User talk:Croctotheface

milbury edit

the stats that u removed are in no way connected to the shoe article. the shoe article is nonbiased and a accurate account of a well known piece of hockey history. it is not intended to create a negative image of milbury but simply detail an incident that many people would like to know. because few reaccounts of the event exist this shoe incident has become a piece of hockey legend that i am trying to clarify. leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milburyshoe (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats don't generally go into articles on people who are more famous as coaches/managers/broadcasters. However, had you just added the stats, I may not have reverted. The shoe incident is already mentioned, with appropriate weight (see WP:Undue weight), and your version overwhelms the article. Croctotheface (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Milbury's article needs more information about him, not less. If you would like to add more information about milbury to make the detailed description of the shoe beating blend in better than feel free to do so. Also, it is common practice to place the stats of a professional athlete in their bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milburyshoe (talk • contribs)

You seek to draw WP:Undue weight to a negative incident in Milbury's life, which violates WP:BLP as well. Please look at the relevant policies and guidelines to understand that more information is not always better, especially if it's negative and receiving too much weight relative to its importance and the rest of the biography. Croctotheface (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think milbury is too embarassed about it. the shoe beating is a piece of hockey legend that deserves the small description ive given it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milburyshoe (talk • contribs)

No, it deserves the small description that is already there. You want to expand it well beyond what it should have in the article, as each other editor besides yourself who has taken a look at the issue has determined. Croctotheface (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bossy & Trio Grande

Bossy was put on a line with Clark Gillies & Bryan Trottier at the start training camp. Billy Harris was demoted to the second line because he wasn't scoring enough. Bossy was the finisher that Trottier needed and Gillies was the mucker and protector. The early eighties was the beginning of juggling lines. Before than, you had the same players on the same line almost for life! Raul17 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Work Together

I would be happy to work with you, if you would stop reverting better written material with references simply to keep your own writing.

OK, well, based on what you say here, it kind of seems like you don't want to work together. I think you might be projecting your own preference for your own writing onto me here, as the notion that your stuff is "better" is, of course, your opinion. For one, your stuff presumes the readers know some fairly advanced Magic theory vocabulary, like "inevitability," and WP articles should be written without this kind of jargon so as to be accessible to the largest possible audience. Your editing strategy so far has just been to make changes, not explain them, and then rewrite the whole page again a few hours later. If you want to work together, let's DISCUSS changes and arrive at a version we both agree is better. Croctotheface (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praise for you from The New York Times Magazine

I don't know if your watchlist has picked this up, but if as Talk:Bad beat seems to reflect, you wrote the definition of "bad beat", you've earned some praise from Virginia Heffernan in The New York Times Magazine:

Someone on Wikipedia defines it with uncommon eloquence:"'Bad beat' is a subjective term for a hand in which a player, who had what appeared to be strong cards, nevertheless loses."

Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to rain on the parade here, but it appears that Evercat (talk · contribs) penned the line in question. –xeno (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go Evercat. My definition wasn't nearly as good, but maybe I'll indulge myself enough to say that my initial, wordier formulation formed the basis for what he ended up doing. ;) Croctotheface (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon the shoulders of giants, they say =) –xeno (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa Kelly

I think you're missing the point here. She didn't just casually mention Wikipedia, she was discussed her own article and raised the issue of its lack of notability. That's definitely not a common occurrence and I think it's worth noting in the article about her. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree about that, and that's OK. Croctotheface (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own this article. Please stop trying to control it. The subject matter of the Final Jeopardy! question Kelly missed is worth noting, especially since she lost the championship as a result. If you disagree, discuss why on the talk page, but please stop removing information without any justification. Thank you. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bmibaby or BMIBaby?

You have previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Bmibaby. If you care, please weigh in again at Talk:Bmibaby#Closure again. — AjaxSmack 19:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox v Franken

Sock-puppet at work?Jimintheatl (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Could just be a random vandal, too. Croctotheface (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Foley

I try to only make those kind of edits when I am already fixing up disambiguations. I wouldn't try and do that for no good reason. Thanks for the advice though, even though I disagree with the guideline. TJ Spyke 04:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to log off (almost 2AM where I live), so I will just give a quick reason. One reason is that fixing links does not in any way hurt Wikipedia. It is especially annoying when fixing links is only one thing being fixed in a edit (along with stuff like spelling, grammar, etc.) and a user who doesn't know any better just reverts the entire edit. TJ Spyke 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where a future article is possible (like when a new wrestling group is started a redirect is created and pointed to one of the members until the group is notable enough to have their own article). I do see some cases where having a redirect is fine. As you said, it really comes down to a case by case basis. I guess with the Munich thing it could just say "Munich" or seperate the links (so it would be [[Munich]], [[Germany]]. TJ Spyke 15:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do liberal and conservative editors argue endlessly in Wikipedia??

You're right, any further discussion of the issue I raised on the "Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly" talk page now belongs on an editor's talk page, so I'll make it yours. To be blunt, I think that you're being naive here. Look at the question/heading above. If editors all practiced neutral principles the same way how could there possibly be so many liberal versus conservative disputes on Wikipedia's talk pages? Why doesn't Soxwon see a particular edit the same way that Croctotheface does? Deficient powers of reasoning? Why do almost all of Blaxthos's numerous contentious encounters involve politically conservative foes? Why is Arzel typically locking horns with Blaxthos and other politically liberal editors? Strange how they apply the same guidelines so differently, and how conservatives always take the position that (however marginally) seems to favor conservatives, while liberals take the position that seems to favor liberals. Isn't fairly obvious from this that edits as well as editors are influenced by politics?

Conceding the point, however, does not mean that any of them (us) are acting in "bad faith". It means that, like politicians in the real world they (we) tend to "discover" principles that buttress our predilections in a specific situation. So, yes, I suppose my basic point here is to "watch it". Don't assume that because we discover a good argument in a given situation that we are acting out of principle rather than bias. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent, editors' personal worldviews will inevitably color their editing. If that's all you're saying, then I agree with you. However, and I can only speak for myself, I believe that I've done rather well at keeping my personal politics out of my editing. I've been accused of all sorts of things, including "having a hardon for Bill O'Reilly," or something to that effect, and I think it speaks to my ability to stay consistent. There may be editors who desire a slant in favor of one kind of politics or another, but trying to ascribe motivations to editors here is much less interesting to me than just about anything else I could be doing.

I bristled at your comment on the talk page there because it suggested, strongly, that I only held my position on what should happen to the article because of the politics involved. I do not believe that there is any case where I took opposite positions on a similar issue because the political affiliations were reversed. As to the specifics of the dispute that triggered all this, I am generally not in favor of slapping labels onto people--I think that "the liberal economist Paul Krugman" or "the conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg" don't really serve readers very well when we can just go with Paul Krugman and Jonah Goldberg. That does not change for me if the person we're writing about is liberal or conservative or anything else. Croctotheface (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name was bandied about, let me jump in here and throw my $0.02 -- as Badmintonhist discovered tonight, I'm actually pretty consistent and fair. Generally speaking, we don't see nearly as many liberal talk show watchers/listeners swarming to Wikipedia attempting to color the language and presentation of issues as we do conservative talk show watchers/listeners. If you assume that the number of incidents of POV pushing is evenly split, then you might assume that my locking horns with conservatives is indicative of a liberal POV. However, in actuality, the reason you see more locked horns against conservative POV pushers is because there are more conservative POV pushers. For what it's worth, I generally treat liberal POV pushers exactly the same way -- you just don't notice because the frequency is so low. Maybe liberals are just lazy... :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tui T. Sutherland

The source you provided is a fan site, it's not a reliable source. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence has two clauses. The first is accurate, the second is not, and there is no necessary causal relationship between them. That the people who run a highly reliable and accurate database about Jeopardy are Jeopardy fans should no more invalidate its use a source than if the maintainers of a sports database were sports fans. Croctotheface (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to go to WP:RSN to bring this up there, but I see you beat me to it. I, however, would have given you the common courtesy of letting you know that there was a discussion going on there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing better to do on my talk page that imply that I lack courtesy, I'd take it as a kindness if you didn't post here. Croctotheface (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply delay

Sorry, but real life has called me and I can't take the time to answer appropriately at the moment. My wiping of your comment was accidental. I'd erased bits of yours as I went, intending to make sure I addressed everything, and meant to copy and paste the text back into a reloaded edit window. I missed that last part apparently. :) - BalthCat (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm

I'm not sure how I did it, but I missed the progressive. Thanks... Soxwon (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Izzal good. :) Croctotheface (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot :)

Haha, four minutes after you put your comment on the page, a bot fixed one of the double redirects to the page :) . . . . I should always trust the robots!

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 05:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Metropolitans

I added the ^{[by whom?]} after "it has been argued..." since the entire paragraph is an unattributed editorial of dubious content. It's true that many modern Mets fans were old Dodgers and Giants fans starved for a National League club. But the Brooklyn Dodgers were already established when the original Mets folded. I think that writer would be hard pressed to come up with any evidence that original Mets fans naturally gravitated toward the Dodgers. It's pretty evident from their short existence that they didn't have much of a fan base at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOOD OH NOEZ

Dude, did you forget about our cabal???? ;-) Good to see you around. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daria and her attitude towards homosexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daria_Morgendorffer&diff=322690720&oldid=322497021 "revert--this doesn't seem to be a source that merits weight in the article"

This is from an academic journal called The Journal of Popular Film & Television - Academic journals are the highest among the reliable source totem pole on Wikipedia. It is acceptable if you can find another place for or otherwise organize differently the "Dennis says that Daria finds homosexuality disgusting" attribute. However, it would be unacceptable to remove this from the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you created that article for the journal just now, clearly in response to this issue. Just sayin'. Second, how often is this journal cited in academic research? That, to me, is a much more interesting question than whether it's published by academics. Third, that is such a weird sentiment, especially considering that the topic of homosexuality comes up in the show...once(?)...that in fact INCLUDING it in the article is unacceptable, as it does not deserve weight relative to anything else about the character. Finally, the proper place to discuss this is the article talk page, not here. Croctotheface (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I did, but nevertheless it is an academic journal. I learned about this journal from EBSCOHost, which hosts academic works for research purposes. EBSCOHost is how I found the journal entry to begin with. Anyway, when it's an issue that I only have to clarify with one person, I typically post on his/her talk page to make sure he/she reads what I say. Anyway, now I will post on the article's talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MMfA

Where exactly in that discussion does it say anyting about "self described organizatios?" And as you can see the result was "The result of the discussion was: Keep. No consensus" So please stop using false statements to justify your edits. Bytebear (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]