User talk:PAVA11: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:16, 3 November 2008

This is the user talk page for Grsz11, where you can send messages and comments. Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I will reply to messages left here on here unless you request I reply on your talk page.
Also note, I automatically archive my talk page using MiszaBot. Any topics older than three weeks will be sent to the archives.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAVA11.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 2008: Jan–Feb, March, April, May–Sept, Oct

Re: Pens

We were discussing how to go about that over at Talk:List of current NHL captains and alternate captains#Penguins alternate captains. I think, as on that list, we should only put Orpik and Malkin as they are the only two who have actually worn the A during a game. Black ngold29 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was hoping to work on Mellon Arena eventually, but sources will probably be harder to come by. Pens didn't look to good the other night, hopefully they can get better tomorrow. Black ngold29 16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ziggy

I don't know, I don't have Versus, I got Lange though. That certainly seems like an obvious mistake, the trade was on NHL.com's front page for two or three days. Stiegerwald (I can't spell) had an interview on WDVE this moring and he said Versus sometimes says stuff because they don't follow a team everyday like most announcers do. I hope they can pull this one out, these division games are big. Black ngold29 01:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably it. He was on waivers Oct 1 before he could go to the AHL. That was probably it. Either way, he's doing awesome. Grsz ^X 01:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These OT games are OK, atleast we get a point, but when it's against a division opponent even if we win it's like a half win. Black ngold29 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not to knowledgeable about the various Pittsburgh regions, thanks for that. Good game last night eh? Black ngold29 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply2

See my talk page for a reply. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look at Idlewild

Congratulations on what at first glance looks like big improvements to the article. I'll take a closer look tomorrow (Thursday), and I may have more suggestions. I see some minor c/e issues such as missing en dashes in date ranges and page ranges that I can probably fix in less time than it would take to write notes about them. Since I'm taking an extended c/e holiday, I won't do a full c/e, but I'll probably fix a few minor things. More later. Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I couldn't resist doing some c/e. If you don't agree with any of my changes, please revert. In addition, I added a few more suggestions to the peer review page. The article is much more interesting than before. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

I'm sorry that QuackGuru was giving you a hard time. See my message to QuackGuru here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coppertwig. It was rather annoying. He was just going on about bad faith or something and then some other guy came in an asked for my rollback to be removed. Oh well, nobody is buying his story, so it's all good. Grsz ^X 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Country

Hi Grsz. I responded at my talk page. Please comment on the article's talk page or address me wherever the debate takes place, but, on the other side, please respect my reasons as well. I found your message a bit over-the-top provided the circumstances (move is based on google impacts, not on personal opinions and a notice was made prior to the move, without any comment from anybody). Mountolive _{le déluge} 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz ^Review! 03:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block Query

Hello, I recently took notice of your warning towards the user AZT2008, and just recently I have had to move the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article and the Methodism article from vandalistic titles that were added by the user. So, I was wondering if either of these edits occured before or after your warning towards the user. If after, then I think you know what I'm getting at. Jason (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look, but hasn't he warranted an indef block anyways? Grsz ^Review! 01:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rays

I actually kind of like the Sox, but they've won so much recently I was definatley pulling for TB and I will root for them in the WS. The fans down there don't deserve it, but the organization does. And anything to make Flyers fans angry, I support. Black ngold29 03:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quieter tonight, I missed most of last night's game because of various discussions. Hopefully all will be OK for the rest of the series. Pens did well, awesome game. Black ngold29 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Using fact tags is one option, but policy ("Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." emph added) supports removal as well, in fact before suggesting the option of fact tags, and so it is opinion that fact tags are a better option.-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can cultural references in an episode of Family Guy be challenged? My point is yes it's obviously OR, but it's not like it was made up or damaging like say, unsourced portions of a BLP. Grsz ^Review! 04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can be challenged to show that their interpretations of sources and targets of parody are valid and supported by a third party's analysis and not WP:OR on the part of a Wikipedia editor. "Challenge" is no where limited to BLP issues, although it is there where it MUST be enforced most emphatically.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not edit warring to remove vandalism - which the removal of fact tags without providing sources is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though removal of sections of text that aren't vandalism is. Grsz ^Review! 03:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennywood

It may well still exist, but I need a proper citation. I'm not really sure what to do at this point, I'll think about it. Star fox Roy 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apparent 3RR claim?

With as few edits as I have in Sarah Palin, and considering the nature of my edits, I do not feel that this is in any way an "edit war" -- note that I consistently post in Talk:Sarah Palin, asking for consensus, and ask the other party to post in talk, and also post on that users talk page to go to Talk. The new user in question (Speaker1987) is an interesting case now well past 4RR to be sure. Note the others who also reverted his strange edit. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (delayed)[reply]

Goodbye

I have just one question for you. Are you the anon editor from MIT who is logging out, commenting, then logging back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSW-red sox win (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I went to MIT, wouldn't I have better things to do with my time? Grsz ^Review! 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. I just was curious. One IP traces back to MIT, and almost immediately you message me. So you see the basis for the connection. But, I digress.RSW-red sox win (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Looking off the page

It's not a big deal, just something that usually comes up at FAC. :-) Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EntertainU's User Page

Why did you delete the video and gaming content on my userpage? I see no one else that has it getting tagged for it! I've seen at least ten users have stuff like that. I'm busy and finding this for you was the only thing I had time for. Click that, and tell me why he's not getting tagged. I would rather you have a reply on my talk page. Thank you and Happy editing. --i-am-entertainU (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Wikipedia pages aren't the same as linkspam to YouTube. Grsz ^Review! 02:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

Hello. Normally, I wouldn't be concerned about a sandbox edit, but this should be brought to your attention. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. What a funny guy. Grsz ^Review! 05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I turned my back for one second and there he went again. As long as it got dealt with anyway, I'm glad :) ~ Troy (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

That is only if i revert the same user adding the same stuff 3 times, not different users and different unsourced CRs. CTJF83Talk 01:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misinterpreting. "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material" (emphasis added) Grsz ^Review! 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When and why did it change to what it is, from what it use to be "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."? Who decided it needs to be changed, I think the new stuff is crap! CTJF83Talk 01:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean any different, you're just reading in incorrectly. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." This states that undoing an edit of one editor, and undoing an edit by another both count as reverts, and that right there would be two. Grsz ^Review! 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, if I get blocked for rvting the addition of unsourced material, then I get blocked...in my opinion, by a poor admin. I assume, again, you warned me, as to not get me blocked, thanks if that is the case. CTJF83Talk 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common misinterpretation, and people argue that all the time. The best thing to do now is just tag them and wait until things calm down. I'm sure you won't be given any trouble. Grsz ^Review! 01:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the page is protected, so there shouldn't be many problems. CTJF83Talk 01:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

May I ask why you did this? A typo perhaps? Mww113 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than reposting, just trying to get an answer about your false accusations. Grsz ^Review! 03:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I missed that. In regards to your question, I seemed to misinterpret the difs that I cited. Nothing to worry about, and I apologize for any inconvenience. Cheers! Mww113 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer174

Ack, why am I not surprised? Thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye on them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

World Series

Can I asked why you removed that info? It's been in the article since the beginning and is properly referenced. It was announced by MLB and by the candidate. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a set start time for every game? The article makes no such mention. Therefore you cant say it will be delayed if you dont say when it's suppose to start. On top of that, it's WP:CRYSTAL. Grsz ^Review! 03:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All games of the World Series, if there is no delay, start coverage at 8pm EST. Also, per WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we had a discussion on the talk page regarding the numbers; if you'd like to participate, please do; however, I'm reverting that edit as well, per the talk page. Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page discussions cant overrule a Wikipedia policy, thanks. Grsz ^Review! 04:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicussion where? Talk:2008 World Series#As recommended? I see three editors discussing, and two of them say spell it out. Grsz ^Review! 04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one of them is me. I changed my tune. We are going to be taking this for a peer review in prep for GA, so if it's a problem then, we'll catch it then. Until then, though, the other editor in the "active" box and I have decided to follow the other postseason articles' conventions. In addition, talk page discussions and consensus can ovveride policy if there's a reason, per WP:IAR. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SJ

Tell me about it. If one team goes up big, I might go to sleep. For some reason I don't see that happening though. SJ is a good team, Pens better be ready. Black ngold29 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name

Hey Grsz11 - thanks for the revert and comment. I thought (wrongly) that Obama's middle name was being unduly emphasized for political purposes, but I see now McCain's middle name is here too, and there was a discussion about it in the Talk page (where I should've checked first). Sorry for the hassle, and happy editing to you! - FlyingToaster 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hey Grsz. In the future, consider leaving a custom edit summary when reverting established users. FT responded nicely, but I know of many, many people who will take your head off for doing that. Just a heads up. Cheers! J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You
For reverting the trolling on my talk page. A simple act of kindness in the midst of the daily brouhaha was much appreciated. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I tried to find what he was referring to, but obviously could not. Grsz ^Review! 15:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Belize
Now in your sandbox. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008
You should know that what you cut from the United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008 wasn't OR. Your edit summary said "without polls, who knows it tightened." Did you even look at the sources? [Murtha Race Tightens After 'Racist,' 'Redneck' Remarks http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/murtha-race-tightens-racist-redneck-remarks/] cites a Susquehanna Poll, sponsored by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. So, we have a WP:RS saying that the race has tightened and has evidence to back it up. If you the poll is wrong, feel free to add a WP:RS. But, to be realistic, I am willing to let this slide until after the election, but we should work together on the article afterward. I also contested your prod of Lou Barletta and, per policy, placed my reasons on the talk page.--HoboJones (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep Thompson, simply because, barring some unforeseen electoral surprise the likes of which we have never seen, he is going to win. I don't know how much you follow politics, but this district is up in the T. There's no point in deleting an article that will (with 99% certainty) have to be recreated on Tuesday. I'm going to decline that prod and tag it with NPOV. McCracken, I can take or leave. He will (with 99% certainty) lose, but he might have notability as a county commissioner. I'll let that prod go, and if someone wants to, they can save it. Thanks, and I look forward working on the election articles with you.--HoboJones (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full Protection of Candidate's Bios
Hi Grsz, Please express your opinion in the discussion at "Should the election bios stay fully protected through the election": [[1]] Thanks, IP75 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vice president
Actually both are partly true. Abdulai Osman Conteh was the First Vice President and Joseph B. Dauda the Second Vice President. See Vice President of Sierra Leone Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe Conteh was first in command, so officially it would have been Conteh at the start until he went into exile. Regards Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rmv balanced budget bit. suffers from horrendous recentism and undue weight)
Thanks for the fix, I'm embarrassed. Didn't realize this was in error. --VictorC (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re
Thanks for the note, I will read the reply, I have no 'follow up' or extra questions. Hobartimus (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attack the comment not the editor.
I do not take personal attacks lightly and this editor has done so to me on other occasions. [edit] was an attack on me and my wikipedia knowledge. It was not constructive and I added a warning template to that users page. If that user attacks me again, I will add another and so on. I hope it never needs to get that far. Another editor has accused me of using the talk page as a forum, so I added the appropriate template to that user's talk page, since my use of the Obama talk page was solely based on whether or not the page should be locked, which was the heading of the section to begin with. Disagreeing with my template additions is your right. But I was not sure if you knew why they were added, so I am letting you know now.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that wasn't an attack. And WP:DTTR. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have considered that an attack, but I did. I do not appreciate other editors using humor as a jest or to prove some point at the expense of others. It was not civil nor was it productive. As for WP:DTTR, I personally feel that wikipedia policy trumps essays that are not policy. And that editor has been told to lay off the attacks before, which makes LOL, are you new? sound even more like an attack, because he knows perfectly well that I am not.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, responding to an editor joking about you possibly not understanding wikipedia ettiquette by leaving him a message that doesn't really follow wikipedia ettiquette isn't really the best way to make friends and influence people. Dayewalker (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, but this is a user talk page and not a discussion page. I was refering all of my comments to user Grsz11. If you would like to hold a conversation with me, please do so on my talk page, as it is not fair to this user whose talk page you are using to voice opinions about something you were not involved in. I'm sorry Grsz11 that that happened to you.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt Grsz11 will mind. Any editor can comment on anything on wikipedia. If you want to hold a private discussion with someone, see if they'll email you. Otherwise, everyone's comments are always available for discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing that discussion
I wanted to get a second opinion on closing the discussion down on the talk page. Usually, I'm very much against that type of action, however, it just wreaked of attracting trolls and further disrupting the article. Obviously, this article doesn't need anymore disruption. Anyways, I just wanted to get your opinion. Regards, Digital^Ninja 21:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one on interest groups? Closing it would be no problem. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. It has been closed. Additionally, I'm going to be creating some articles this afternoon. If you're going to be around, I might ask for some formatting help with pictures. If your busy, no worries :) Digital^Ninja 21:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing my help request. The citation I'm referring to his this one: ref name="CZUB">"CZ 2075 RAMI". CZUB.COM. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |access date= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help). It is number 4. The web address won't show up. Also, under the "Safety Features" section, the "edit" button appears superimposed over the text. I'm having a hard time with that as well. Thanks!! Digital^Ninja 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just didn't have the url field for cite 4. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, you fixed it! Thank you!! Do you think it is ready to be moved to mainspace yet? Digital^Ninja 01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. I would say keep a copy in your userspace for the time being, but it is certainly acceptable. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic Airlines
Many thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback

Hello, PAVA11. You have new messages at Ctjf83's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I added more since the talkback tag. CTJF83Talk 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you have my page watched...but do you IRC chat...It makes life easier! CTJF83Talk 05:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.
Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth
"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ctjf83" does not exist.
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)

@@ Line 238: / Line 238: @@
 :: I added more since the talkback tag. <font face="papyrus">[[User:Ctjf83|'''<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">T</font><font color="#ffff00">J</font><font color="#009900">F</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>''']][[User Talk:Ctjf83|Talk]]</font> 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 ::: Not sure if you have my page watched...but do you IRC chat...It makes life easier! <font face="papyrus">[[User:Ctjf83|'''<font color="#ff0000">C</font><font color="#ff6600">T</font><font color="#ffff00">J</font><font color="#009900">F</font><font color="#0000ff">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>''']][[User Talk:Ctjf83|Talk]]</font> 05:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
+== Sockpuppetry ==
+{{sockpuppet|Ctjf83}}