on proper spelling, I would have died more than a half-century ago. Thanks! HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply

also 101 "universtiy" !!!

I am humbled by the barnstar. Thank you very much. Truthanado ( talk) 23:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You are most welcome. I really appreciate your superior understanding of English. By the way, I came across another of your edits after the barnstar. Different issues were involved, but it further confirmed for me your skill with language. Keep up the good work. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 23:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Could you give your opinion about this edit here? Ron 1987 ( talk) 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Grand Theft Football, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SGMD1 ^Talk/ _Contribs 17:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Fail Mary, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SGMD1 ^Talk/ _Contribs 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) reply

You know, I don't think I get pissed off very easily. But you just managed to do it. You're accusing me of vandalism? I had to look up what the G3 criteria was for CSD. I wasn't mad about the CSD--I'm well aware that I'm far from well-versed in Wikipedia policies, so when I saw that I had messages and came to my talk page and saw the speedy delete notice, I was neither shocked nor upset. But when I found out that you categorized my entry as vandalism, hell, yes, I was pissed off.

I don't blame you if you don't follow the NFL enough to have heard the many times that night (and in the days afterward) that that play was referred to as the "Fail Mary". But I've been editing here for something like five years, and I don't think I've ever had anyone accuse me of being a vandal. I've certainly never been blocked, of that I'm certain. So you don't do any investigating, you just think that because you've never heard of something, that it must be vandalism.

Well, maybe you should just Google "Fail Mary", friend. No, that's right, I forgot, you're too lazy to research--you shoot first, and don't bother with questions. That's okay, let me Google it for you: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]:No, they're not all reliable sources (though some are), they're just the ones that came up on the first page.

So now, let me ask you, if someone from one of these sources hears about this "Fail Mary" play, just where are they supposed to go? Did you know we actually have an article on that particular game? And that the only reason that article exists is because of that play? Don't you think someone might search for "Fail Mary"? Is there any harm that accrues from the existence of that redirect? Are you ready to apologize for labeling me a vandal? HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

"Fail Mary" is a neologism, and I direct your attention to WP:NEO. It differs from previous football related neologisms like Immaculate Reception and Music City Miracle because it is not the widely accepted nickname for the play, and as such cannot be used as the title for the article. SGMD1 ^Talk/ _Contribs 07:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Upon reading WP:RNEUTRAL, I realize I am wrong. Sorry. SGMD1 ^Talk/ _Contribs 07:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I see that I failed to make clear my central point. I have/had no beef with your belief that the redirect should be removed per policy; I am a complete policy ignoramus and am always the first to acknowledge I know less than pretty much anyone else.

My point was that I am NOT a vandal, and you slandered me by using a deletion criterion that categorized my edit as the work of a vandal (or hoaxer, if I recall correctly). I am a legitimate editor, and presume you are the same, and would not so capriciously label another editor as you did me without taking the time to examine their history. I did not want an apology because you erred on application of policy, but because you were an ass in the way you dealt with me. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 15:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Personally attacking me isn't really the best way to garner an apology. SGMD1 ^Talk/ _Contribs 15:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

First of all, if one has to strategize and/or negotiate to obtain an apology, it hardly means anything, does it? Secondly, I see that you're still (remarkably) missing the salient point: this entire episode started when you made a personal attack on me. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fail Mary. Since you had some involvement with the Fail Mary redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). SGMD1 ^Talk/ _Contribs 07:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey, HuskyHuskie. You have been randomely chosen to please help contribute to my WikiProject. This WikiProject is about different cultures. If you can take some time and help contribute to it, that would be very nice of you. I am starting this project this week and would like to finish by next week. Please help me with this project. Thank you very much. Please answer on my talk page because I might not be able to keep track of who is contributing and who is not. I would like you to also share your culture. If you can give me a little summary about your culture such as, foods, lifestlye, holidays, traditions, e.t.c, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. So if you would wish to contribute, please reply on MY talk page. Happy edits! Have a great day! Please answer on my talk page in the section, Volunteers. Reply there. DEIDRA C. ( talk) 19:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply

The German wikipedia references a single notable alumnus of NIU - Robert Zemeckis. As I am breaking ground in producing a Lithuanian version of the article, I would like to ask for your help: is Zemeckis' affiliation a rumor or reality? Thank you in advance, Ttk371 ( talk) 07:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Not true, as far as I know. While he grew up fairly close (at least, to someone from Europe, I'm sure it seems close), I believe he went to college in California. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Just a note on European perspective on distances: what is a close, commuting distance in the context of the United States is a matter of a well-planned long trip in Europe. Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium and other otherwise known European countries are roughly the size of Delaware or West Virginia, often making an equidistant trip from Chicago to Champaign an international trip in Europe. Ttk371 —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you see my post here 3 weeks ago? CTF83! 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry, CT, I don't know how I missed this post of yours. I've looked at the talk page--were you wanting me to comment on the bridge issue? HuskyHuskie ( talk) 17:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC) reply

No, the notable citizens section. CTF83! 01:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply

One of the places you could have gone for the information about your interface would have been the village pump, particularly the technical forum Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). but glad you got your question answered! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sugar Bowl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Bowl ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't work categories; heck, I don't use them or even understand them. What's more, I don't care about them. Yet you piqued my curiosity with this edit: I'm truly curious--is it standard practice to add non-existent categories to articles? HuskyHuskie ( talk) 06:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Well it makes even less sense to create a category that does not yet have any articles. Sometimes if you only have one article that fits and you are working on other things it does not really feel worthwhile to go and create the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm really happy you enjoyed Rollstone Boulder. I've been having a few issues with unpleasantness of other editors, so your kind words and star have gone along way to renewing my faith in this project. Thanks again! -- Found5dollar ( talk) 06:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

It was something I would never have learned about anywhere else, but what is more, it was just really uniquely interesting. I would have loved to have been there when they took off the band and expected it to fall apart! Cool tale. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 05:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Unofficial sources

• some kind of real estate entity
• some political website
• Downstate Management Association

Happy editing, HuskyHuskie ( talk) 07:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for providing those links that seem to include DeKalb in the category of downstate. Having gone to school at NIU and having lived in DeKalb for five years, and continuing to be a regular visitor to the area, I have never heard DeKalb referred to as being "downstate". At the same time, I never heard anyone refer to it as a suburb of Chicago either. While it is technically part of the Chicago metropolitan area (a designation based primarily on commuting & economic patterns), DeKalb seems to be kind of a grey area to me. It is sort of linked to the western suburbs of Chicago, sort of also linked to Rockford, yet it is also very independent. Based on its loose connection and proximity to the Chicago suburbs (and also now technically part of the Chicago metropolitan area), I thought it was a bit of a stretch to consider it part of downstate, but the number and diversity of references you have provided seem to indicate that enough entities classify it as downstate to permit inclusion. Thanks for the info and happy editing to you as well. Abog ( talk) 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your generous attitude. When I read your post, I immediately did a Google search and pasted those links above as the first ones I came across. But after my posting, I did some more searching--anticipating that there would be a plethora or supportive sources, but there were not as many as I wanted. I was most disappointed that I could not find any direct references in the Chronicle to DeKalb as "downstate" (though there were some indirect references, where the paper was citing someone else's usage). I know that when I was "in the newspaper business" (I delivered the Daily Chronicle--then called the DeKalb Daily Chronicle--back in the 60s) the editorial policy was one of pride in being one of the more important downstate papers (a delusional concept, to be sure, but it's how they presented themselves). Today, from my research yesterday, I realize that they clearly want to position themselves as a part of the CMA. So I'm starting to realize that I'm probably behind the times; I left the area some years back, and maybe I've assumed to much.

So, despite your kind words, intellectual honesty forces me to accept that DeKalb probably is in a grey area, as you say. So I'm now okay with your edit that I reverted, if that's still okay with you. I appreciate the opportunity to edit alongside of someone with your temperament. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

However, the federal government can be damned, I still will NOT accept that Kishwaukee College is a "suburban Chicago college" as some have tried to do, just because it's (barely) within DeKalb County. It's still in the middle of a friggin' cornfield, for pete's sake. 02:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read up on WP:VANDAL; the IP editor using the word "raid" was not "deliberating attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Saying "F*ck off vandal" in that instance isn't conducive to civil editing and causes needless antagonism. In other words, better to WP:AGF than to attack someone for their edit. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

zdfgadgr 76.106.149.108 ( talk) 14:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello HuskyHuskie,

I am requesting input from all participants in the discussion from the recent Signpost article on sexism in Wikipedia for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams#Proposed change: consistency in article title gendering. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst ( talk) 21:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Further to your question at T:MP, there are two elements to the TFA selection process. People can nominate articles at WP:TFAR, and then the nominations are discussed. There's a points system for nominations intended to give priority to articles in underrepresented topics, articles from first-time FA writers, articles that are "more important" based on a crude metric of how many other-language Wikipedias cover the topic, and so on. As the only currently active TFA scheduler, I take suggestions from that page (mostly, but not always, for the days suggested) and then fill in the gaps with my own choices, trying (and sometimes even succeeding!) to maintain a balance of interests and articles on the main page. Hope this helps. Do feel free to add WP:TFAR to your watchlist and pop by sometimes to see what's happening, perhaps adding some comments or even a suggestion of a featured article that could be run - the more the merrier! Best wishes, Bencherlite ^Talk 14:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lazarus comet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lazarus ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 22:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Fixed. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 20:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tawana Brawley rape allegations may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• including the Reverend [[Al Sharpton]] and attorneys [[Alton H. Maddox]] and [[C. Vernon Mason]]).<ref>Edwin Diamond. ''The Media Show: The Changing Face of the News, 1985-1990'', Cambridge,

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I've looked, and I don't see any problems. If I missed it, I don't mind someone else correcting it. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 21:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC) reply

The close bracket after "mason" was not opened earlier in the text. I have removed it, as the article reads fine without. Philip.t.day talk 19:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I see you have been involved in the article Amsterdam_(VOC_ship). There is currently a discussion at: Location Co-ordinates discussion which I believe you might wish to add to, on the location used in the infobox.

Thanks Philip.t.day talk 19:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you, but no interest. I was only there to lay some piping. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:BRD states, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." If you have a concern, please log it on talk. Otherwise, I think my revision should stand. — Eustress ^talk 04:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Wow, I don't know if I'm reading you wrong, but you really seem to be overreacting, my friend. Look, I just came here to look up some content--haven't even checked my watchlist--so if you want to restore your edit for now, I don't think it's a big deal, go ahead and do it. When I have some time, I'll raise the matter on the talk page, for a nice, civil discussion. Be cool, okay? HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, I see you didn't wait to hear back from me, you just reverted me as soon as you saw my edit. What really rankles me (and disappoints me as well, given that every time I've seen you in the past you have always appeared so reasonable, even kind) is that when I did my edit, I left an unambiguously civil edit summary, paying respect for your position and inviting you to discussion. Then you come here and leave a message that can be inferred as an accusation of capricious editing and even edit warring. And then you go and revert me without waiting even a couple of hours for me to reply. So who the heck is "edit warring"?

Look, I see that you've done some major work on the article, and maybe you are feeling some time pressure that I don't know about. Fine--I'm sure you've made some great improvements. But if you give a shit what anyone else thinks, just know that this is one editor who feels like someone just spat in his face. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I see now that you at least did start a section on the U of I talk page, and that is certainly somewhat mollifying. I still think you could've waited for my reply to your post, and just as importantly, I don't think you needed to take such a strident tone in your post to my talk page. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Husky, you are asked to join the talk on Talk:West Central Conference (Minnesota) about the importance of the article and if there are any sources with information other than the official website. BryceJorgensen ( talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC) reply

ฉันพอจะมีวิธีกู้คืนซอร์ฟแวร์ทั้งหมดกับให้กับมาทั้งหมดจะได้ไหมครับ Offwikipedia ( talk) 00:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

ถ้าได้ฉันควรจะทำอย่างไรครับและฉันควรจะทำอย่างไรถึงจะไม่ให้แก้ไม่ให้ลบออกได้อีกครับ Offwikipedia ( talk) 00:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonathan Chevreau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Chevreau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat ( talk) 14:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC) reply