• /Archive 1 (2004)
• /Archive 2 (2005)
• /Archive 3 (2006)
• /Archive 4 (2007)

Thank you very, very much for your continuous advice and help. It is greatly appreciated.
I hope 2008 will bring you everything you wish.
Sincerely,
MusiCitizen (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always my pleasure to help out; your contributions are generally excellent. MisfitToys (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change it in the first place? The manual of style says something about the dates, nothing on how to go about with places of birth and death. I never had any problem with this in all the time I have been contributing to Wikipedia and with previous DYK nominations. I think it is important to put the place of birth directly at the top and with members of the Mafia that is particularly important as it defines to what Mafia family they belong. Please refrain from making unnecessary changes. - Mafia Expert (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, Afrikaner has a specific meaning. His name suggests to me that he was British South African. Do you have a source? Grant | Talk 03:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was rearrange the cats and some minor punctuation/redirect edits, so I'm not sure what you want a source for. MisfitToys (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, sorry. Grant | Talk 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "((prod))" template to the article Northern Illinois District (LCMS), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the ((prod)) template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there.   jj137 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the edit you did to Robert Loughridge the other day, it was greatly appreciated.--Cal (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; as I noted in the edit summary, it needs work to revise some of the 1890s language. MisfitToys (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyediting of the Cliff Keen article today and on the George Jewett article yesterday. If you care to do the same to any of my other recent articles, e.g., Willis Ward, Thomas Trueblood, Ralph W. Aigler, Anton Zamloch, John Maulbetsch, Paul G. Goebel, Newt Loken, Ralph Heikkinen, Scott Shafer, Bob Timberlake, Harry Newman, that would be great. Thanks again.Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed dates in the Dorothy Canning Miller article—

• for example: [[6 February]] [[1904]] to [[February 6]] [[1904]]
• which will display identically: 6 February 1904 and February 6 1904

—but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking format works such that the differences are visible only in the editing window: display is set in individual user preferences. I thought you might like to know. — Athaenara ✉ 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but date preferences only work for registered users, and not casual site visitors; US date formats should generally be used for bios of Americans. MisfitToys (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point which hadn't occurred to me. I'll keep it in mind myself now. — Athaenara ✉ 12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing (which I don't think was relevant in this case, but is useful to remember) - always make sure that whatever date format is used is consistent throughout the article; e.g. don't use [[6 February]] at one point and [[April 23]] at another. MisfitToys (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bypass redirects; see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. Thank you. --NE2 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason not to, as long as other editing is being done. MisfitToys (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Came here to remind of the same guideline. There's no reason to change redirects that already point to the right place, even if other editing is being done. Same goes for changing white space, especially if it's there by preference of the author. I recommend against making lumped changes on the eve of a TFA in a single diff. White space changes make the text impossible to analyze without extra intermediary edits.  czar 17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MisfitToys, you again added pointless pipes in order to bypass redirects. Please do not depart from established guidelines without a good reason – and 'doing other editing at the same time' is certainly not one. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I notice that you've repeatedly (using different justifications each time) changing Ken Summers (Colorado legislator) so that the article begins:

Kenneth Guy Summers

instead of:

Kenneth Guy "Ken" Summers

You note in your latest summary that "familiar nickname need not be emphasized;" however, referring to the name Rep. Summers most commonly uses (see [1], [2] vs [3], and [4] vs [5] for evidence of this) both makes the article more informative and more useful for instance, to readers doing a news search or a google search, either to find information on him in the first place, or to find more information on him after reading the article.

Furthermore, there is no dictate in policy that the commonly used nickname must be removed; in fact, the policy at [6] gives John Edwards as a good example of a case where precisely what you have removed is done and is useful.

I'd like to re-add the commonly used name, and would like to ensure that it isn't removed. Would adding additional citations for the use of the nickname (as is done in John Edwards) a viable compromise, or do you have other objections? I'd like to think that we can reach a workable solution rather than simply reverting each other. Thanks! -- Sethant (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please slook again at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names, where the example for Bill Clinton presents his name as William Jefferson Clinton, clearly omitting "Bill"; the section below that, on common names, elaborates that the intro and article title need not match precisely, as in cases where the subject uses a more common form of their name. The situation with Edwards is very different, in that John is (unusually) not his real name, whereas his real name (Johnny) is often misconstrued as a familar form; the reference is needed there because of the confusion, not because he simply goes by a different form of his name than his real name. Furthermore, the article title is specifically the place where the most commonly used name for a person wil be presented; the fact that Summers generally is known as Ken is apparent from the title, and does not need to be emphasized in the article itself. MisfitToys (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that policy does not demand that the article name and intro name agree precisely, however, it does not mandate that information such as a common name be removed from an article introduction, either. I believe there is merit in including reference to the common name within the article text. Specifically, I believe that many readers (specifically those not versed in the subtleties of Wikipedia naming policy) may be confused as to what name is most commonly used when they see different names in the article title and article intro. Including the common name in both places emphasizes and confirms the individual's most commonly used name.

I'd obviously prefer: "Kenneth Guy "Ken" Summers", but I'd also offer up "Kenneth Guy Summers, commonly known as Ken Summers" — the style used in Jimmy Carter — as a possible compromise between our two positions. What do you think? -- Sethant (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought it's rather silly to specifically point out that someone is "generally known as", when the Bio policy already flatly states that "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known" but that "the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph." (And indeed, this is why the next section points out "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name." That's the relevant point; it's not necessary to explain the different name, or why the article conforms to that policy. If the article title is Ken Summers, then it's obvious that he's commonly known by that name (which is why I suggested moving the article in the first place). MisfitToys (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dwarf irregular galaxies, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dwarf irregular galaxies is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dwarf irregular galaxies, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to Goose's page were both awkward and grammatically incorrect.

That have been undone and will be again if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.214.36 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted again, as there's nothing grammatically incorrect in saying that "data was becoming available" by a certain point, or that a certain total was starting to be regarded as a similar standard. Your revision changed the text to "By the 2005 election, more substantial data regarding saves became available," which suggests that it happened all at once rather than gradually, which is inaccurate. You also revised to say that 300 saves "was becoming regarded" as a "likely mark for election"; that makes no sense, as the phrase "mark for election" doesn't seem to have any discernible meaning. My version - that over a period of several years a total of 300 saves was "starting to be regarded" as "a likely reason for election" - is much clearer. MisfitToys (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It is very helpful when editors make use of the edit summary box as well as marking the edit as minor. Also, single years (i.e. 1945) should not be wikilinked per the MOS, but December 19, 1945 should. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't link just a year, but rather a year following a date. MisfitToys (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent copyedit of Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll. The most common recurring error was the date (eg. May 3 -- 3 May); at one point the date would always show by default the month and then the day, whatever was entered. I'm glad that's been changed. It's the MoS issues that are closely watched by WP:FAC, so I'm pleased there are now less of them! Anyway, thanks very much and best wishes, PeterSymonds | talk 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for lending a hand

This user helped promote Walter O'Malley to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of WP:R2D? There is no need to change a re-direct eg Companion of Honour to [[Order of the Companions of Honour|Companion of Honour]], it just makes future editing harder. David Underdown (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I dislike that guideline is that it tends to oppose the guideline for diambiguation pages which discourages piped links (because the reader should see at a glance where the link goes); i.e. in dragging over the link on a redirect, the reader doesn't see exactly where the link leads. MisfitToys (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it makes sense on a disambiguation page because you'd otherwise see a great long list of otherwise identical lookinga rticle names. In an articleit reallyd doesn't matter, and eae of reading and editing are more important. In some cases, where redirects actually have the potential to become a standalone article in time, hard piping the link could actually be damaging in the long-term as it will reduce the number of incoming links to an article once it is created, and make the reader jump through more hoops to reach the best information. David Underdown (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the years for many J. G. Taylor Spink Award winners. The years you have put it do not match those listed by the baseball hall of fame's website ([7]) nor do they match other sources I have seen ([8]). Why have you changed all of these dates? Wickethewok (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The years listed by most sources reflect when the award was announced in December (I've also revised the article for the Spink Award to clarify the difference); the award is actually presented the following year, and I believe you'd want the navboxes to reflect who was honored at the same time. You'll note that the Hall's announcement yesterday of the Frick Award recipient mentions Larry Whiteside being honored with the Spink Award this year rather than last. (I also noticed that the Hall link you included features a notation that the Hall revised the most recent award year to reflect the presentation year rather than the announcement year.) Also remember that the award was established following Spink's death in December 1962, so he couldn't really have been honored with that year's induction class (Bob Feller, Jackie Robinson, etc.). MisfitToys (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, that makes sense I think. Still, it does weird though to have Wikipedia articles disagree with most contemporary sources and the HoF's website - as they seem to say they skipped 2007, rather than retroactively changed the years. Would you mind if I brought this up for additional input on the Baseball Wikiproject? Wickethewok (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind - so long as it's clear that this regards the navigation boxes, which I'm sure everyone would want to reflect who was being honored simultaneously. MisfitToys (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the constructive edits you did for the article Tsering Chungtak. I would like to ask a big favor from you, if you can please keep an eye with the article since I'm not always available to check its status against vandalism. Again, thank you!--Johnsoul (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's decidedly not my field of expertise, so I'd suggest you instead ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants, where I'm sure there will be editors willing to keep an eye on it. MisfitToys (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding this article. He's a player I have a great amount of respect for, and it's good that some of these players can have an expansive history. I have a few cards he autographed through the mail from 1960 and 1961. The guy's still dedicated to the fans, which is more than you can say for most MLB players these days. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm still working on it, and obviously a lot of detail should be added for the 1950s; but it's certainly much better than it was a couple of months ago. MisfitToys (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks great. Anyway you can find a pic of him that's not a baseball card to use as fair use though? I point that out since I'd like to nom this for GA status, but I know that that image will be a point of debate when it gets reviewed. Wizardman 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the pic is an issue; if a better picture can't be found, there's always the possibility that someone could get a photo of the statue at Cellular Field, but ideally that would be just one of several photos in the article. I've just found some old notes regarding some additional articles, and I've got a few more things to add now, perhaps a few quotes. I think it'll still be a couple of weeks before I'd put this up for FA status. MisfitToys (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for corrections on Šerefudins Mosque article. I know i have many mistakes, but my English is not best. Regards --HarisM (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Those kind of mistakes are the easiest to correct (especially for new contributors), so you shouldn't worry too much as long as it's clear what you're trying to say - someone will likely fix the errors before long. MisfitToys (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MT. The Seat up says - The year a Governors leaves office or the election date (which ever comes first). Ex: Rick Perry of Texas' current term end January 2011, not November 2010. Please re-read the article's section concerning 'Seat up'. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've removed that odd line 'which ever comes first'. Obviously, a gubernatorial election is gonna take place before the current gubernatorial term expires. Ex: A gubernatorial term is fixed, no matter how many Governors serve within that term. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'seat up' indicates that the year is when the seat is next up for election - not when the term expires. MisfitToys (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a WikiProject that covers this? I feel the article (as you prefer it) is misleading. PS- This isn't personal for me. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the section intro a bit, as I agree the wording of "whichever comes first" was a bit awkward (I think it was intended to cover the brief period between the election and inauguration, when the next election is actually later; better phrasing/notation can be added when the situation comes up again). MisfitToys (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's much clearer now, thanks MisfitToys. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring ((subst:CURRENTYEAR))! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn ((subst:CURRENTYEAR))!
To spread this message to others, add ((subst:First Day Of Spring)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

You changed his birth date, but you don't give a citation. The cited source that I used definitely says 1911 (I just re-checked it). This essay from the usually reliable Deloris Tarzan Ament also says 1911. What is your source? - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Security Death Index lists James W. Washington, SSN issued in Mississippi, last residence Seattle, with those dates of birth and death; that's the only James Washington residing in Washington who is listed as having died in 2000, and the November 10 birthday matches his own statement quoted in the essay, which also specifically points out that he was somewhat sketchy about the year. There's a James H. Washington (born in 1911, died in 2000) whose SSN was issued in Mississippi, but his last residence was in St. Louis. There are two other James Washingtons from MS who died in 2000, but they were born in 1927 and 1954. If the date of death is indeed June 7, 2000 (and that should be relatively easy to check), then it seems pretty clear that the 1908 date is accurate in the absence of evidence that the federal records are in error. MisfitToys (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that he was vague on the date himself, and was in any case born decades before SSNs existed, so they presumably wouldn't have any better information than anyone else. I'm really more inclined to trust Deloris Tarzan Ament and the NAAM, who would have some reason to have given thought to this, than a federal bureaucracy that probably would not.

In any case, though, the right thing would probably be to cite the conflicting sources and note the discrepancy, as we do for many other people whose DOB is uncertain. Any problem with that? - Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSNs were created in the 1930s when he was in his 20s (and perhaps not yet so likely to be fudging about his age), and proof of birthdate would have been required to receive one - with strong federal penalties for deception; it certainly seems to be the most reliable record. I'd have no problem noting both dates and explaining the discrepancy. MisfitToys (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you wish to portray South Shore as a community of Black Muslims with no whites or African-American Christians, but this is an encyclopedia, not how you wish things were. You must leave it as is, including the fact that the neighborhood is mostly African-American Christians, the information on the Christian churches in the neighborhood, and the fact that gentrification is occuring in the neighborhood which is bringing about diversity. There is no reason to remove this information as it is all true and gives an accurate description of the neighborhood. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've very clearly pointed out that Black Muslims represent a minority in the district and the neighborhood, and I can't see how the text suggests that they form a majority. I noticed also that you've been busily deleting material relating to atheism and religious minorities on various articles (with various editors quickly reverting your work), so it strikes me that perhaps you're trying to delete info you find unappealing. Many of your talk page comments seem to accuse other editors of anti-Catholic bias, so perhaps backing off a bit would be useful. Pointing out that most residents in the area are Christians is unremarkable and unnecessary, as that generally applies in every congressional district - it's like stating that most residents are U.S. citizens, in that it's taken for granted; what's remarkable about the area is the presence of an unusal religious minority, which is why I included it - especially since the Nation of Islam HQ is in South Shore (that is certainly notable, although you've deleted it a couple of times). If a Catholic cathedral was in the district, that would also merit mention (I'll note that my work on the 3rd District article included a lot of material relating to the large Irish and Polish population, from which many readers will likely infer a large Catholic population). I've not discussed actual percentages of Catholics in the population, simply because I've not run across any figures documenting it (the Census Bureau doesn't ask that); if you want to say that a majority of residents are Christians, you're going to have to find a source (the fact that the Nation of Islam HQ and Mosque Maryam are in South Shore clearly indicates a notable Black Muslim presence, although not necessarily a majority - which I never suggested). I've also noted that the white population in the Chicago parts of the district tends to be concentrated in a few far south side neighborhoods (the Census Bureau map, reference #7, indicates that the areas around South Shore are generally between 10% and 28% white; the white population doesn't really start to go up until south of 83rd Street, and particularly south of 95th). Yes, there are whites in South Shore, but they're not close to a majority; there's no point in trying to document the specific racial demographics of every neighborhood in the district, as that's better saved for articles on the neighborhoods themselves (such as South Shore). Also, this discussion would be much easier if you would register for an account rather than use anon addresses. MisfitToys (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the majority of residents being Christian is not notable because they are the majority, they you should not mention the black middle class, they are also the majority and therefore not notable. You mention the Black Muslims as a notable minority, yet you say we can't include the growing white population because they are a minority? Your argument is not consistent. If you are going to mention the Black Muslim minority as notable, why not mention the white population as notable? The reality is this is the #1 issue in the South Shore neighborhood now, gentrification. The neighborhood is changing and that is notable.

As for removing material on Atheists, there is a strict guidance for inclusion into the Roman Catholics category, I took this same guidance and added it to an Atheist category and removed those in the category who did not fit the guidance. This was quickly changed. In light of this change, I then tried to remove the guidance from the Roman Catholics category to be consistent with all other religious group categories, however, the guidance was quickly readded. I was only attempting to make all religious group categories have a uniform guidance if they are to have any. I now would like to see the guidance removed from the Roman Catholics category, as it is the only religious category with additional requirements beyond being the religion. It's a discriminatory guidance. You can't really deny that it's out of anti-Catholic sentiment, the arguments they are making for the guidance should apply to all religions, yet they only seek to limit inclusion in one religious group category. I know you are a reasonable editor and hope you see how biased this is and help me in getting the guidance out of the Roman Catholics category. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood my point; the fact that the majority of residents are Christians (again, their being a majority would need to be established with references) is not notable because that is typical of all districts (and most neighborhoods), not simply because they are the majority. The fact that South Shore is a middle-class black community is notable, both because that is not typical either nationally or within the district and because of the preceding statement that it was formerly a major Jewish community; the statement establishes a contrast, rather than pointing out something that's generally true everywhere. Your argument is that if we mention the Black Muslim minority in one neighborhood, we have to mention every minority in every neighborhood; that's nonsensical. Now that I've taken another look at the map, the Census Bureau actually places the white population of South Shore at under 10% (rather than 10 to 28%), which increases only once you reach South Chicago; whether the white population is growing in South Shore is something that would need to be established with references, and not simply because you say so. And the fact that Black Muslims represent a notable minority in the area is something particularly unusual; the fact that whites represent a minority has already been established in pointing out the racial makeup of the district. South Shore (approx. 3 sq. mi.) probably has a population of about 30,000, so I suspect readers will gather that at least some whites live there. Your comparison between Black Muslims and whites in general is not appropriate; one is a specific group indicating both race and religion, while the other is not, and the fact that South Shore is home to a major center of Black Muslim life is especially important. Is there a nationally notable black Christian church in the district? If so, that would be worth mentioning, I suppose; I checked Trinity United, but that's a half mile outside the district. The gentrification issue is something more appropriate for the South Shore article, and if it's the top issue facing the community right now, then it belongs in that article and not this one; this article discusses general demographic issues related to the district, and not particularly local economic issues (this article's discussion of the local economy is limited to how local businesses impact the nation and surrounding region). I'm sure every district has some areas which are gentrifying, but this is the only one which is home to the Nation of Islam.

Also, the guidelines for various well-established categories have been established by various editors, and are not necessarily identical for seemingly similar categories; if you want the guidelines to be identical (as you seem to), then you should discuss that with other editors, as they have encouraged you to do, rather than simply changing them yourself. And frankly, I don't believe that the difference is due to anti-Catholic sentiment; I suspect it's more likely because the vast majority of Irish are Catholics, and the category would become almost identical to the category for Irish people - in other words, Irish people are generally presumed to be Catholic unless there is a category under Category:Irish people by religion indicating otherwise. (Feel free to ask the editors over there if this is accurate.) The frequent editors of those categories have the right to establish the guidelines they believe are most appropriate, and the desire to keep categories as uncluttered as possible is a reasonable one. (For the record, I've added articles in tha past to the since-deleted categories for politicians and sportspeople by religion, including Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople, but I won't argue with the deletion of the categories.) MisfitToys (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whites of South Shore that are notable are not whites in general, they are unique because of how it ties into gentrification. You mentioned contrast with the former Jewish community, I believe by mentioning the Catholic and Protestant churches, that also shows contrast. I don't think everyone would assume that all the areas of the 2nd District are mostly Christian, someone who has never heard of Christianity could read the article and they wouldn't know what the religious situation was beyond a Black Muslim minority and a former Jewish population. It's up to you though, I won't try to add any of it into the article again.

As for the religious categories, singling out one religion and creating a ridiculous standard for inclusion is hard to deny as anything but discrimination. Again, as with the 2nd District, you may assume that all Irish people unless otherwise noted are Catholic, but someone who has never heard of Ireland won't assume that. However, if all Irish people are to be considered Catholic unless otherwise noted, then the Irish people category should be made a subcategory of the Roman Catholics category.

The problem goes beyond just the Irish Roman Catholics category, though, the guidance is applied for the main Roman Catholics category, but no other religion. Wouldn't it be presumed that a person from India is a Hindu? Yet there is no guidance for Indian Hindus. The guidance applied to Roman Catholics has been used to keep even devout Roman Catholics out of the category since it was not what they were most famous for. I think that a Pakistani Catholic is a pretty unusual occurence, yet the same rules apply for Pakistani Catholics as Irish Catholics. So that presumption argument is not what is being used to justify the discrimination.

The current guidance as it is written, only warrants Roman Catholics who are famous for being Roman Catholic to be in Roman Catholic categories. This is not a reasonable standard, don't you agree? 99.141.69.65 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the gentrification issue is a purely local one which belongs in the article for the neighborhood, as it doesn't have any significant impact on the nation or the region. I've already pointed out why I think the guidelines are in place for the Catholic categories, and I don't think they're either ridiculous or discriminatory; if you want to see them revised, you're going to have to discuss it with the editors there. You can't make the cat for Irish people into a subcat of Catholics, as while most Irish are Catholics, not all are. Also, you refer to "the whites of South Shore that are notable"; who are they, and why are they notable? I don't dispute that there are whites in South Shore, only that they have any wide cultural impact on the nation. And again, I'd recommend registering for an account; it would make it easier for other users to recognize that your various comments are from the same person. MisfitToys (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Catholics that aren't obviously Catholic? And what about the people that have never heard of Ireland? If Catholic was elected president of a country like India, wouldn't that be notable? Yet, if you tried to add that person to the category for Indian Catholics, they would be removed on grounds of being notable for being president and not for being Catholic. The guidance is discriminatory, I don't understand why you won't acknowledge that. Reread my last comment, everything in it, the stuff you didn't respond to and then maybe you will understand how it is discriminatory. 99.141.52.7 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there people that have never heard of Ireland? If there are, I doubt the issue of whether its residents are Catholic or not is of limited importance to them. I believe you're mistaken on the India issue, as Category:Indian Roman Catholics features no such limitation; indeed it would be notable if a Catholic was elected president of India, as Catholics represent less than 2% of the population. I would also suggest that the majority of the people editing these categories are probably Catholic themselves, so accusing them of possible anti-Catholic bias is somewhat odd. I realize you've been involved in the discussion at Category talk:Irish Roman Catholics, but please ask there for an explanation of the reasons before jumping to the conclusion of discrimination; you're only creating an atmosphere of accusations and defensiveness. MisfitToys (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Roman Catholics category is a subcategory of the Roman Catholics category, which has the same guidance on it as the Irish Roman Catholics category, a guidance non-existent for any other religion. 99.140.164.99 (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE discuss this at category talk. I'm not interested in the issue, as I rarely deal with these cats. As I've noted (repeatedly), those maintaining the category are likely Catholic and not biased against the religion, so they will probably be as receptive as anyone to your point of view. MisfitToys (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Pretty Girl Bullshit was released as a single. As far as I know it only appeared on the two albums mentioned in the article. Change category? - House of Scandal (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change was fine, as far as I can tell. It just needed a cat, and I thought that one was the most appropriate. MisfitToys (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Winans' album is classified at point-of-sale as an R&B album. The song in question in basically an R&B song interupted by Foxy doing her bit. You might consider adding back the R&B category you deleted. It's not something I feel strongly about, however. Thanks for your interest in the article. - House of Scandal (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:Rhythm and blues songs is already there if you want to add it. The new category title was just misformatted. MisfitToys (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Deaths in 2008, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in 2008 and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination was snowballed rather quickly. MisfitToys (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some official guideline as to how the categories are sorted in an article (i.e. the birth and death category should be the first ones)? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been discussion of the topic in the past, but no agreement one way or another. Some editors prefer alphabetical order, arguing that it's more objective; but if there are numerous categories present, I (and a lot of other editors) believe that grouping them by area (education, military, awards) assists reader, rather than jumbling them together alphabetically (particularly if the reader isn't actively looking for a specific category). I'm of the opinion that birth/death year cats should always go first, as they're completely standard to all bio articles and (if listed list) often get stuck in the middle when new cats are added at the end. As I noted, there's been no guideline established on the subject. MisfitToys (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

League of Nations has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Testing times (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get some comments on the Fritz Shurmur article and I have seen the high quality work you perform. Comments on this article will suffice. Thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia.Alexp34 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over the article and done some revision for formatting, etc. Obviously, various quotes would help, as would more complete coverage of Wyoming's play while he was there. Otherwise, I think the most useful thing would be to back off a bit from some of the more effusive phrasing ("the love that his parents showed", "revered by peers for defensive genius", etc.). Multiple quotes will be necessary to illustrate things like that. MisfitToys (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though at the same time I dread finding out how many typos I've made, it's always comforting to see your name pop up on my watchlist on articles like O. P. Hoff. Keep on with your bad copyediting self! Katr67 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MisfitToys. I see that you moved Daniel Wakefield Smith to Daniel Smith (photojournalist). You're right that he generally goes by Daniel Smith (or Daniel W. Smith — his website is danielwsmith.com). I used the middle name as a disambiguator because he's not just known as a photojournalist — he's also known (in Connecticut, at least) for his radio drama recreations and his music. (Notice that the main New York Times citation used in the article is about the radio dramas.) Do you know whether there's a disambiguation guideline or standard practice for when the same individual is notable in multiple areas? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the title should reflect how he's generally known. I'm not sure if there's something else you might use in parentheses instead of photojournalist (perhaps Connecticut?). I'd suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people); there's a section on disambiguation using parentheses, including difficult cases. MisfitToys (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer — the James Stephen Smith example would seem to support using the middle name as a disambiguator, but I'll ask for opinions at the naming conventions talk page. I did create redirects for Daniel Smith (radio drama) and Daniel Smith (composer) as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the James Stephen Smith example deals with two men named Steve Smith who are both NHL hockey players born in 1963 (and both were defencemen, ruling out position as a divider) - a particularly difficult case. In contrast, there seems to be only one noted photojournalist named Daniel Smith. MisfitToys (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys. Just wanted to thank you for your careful copyedits and top to bottom reading for Jonathan Zittrain the other day. Thanks a lot. Best wishes. -—SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. Richard is currently at FAC. Laser brain requested that the article be copyedited by someone who has yet to see the article. I've seen you copyedit articles on many occasions before, so I was wondering if you could comb through the article for prose issues and grammatical errors? Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did a long copyedit of it last June, and added one or two good quotes. But I've gone over the intro again. MisfitToys (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right! I remember that now! Well, could you take a look at the article again? There have been some changes to the text? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I greatly appreciate your work on Billy Pierce, and just want to see if you know that Sports Illustrated now has a web archive set up that may contain every page from the last 54 years. I noticed that you had only one reference directing to SI, so perhaps this vault can help add even more information to the already extremely high quality article. A search on the exact phrase of Billy Pierce yielded 104 results.

I do not actively edit on the mainspace anymore due to lack of faith of the articles staying up for more than two years (Missouri Valley Conference College Basketball Season and Tournament articles), but you are still a great inspiration. Thanks-- SashaNein (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyeditor's Barnstar, for copy editing quite possibly every DYK on the main page within living memory. You deserve this. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've moved the barnstar to my user page. MisfitToys (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent copy edits on the article Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film). Your input is greatly appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here. I definitely cannot proof my own work. And I also had to smile at you username, brought me back to Christmas in the 80s with that one. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. A bot is probably going to come through and un-wikilink all the dates but I appreciate your making it balanced along with the other copyediting. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bot might delink the dates that consist of a month and year (e.g. January 2002), but there shouldn't be a problem with the full date formatting (e.g. February 16 1998). MisfitToys (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbot delinks a lot of dates, so we'll see. Either way, I appreciate the work. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to chime in on the note I left at Talk:Buzzie Bavasi‎??? ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know the answer; I remember that after his death I noticed an article somewhere discussing the discrepancy, but I don't recall where I read it and couldn't easily find it online. MisfitToys (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. As one of the first editors to this template I would like to see what you think of my preposition on the templates talk page. Thanks ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 21:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote a new article on Conscript Fathers. Your input and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... I have continually noticed that whenever I create an article, that most of the time, you right on my tail copyediting it. Not that I mind, I write it and send it off for world to expand or do whatever with. My question is, are you following me? watching my edits? or is there an easier way to find out when new articles in a certain field are being created? Anyway, if you want to combine efforts on a particular article, to acheive GA or FA, let me know. I was recently able to propel Bob Ferguson to GA status, and am looking for another 19th century player/executive/umpire to attempt next; Hugh Daily is tapped out unless someone can find more information; John Montgomery Ward is a very important figure that derseves better, I have expanded it greatly, but needs lots of work, as I have 20th century player Zack Wheat.Neonblak (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I generally watch the number of articles in a couple of categories to make sure nothing gets deleted or added inappropriately, so I usually spot when articles for baseball umpires get created. MisfitToys (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting this article started:

This user helped promote Jesse Jackson, Jr. to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome (I guess), though I really haven't done anything on that article apart from this copyedit last July. MisfitToys (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I went and nommed Billy Pierce over at WP:GAN. I was really impressed by it when I came across it (apparently a few months earlier now that i looked further up at your talk page). I'm sure it'll be a while before it's reviewed, but just keeping you updated. I'll help you out where I can when someone decides to rview it if you wish. Wizardman 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my efforts to gain GA status on Dan Brouthers, currently in peer review, it appears that the article needs a good once over from someone well qualified in copy-editing. I was curious if you would like to do one on this article, if you have the spare time. Any helps would be graciously accepted, thanks. Neonblak (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went over it and added some more material; I may have had more that I could have added at some point, but a personal catastrophe last week may have resulted in my losing a lot of research I've done over the last ten years. MisfitToys (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy-edit, alot of stuff that I missed, even though I went over and over it, but that's why I like to have a second set of eyes for these things. The additions were good stuff that I never ran across. Sorry to hear about you research loss, I lost a hard drive once, and didn't have it backed up, very ouch... Thanks again ! Neonblak (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! for adding Epworth Methodist Episcopal Church to the List of RHPs in Chicago, and for doing all of the related renumbering of the numbered list. I revisited it just now to add latitude and longitude coordinates (from Google map, based on the given street address).

About the renumbering necessary, yes, that is a pain. Maybe the numbering currently provides a small advantage of making it really obvious when a newbie erroneously adds something that doesn't belong, but the disadvantages of the current setup are perhaps more clear. It seems we should have some other wikitable alternative that provides table-row numbers automatically, like the # sign does for numbered lists outside of tables. I could put in a request at wikimedia programming somewhere, for an upgrade to wikitable options, though that would have no impact any time soon.

Anyhow, THANKS! doncram (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. If it is really a pain, in the future, you could just insert your new entry at 77.5, rather than 78 with renumbering of all following. And, with appropriate edit summary, leave it to "list-owners" to do the fixing.

The neutrality and factual content of the article on Brian Runge is questionable.

The use of the word jawing is suspect. Those involved in the incident happened to be biased observers. The call in question described where Beltran argued the call was not a third strike, but took the count to 0-2. 66.76.63.118 (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think the incident(s) merit inclusion at all. I recall that I was thinking of changing "jawing" to something else, but it slipped my mind before I did the rest of the edit. MisfitToys (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey I noticed you edited my contribution for Pete Browning. I didnt know that SB's were counted differently back in the day. i'd like to know what was different about them, it seems interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapla2004 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1898, runners were credited with a stolen base whenever they advanced more bases than the batter (e.g. going from first to third on a single, scoring on a sac fly, etc.); it's because of this that MLB doesn't recognize stolen base stats before 1898 (such as Hugh Nicol's 1887 total of 138 steals). I doubt that there's any way of knowing precisely how many of the steals were "genuine," but I know that steal totals generally dropped by about one third when the rule change took effect. MisfitToys (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I leave just the All-Star selections and world series champions because I dont think things like leading the league in extra base hits or intentional walks should be in the infobox, but your right I should probably leave things like batting average and home runs--Yankees10 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was more concerned about the franchise career records, like Jimmy Dykes holding the Athletics mark for doubles; I think that's extremely notable. MisfitToys (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I especially dont like those because they can be broken at any time--Yankees10 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true of all material in articles; I suspect there are a number of instances where a record's been broken but an article doesn't reflect it. Franchise career records aren't broken that often (particularly those in major categories like HRs and wins), so including them shouldn't be that problematic. MisfitToys (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter Issue I – July 2008

"A home opener is always exciting, no matter if it's home or on the road." - Yogi Berra News and announcements Welcome to the first Baseball WikiProject Newsletter, dated Tuesday, July 15, 2008. The Article Improvement Drive has been revived. Check it out! The Outreach department is in the works, please contribute your ideas! Featured content In the past month, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to Featured Article status: Art Houtteman 1926 World Series St. Louis Cardinals seasons Philadelphia Phillies seasons List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond The 79th MLB All-star Game is scheduled for this evening. The 2008 Home Run Derby took place yesterday. Justin Morneau defeated Josh Hamilton in the final round, 5 home runs to 3, although Hamilton broke a record with 28 home runs hit in the first round. From the Editors Baseball has a history unlike any other sport. It has been played in countless countries throughout the decades, and it will undoubtedly continue play for many more. On this eve, some the finest players the sport has to offer will take the field at the Yankee Stadium. Four popes spoke there, Pelé scored goals there, "The Greatest [football] Game Ever Played" was battled out there, John Philip Sousa lead a band there, George Costanza worked there; but what do all these events have in common? They fail to reach the level of greatness that the baseball that was played there did. In 1923, a man named Babe Ruth decided to build a new house, and over the years, that house was a home to some of the greatest baseball ever played. If I were to list out all of these great moments, it would be longer than the bill for the New Yankee Stadium. So I'll sum it up by saying that we can remember these great moments by adding them to this place we've gathered at for future generations to read about, to learn about, to dream about; but more importantly we can watch tonight and we can remember how baseball is unlike anything else that we will encounter in our lives. — Blackngold29

--  jj137 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of my article about Thomas Zacharias finds you entirely lacking in courtesy as a Wikipedia editor. The least you could have done was to insert a note in my talk page as to your reasons for removing. I do not appreciate the lack of etiquette which you exhibited in this matter. Perhaps you should spend more time creating articles rather than seeing that those composed by others are deleted. When you take away an article which is about a historical figure (no matter his length of service as an umpire), you take away the possibility of the article being expanded by others in a meaningful and educational way.--Robert (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not notifying you (I suppose I should have), but we've had lengthy discussions about the qualifications for including umpires (guideline here, based on this discussion) - and Zacharias clearly didn't meet them, having umpired only the first half of the 1890 season (April 19 through June 28). The article (which was not linked from any other article) included only the following: an indication that he umpired in 1890 (referenced only from a cursory listing of all MLB umpires), a note that he also worked in a steel mill and was killed when hit by a freight train (referenced from his NYT obit), and a note that he happened to work in a specific 1890 game, with no indication of its significance or whether he played any noteworthy role in the game. Wikipedia is not intended to include articles on every person, and there's no indication that Zacharias had any claim to notability beyond his brief foray into umpiring; he didn't work any postseason games, never worked a no-hitter, and officiated in only 52 games (just 35 behind the plate). The 1893 Spalding Guide notes his death in two sentences, but likewise notes the deaths of a couple of former college players and a ballpark supervisor; the 1893 Reach Guide includes slightly more, noting that he died at age 32 and had previously worked in the County League, but includes much more on some college players and various other minor figures connected to the game who died that year. In short, there was nothing in the article to establish why he could be considered notable, since he clearly fell short of the standard for inclusion of umpires. MisfitToys (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meet me at Talk:Walter O'Malley.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on Billy Pierce. I see you have also done Illinois' 3rd congressional district and bunch of Chicago White Sox-related articles. Are you a member of WP:CHICAGO? You have not signed up. Also, what does bold text mean on your user page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just bolded the articles on which I've done more work, that's all. The articles I started are listed separately. MisfitToys (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I just wanted to say thanks for copyediting almost every one of my baseball-related DYKs that appeared on the main page, and you did a great job with Randy Ruiz. Actually, almost all of my DYKs are baseball-related. Keep up the good work! I just figured out you were an administrator also. :P -- RyRy (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Illinois' 3rd congressional district) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over. Sounds good on the surface, and it's probably better as it'll reduce the categories a bit. Wizardman 15:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that I changed your rewording on the intro to this article from "an American AIDS patient" to "a young American man." The fact that he had AIDS is noted in the sentence, and the description of "AIDS patient" is often considered objectionable due to its categorization and, to some, belittling. In the interest of neutrality, we tried very hard to be as NPOV as possible. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could likewise argue that his being a young man is apparent from the dates of birth and death, along with the use of the male pronoun; my point is that Wikipedia style guidelines indicate that the opening sentence should state why the subject was notable. White clearly wasn't notable for being a young man (an unremarkable fact), but rather for his medical condition and activism; his having AIDS wasn't merely incidental, but was the central contributing factor which initiated public attention to him and led to his notability. I can't imagine why describing someone as an AIDS patient could be regarded as belittling; isn't that what he was? Of course he wasn't only an AIDS patient, any more than the subjects of other articles are only writers, scientists, politicians, etc.; they had other personal attributes as well, which are perhaps noted in their articles - but the first line should state why they were notable, and in White's case it was because of his medical condition. MisfitToys (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MisfitToys, thanks for your msg. Point me towards some raw data and I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the figures are correct on the graphs I posted on your page, so I'm not sure what else you might need. There are the numbers I used to arrive at the percentages, but I don't think they would need to appear on the graph. (If you want the game totals, for instance, in addition to the percentages, I could give you those.) Primarily, I just wanted to get these created as images rather than through the timeline function, although anything you could do to make the appearance more polished would be fine (such as a descriptive label in the upper right corner of each graph, perhaps). MisfitToys (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter Issue III – October 2008

"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving a baby's life... she'll save the baby without even considering how many men are on base!" — Stephen King (The Dark Tower) News and announcements The Baseball Project promoted 13 lists to Featured status in August and 8 more in September. Amazing job! A combined eleven articles were promoted to Good Article status in August and September. Featured content In September, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to: Featured Article status: Nashville Sounds Featured List status: List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Colorado Rockies Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers, Nashville Sounds seasons, List of Tampa Bay Rays Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers, New York Yankees seasons Good Articles of August and September: All the Way (Eddie Vedder song), Cy Young, Dan Brouthers, Harmon Killebrew, Rickey Henderson, Billy Pierce, Kinston Indians, Three Rivers Stadium, Bill Lange, Calgary Cannons, Hugh Daily, Homer at the Bat This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond The 2008 opening round playoff matchups with be: Boston Red Sox vs. Los Angeles Angels Milwaukee Brewers vs. Philadelphia Phillies Los Angeles Dodgers vs. Chicago Cubs Chicago White Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays Help to keep the articles of the postseason updated From the Editors We apologize for not sending out our August newsletter, we have tried to cover some events of the month in this issue. The playoffs have started! The Dodgers and Phillies have won their respective Division Series and will face off in the NL Championship Series. Both series in the American League have yet to be finished. Show your support for your favorite teams by keeping up with their season pages!

--  jj137 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox church.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacklee (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 December 2008

Hello,

I greatly appreciate your work on the Billy Pierce article. More opportunities to expand this article and others have come from Google, as they seemed to have scanned every single page of Baseball Digest magazine. I didn't do much of a search, but this one popped up immediately:

Doctor on the Mound - September 1956

Thanks Vodello (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the constant revisions and edit warring regarding the Hall of Fame 2009, maybe we should move the discussion to the Baseball Wikiproject talk page where the topic was recently brought up. Just a thought... I agree with you that the players should be included in the navboxes and infoboxes. Thanks. - Masonpatriot 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added my comments there. MisfitToys (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me if this request is appropriate or not. It seems shady, but I'm having trouble keeping up and I have no where else to turn.

Recently, I have nominated around a dozen or more articles about non-notable West Virginia University athletes. About half have been deleted successfully. All these articles have one thing in common: they were created by User:Red Deadeye. I have nothing against this user; I just stumbled on a page of his once, and then again, and now continuously. I can see that this person is not trying to help wikipedia but rather he is trying to create is own little shrine to WVU athletes. (I have suggested that he create a Wikia site.)

My suggestion is that a bot could be created that finds all pages this user has created. Then we can more easily create a single list of AFDs. Ideally, this user would no longer be able to create pages, but this seems un-wiki-like to me.

Suggestions on how to handle this user's poor articles? I cannot keep up with them — every time I turn around I find another article he created for an un-notable athlete. It is very frustrating. Timneu22 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first thing to do would be to review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports), esp. the subsection on college athletes. I know there's been discussion on the subject; I'd probably extend the guidelines to include not only major award winners and HoFers but also first-team All-Americans. I see that the editor generally lists the articles they've created (which should help in reviewing their work); otherwise, I also note that Deadeye is a member of the college football project, so I'd also bring up any concerns on the project talk page - a gentle nudge from the other editors there might be more helpful. (BTW, I still hope to get to the Henderson page again; I'm glad there don't seem to be any hard feelings, as I think the page is better for both our input, however heated the argument.) MisfitToys (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Sorry, I seem to have gone over your copyedit. I'll do it now. Terrakyte (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated British African-Caribbean community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics to good article status.

Thanks for being one of the many people who contributed to this article on its way to WP:GA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today I played online poker with someone whose screen name is Misfit Toys. That person claimed to be from Calgary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed merging Category:2006 in winter sports into the main 2006 in sports category as it is an orphan used for one year only Hugo999 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind unprotecting Bitweaver from creation? I have a page draft ready here: User:Kozuch/Bitweaver. Thanks for your effort in advance.--Kozuch (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Illinois's 3rd congressional district/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Game six (baseball), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game six (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to keep an eye on the actions of 184.58.245.87 (talk · contribs), who seems to have a bit of a chip on his/her shoulder about your actions. I have reverted all the silliness, but there is nothing to say this user won't pop up with a different IP address and start changes again. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling me names. 184.58.245.87 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IP editor accusing admin of abusing rights and pushing POV edits.. Thank you. --- Barek (talk) - 22:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both Biker Biker and Barek for the heads-up; I've responded at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#IP editor accusing admin of abusing rights and pushing POV edits., though I'm not sure this will need any further comment. MisfitToys (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Biker Biker is an outstanding person. 184.58.245.87 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this all I care to; perhaps you will be more constructive with your comments and edit summaries when your 72-hour block (which occurred independent of any action on my part) expires. MisfitToys (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're sassy. Perhaps you'd like to be more constructive in you're admin abuse and deletion of other peoples sincere and legitimate contributions to Wikipedia, without any discussion, investigation, or even the slightest bit of critical thinking. I'll give you a few hints: If you find an image elsewhere and it is of an lower resolution, higher compression, and has an upload date later than that of the image on Wikipedia... perhaps maybe, just maybe, it was taken from Wikipedia instead of the reverse. Especially if the web page in question refers to and links to the Wikipedia article the image was found at. Your God-like admin privileges should be revoked for your continuous bullying and abuse. Love, 184.58.245.87 (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that, and other abusive comments and stupid edit summaries got him/her another two week ban. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'll point out that I'm perplexed by this anon's repeated references to image deletions, since I have no recollection of ever deleting ANY images on Wikipedia. (At most, I may have removed an image from an article, but I'm not sure I've even done that; I've certainly never deleted an image completely from the site.) The anon is most likely confused, which wouldn't surprise me at all. MisfitToys (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've never once deleted an image contribution from Wikipedia? Yeah, keep telling people that. 184.58.245.87 (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough for any admin to review with this link, which shows all files deleted by MisfitToys (talk · contribs) ... under ninety entries, and not a single image file in the deletion log. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They now charge roughly $10-$13 monthly at PaperOfRecord for access to The Sporting News archives. I just had to bite the bullet and pay for a month as I'm in the middle of working on drastically expanding the article Don Demeter at User:Vodello/Don Demeter. Your work on the Billy Pierce article has been a big inspiration for me to expand these articles of players that don't deserve to just be a small footnote in history when they accomplished so much back in the day. I expanded the articles for Stan Lopata and Hobie Landrith, both of which went from stubs to future candidates for Good Article status.

I don't mind if neither of them ever receive the silly little green plus symbol, but as long as the articles are never hacked up by someone claiming that it's full of "cruft" or whatever stupid term deletionists love so much. 30 hours to create, 4 seconds to destroy. User talk:Johnny Spasm kept deleting 90% of the Danny Valencia article and threatened to hack up your Billy Pierce article as well just because he trolled my userpage after I disagreed with his methods. I despise people like that, thinking that regardless of clearly passing Good Article nominations and consensus, he felt like he could do whatever the hell he wanted, including repeated sockpuppetry to evade a three month block.

I still worry that some day the articles I've written will be destroyed purely for the sake of someone looking for that one extra internet brownie point to get a 'barnstar' for his 'tireless effort' of highlighting sourced text and pressing the delete button. 19 out of 20 deletionists I encounter have no experience whatsoever with expanding an article and including just 1 source, let alone 100. The sourcing alone takes me such a long time, with Hobie Landrith having 120 different sources cited and Don Demeter, despite being only 65% finished, is already at 93. As long as it takes to write the article itself, properly referencing the article takes almost the same amount of time, if not longer.

I'm not just writing an article and then citing all the references. I'm searching through news archives for the subject, in this case Don Demeter, reading the article, then if there's something interesting in that article I summarize it into one or two sentences on the Wikipedia page, then I add proper sourcing. Hell, it can take me 20 minutes to finish one sentence sometime considering how many Sporting News and Associated Press articles I've read on all of my subjects. I'm no expert on Don Demeter or any other player. I'm just writing what I learn with each new article read. The end result is usually the most complete article I could possibly write without spending hundreds of dollars on exclusive access to blowhards that charge $4 to read a 70-word article. I wish my article on Tracy Stallard were longer, but I just couldn't find any more sources than what I had there. I'm still shocked how many sources I found for Hobie Landrith, but it seems catchers received a lot more press back in the day, regardless of hitting stats. If you want to write an article about a player from the 1950s and he's a Catcher, you're liable to find a ton of articles.

I'll be finishing my game by game summaries for 2010–11 Detroit Titans men's basketball team, even though there is opposition saying that I shouldn't do it because they allege it is too much and that hardly anyone else does it. "Hardly anyone else does it" is not an excuse to not do it at all. It'll probably be just a 6-8 hour project to finish the article, only for someone to come along someday and burn the whole section. Oh well. They said the Butler Bulldogs shouldn't have game summaries either at 2010–11 Butler Bulldogs men's basketball team, yet they went to the national championship game for the 2nd year in a row. People deserve to know the whole story on how they got there, and one paragraph summaries for each game isn't going to hurt a damn thing, especially when college football teams have sometimes entire essays written about each individual game.

Anyway, hope to see you back sometime soon. Billy Pierce is not a footnote in history anymore because of you. Thank you for that. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks for your editorial contribution

This user helped promote Kenesaw Mountain Landis to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For expanding the Billy Pierce article, which deserved a good expansion, and for the rest of your baseball related expansions I give you the writer's barnstar. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of arbitrarily handing out barnstars for no reason, especially to the deletionists out there, but your contributions to the Billy Pierce article have been a giant inspiration for my own article expansions, such as Hobie Landrith, Stan Lopata, and soon to be Don Demeter, currently located at User:Vodello/Don Demeter. Citing over 100 references in a single article is an extremely time consuming endeavor. I now know that first hand, with Hobie Landrith's 120+ references and Don Demeter likely going to top 160. Ever since The Sporting News archives went to a subscription service, I actually paid a membership fee to join the Society for American Baseball Research so that I could have 'free' access to the archives. It's helped save an article or two from deletion when claims have come up that there's "no reliable sources" or some nonsense like that for a minor league president from the 1930s. I wish I could write more than one article per year on average, but I can't dedicate all my time to being on here. I also wish more article writers could expand these articles of older baseball players to more than just footnotes, but it seems like less and less new writers are coming in due to the politicking drama mongers that control discussion and content on this site. I still write, though, because frankly the project is far bigger than them; Jimbo Wales especially.

Thanks again for your many contributions to baseball articles on Wikipedia. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Early years in baseball requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((substituted))</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MisfitToys,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.206.39 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AniMate 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated User:MisfitToys/List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party for deletion. AniMate 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial efforts that has contributed to the recent WP:GA promotion of Larry Doby

This user helped promote Larry Doby to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minor league baseball, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Astros4477 (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minor league baseball executives, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Astros4477 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minor league baseball managers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Astros4477 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of religious leaders in 2001, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. tahc ^chat 00:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an interest in Gerald Ford?

Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.

We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!

You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see you working on this article. I had raised the idea of working it up to FA and trying to have it mainpaged on this summer's Hall of Fame induction day. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started the article in September 2004; I just haven't had much time to edit in the last couple of years. I've been pushing for his election (and Deacon White's) for several years, so I'm REALLY pleased these days. I know of several good stories about O'Day's career from old issues of The Sporting News, but unfortunately I don't have ready access to them these days. They include his reluctance to be photographed for a league publicity shot (which nearly got him suspended by the league), his wordless vacations at Bob Emslie's home in Canada, his refusal to speak to any stranger without a personal introduction out of fear of being approached by gamblers, and the affectionate letters he received from NL personnel when he was hospitalized late in his career; they had been too afraid to speak to him previously, but knew that he coudn't do much to rebuff their kindness while he was incapacitated. There was also the occasion when he threw a deaf pitcher out of a game after seeing him sign something obscene about O'Day to a teammate; the astonished pitcher, not knowing that O'Day's parents were deaf, didn't realize the ump knew sign language. All nice stuff. As for White, the primary reason I created the chart at List of lifetime Major League Baseball hit leaders through history was to illustrate his impact in the sport's early years. MisfitToys (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know someone is pleased by the Hall of Fame balloting this year. We should advise the Cooperstown Chamber of Commerce that at least someone is familiar with the inductees.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was pleased by the Veterans Committee results; the BBWAA is another matter (however you feel about Bonds, Clemens, etc., the failure to elect Biggio or Piazza is ridiculous). Anyway, I'm also not a big fan of how the Hall handles the induction of earlier figures. In 2000, I thought it would be nice if some relative of Bid McPhee were present to accept the honor, and I called the Hall to ask what was going on in that respect. They informed me that the Hall does nothing whatsoever in transporting inductees (or surviving relatives) to the ceremony or covering their expenses; that year, for example, Tony Perez' costs were picked up by the Reds, and that seems to be the routine - other than the actual cost of the ceremony itself, the Hall pays for nothing, and the inductees' former teams pay for anything beyond that. (As you might guess, the long-deceased inductees generally get ignored. This year, I suspect O'Day and White will be inducted with no one to represent them, thought perhaps the Yankees will find someone to speak for Ruppert.) Anyway, I took it upon myself to try and track down any living relatives of McPhee, who had no children; using genealogical records (and with the good luck that some of his family were buried in my area), within a week I had tracked down a handful of surviving relatives, one of whom had a childhood recollection of McPhee returning from a South American tour with the gift of a parrot. I contacted both the Hall and the Reds with the info, hoping that someone might have the good sense to reach out to the family, but no one ever bothered. Interestingly, Oscar-winning visual effects supervisor Eric Brevig turned out to be among the nearest relatives, being (I believe) the great-grandson of McPhee's sister; I met him at a film screening not long afterward, and he was completely unaware of the relationship although he verified the connecting relatives, and I emailed him the material I had. I also couldn't help thinking that Brevig bore some resemblance to McPhee. MisfitToys (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the 1945 and 1946 Baseball Hall of Fame balloting pages, Deacon White is mentioned as a candidate the Old Timers' Committee considered. However, there's no reference for that point; unless I messed up, it seems that note has been on those pages since they were created by you. So, I'm just curious as to where you got this, since I would 'love' to read about it if there's more. Masternachos (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the bulk of those articles using what appeared in The Sporting News around the time of the voting, so it's very likely that was my source; it's been several years since I did those, and I don't currently have access to the issues, so I can't give you the exact info for the time being. BTW, I'll be adding some material to the article in a few weeks - some very interesting stuff; for now, I'll just mention that one of his granddaughters is living in the San Diego area, and is now 92 (here she is, on the right; she was living three years ago, and I can't find any indication that she has died since). There are other descendants scattered around the country - Oregon, South Carolina, Wisconsin, etc. But more on that later... MisfitToys (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So like, issues of "The Sporting News" from the thirties? There isn't a "free" online archive of Sporting News issues, is there? Masternachos (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not from the '30s (as far as I know), but there's an online archive of its predecessor The Sporting Life covering 1885-1917, here. On another note, check the Hank O'Day article in a few hours; I'm starting a major update. MisfitToys (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The promised update to White's article is now largely done. MisfitToys (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys. You have new messages at Talk:Steve Grand (musician).
Message added 00:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

You seem pretty insistent on including the rather lengthy Steve Grand quote about conversion therapy, so please join the talk page discussion so that we can seek a consensus. - MrX 00:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at article talk page. MisfitToys (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frank J. Thomas 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/Frank J. Thomas 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. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minnie Miñoso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Grim. 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) 10:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:William P. Baker#Proposed move to Bill Baker (politician). MisfitToys, you were one of two editors with multiple edits to the article and so I figured I'd notify you of a proposed move. Thanks. --Marc Kupper|talk 15:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Craig Biggio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mysterious Ways. 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) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ron Schipper 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/Ron Schipper 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. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2015 (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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MisfitToys.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re USCG: I wasn't certain whether, in the early 1960s, states' coast guards, like California, Texas, etc., were independent of the fed branch, and I didn't want to run afoul of SYNTH. That said, it almost certainly should be restored, and I will. Meantime, I don't get the removal of column—there are numerous meanings of the word and many newspapers are dying, so the WL seemed necessary. Also, "stands" doesn't add anything—he's in the doorway, and I expected that's all we needed to say. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I revised to "stands" for better syntax, as the revised caption became two proper sentences, rather than one incomplete and one complete sentence. As for the coast guard, I don't believe the states have separate forces of that nature (see Texas Military Forces and Reserve components of the United States Armed Forces). And "column" is such a commonly used word (akin to "article", IMO) that I don't see the need to routinely link it. MisfitToys (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; I did some rewrites since the presentations needed clarity. Cheers! —ATS 🖖 talk 22:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do about your many changes to Vincent an Gogh. Please don't put so many changes in one edit, makes it hard to sift. You did some overlinking, such as Paris, - that needs to be fixed. "Van" to "(an" also needs to be fixed. - The death question: did you read the talk page before you added something that the four principal authors intentionally did NOT add? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove whitespace from articles when it has been applied systematically as you did here. I retained the other copyedits when I reverted it. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey—I've asked you not to remove whitespace before. Why are you doing it again today on Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This is also the second time I'm posting on your talk page. Some of your edits are useful, but many are not. Some whitespace changes are editor's preference and need not be changed, and same for redirects that are not broken, link for basic words (overlinking) such as "video game", and delinking work titles in citation templates. I'd prefer not to revert the edits wholesale, as some of the changes could be useful, but especially when done in one pass, there's no other option. I imagine you're using a tool for this(?) and if so, I would recommend making the changes more conservative and in several passes so as to make them easier to evaluate in the diff presentation, and easier to sort the welcome changes from the unwelcome. I'd also recommend responding to some of this talk page criticism (or at least acknowledging it) as it's a bad look (and especially so for an editor with admin tools) to continue wantonly drive-by editing when your peers protest.  czar 21:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember to observe WP:ENGVAR. "Teetotaller" is correct in this dialect. --John (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; the article on teetotalism doesn't mention a spelling variation. MisfitToys (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noel Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lodger. 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) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't actually add the link; I only moved the "s" outside the bracket to avoid the redirect. I do, however, agree the link was probably pointless.MisfitToys (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minor league baseball, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually any reason to decapitalize the start of a piped link? At all? I'm tempted just to revert your copyedit, as there are too many duff links, and most of the changes seem to be this, which no one else seems to do. Unless there is a specific reason, and I can't see anything at WP:LINK, you should stop doing it, as it is very unhelpful for anyone checking your changes, which certainly needs to be done. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-signing this. Also see my extended message above.  czar 21:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove whitespace from articles as you did here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a real stinker of an edit, which I have reverted. Dutch_name#Surnames gives the tip of the iceberg of the complexity - there is no overall convention. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you've misread that section, which says: "In the Netherlands, these prefixes are not spelled with a capital when used in combination with the first name or initial, for example Piet de Wolff or Rembrandt van Rijn. In all other cases a capital letter must be used" (italics mine). In other words, when the first name or initial is not present, the Van must be capitalized - which is what I did. (The section goes on to state that the same conventions are not followed in Belgium, where the Van is always capitalized regardless of whether the first name is present. This means that the only time the "van" is not capitalized is in the Netherlands when the first name/initial is used.) MisfitToys (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, um, um, I didn't rely on that section at all, and nor should you, and I said it just gave the tip of the iceberg. The point is that it is ALWAYS Jan van Eyck and NEVER Jan Van Eyck (except at the beginning of sentences) and you changed the RIGHT one to the WRONG one. Rogier van der Weyden is more variable - I have 2 books by Lorne Campbell that treat the matter differently. Believe it or not, the people who write and review FAs generally know what they are doing. When an article is TFA it is the worst time to do dubious fiddling, which you seem to make a habit of. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it's always Jan van Eyck - because the first name is present. In no instance did I capitalize the "van" when the first name was there. Whatever. You seem incapable of comprehending either what I'm explaining, or what the guides you reference are saying. (Why would you direct me to a guide, then later say you're not relying on it? The guide itself explains that there is an overall convention.) Meanwhile, you simultaneously argue that there are no fixed rules, and that I'm violating the rules. FAs aren't sacred texts; indeed, many FAs have been approved with a large number of errors that were later corrected, with some admins questioning how such sloppiness escaped earlier notice. Apart from all that, you seem to be arguing (in effect) that the articles for Vincent van Gogh, Johannes Vermeer and Samuel Dirksz van Hoogstraten (among others) are filled with the same mistake I've made. There's no point arguing this; I'll leave it uncapitalized. Enjoy it, for all it's worth. MisfitToys (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referencing any quides as authoritative, I just look at what the best sources do. I haven't looked at the other articles, but they are Dutch, wheras these artists are Flemish. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm wondering, what is the point of removing all the blank spaces from a journal citation, as you did here? As far as I can see, all that accomplishes is to make the citation harder to read in the edit box, as well as forcing it to occupy more lines in the edit box (because it forces earlier line breaks). WolfmanSF (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a fantastic eye for detail - many thanks indeed. I'm afraid you are added to my list of "go-to" editors, when I next have an FA on the stocks. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My pleasure. MisfitToys (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Canada does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. You violated WP:LANGVAR and WP:OVERLINK at the same time. Since the article is written in Canadian English, the "spelling corrections" you made were unnecessary. The local consensus on the article is not to link Canada's neighbours or major bodies of water. If you want to change that, feel free to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I made any spelling corrections (though I fixed a few typos in broken citation formatting). Most of what I did was to standardize citation and caption formatting, link the publishers, and improve a few other links (Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery, rather than Catholic missions, etc.). Linking to Constitution of Canada and head of state was thoroughly reasonable, IMO (head of government was already linked). I get your point about the oceans, though. MisfitToys (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys - I can't believe I haven't come across your user name before today. I'm here just to compliment you on your recent edits to Head VI. You caught things I either missed entirely or ignored. (I thought, "Good catch!" when I saw them.) Have you ever thought of helping out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests? I saw your notice that you'll be busy this fall. I hope you enjoy the rest of the summer, that all goes well, and that you'll be sure to return to editing. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! As for the project, I'll have a look at it, but I suspect I'm already a bit spread out as far as available time. MisfitToys (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The most happy person in the world saying sorry
	I'm very sorry :) Mac Henni (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a few others have also requested, please STOP messing about with white space on TFAs, simply to align with your personal preference. Please also stop with the pointless linking of publishers. The template documentation states they "may be wikilinked if relevant", but I fail to see any relevance with the link bombing you undertake. I have also noticed that when you are reverted or partially reverted, you undertake ostensibly the same edit again: per WP:BRD, please don't edit war like this: use the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my preference; I'm simply standardizing the whitespace within an article. Whether single or double spaces are generally used between sentences, I simply make it uniform (and uniformity within articles IS specified in the MoS). Also, linking of publishers is described as helpful by the MoS (Wikipedia:Citing sources#Indicating availability). MisfitToys (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, adding spaces within the references is not a point of consistency: you do it to your own preference, rather like the ridiculous habit of de-capitalising piped links, which is also unnecessary. The link you are using as the basis for linking publishers is specious and misleading: if a book has an ISBN, it doesn't need a pointless link to a publishing house. - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I sometimes add spaces for consistency and sometimes remove them demonstrates that it's not simply a personal preference. And if you think the guide is "misleading", then why don't you suggest it be revised? Anyway, I've received enough thanks for my contributions (and requests for more copyediting work in various projects) that a handful of occasional complaints, while always considered genuinely, don't lead me to drastically revise my approach. I prefer to be bold. MisfitToys (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. When I see you adding unncessary spaces in citations or references, or disruptively de-capitalising piped links, or pointlessly linking publishers, I shall just revert you. When that happens, do remember not to edit war, as you usually do, and try and aim for the talk page once in a while. (And no, the guide isn't misleading: your interpretation of it is). - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're the one who said the guide was misleading. Anyway, I don't get what your problem is; on the one hand, you argue that my edits are pointlessly trivial, yet they apparently offend you so deeply that you insist on reverting them (how is de-capitalising piped links "disruptive"? It makes for cleaner reading of the text). Also, please look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Generally considered helpful, which specifically requests that citations be made uniform in their formatting and style because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit (my italics). When I add or delete whitespace for uniformity, it's simply a matter of cleaning up sloppiness. And one more note: Please don't just revert everything (grammar fixes, etc.) because you have a problem with one aspect of my edits. I've been editing WP for over ten years; I think I have a good grasp of ideal formatting by now. MisfitToys (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said the guide was misleading; I'll repeat: your misguided interpretation isn't right.

There is no need to decapitalise piped links (and to claim "It makes for cleaner reading of the text" is just untrue: you are changing [[Legcuffs|shackles]] for [[legcuffs|shackles]]. 1. It does not, in any meaning of the words "make for cleaner reading of the text", so that's just a lie, so why do it? 2. It's a stupid change to make, unnecessary and makes people watching the page have to go through the changes to check what the change is? It's disruptive and quite arrogant in not considering the work you put to other editors.

The template documentation for cite book says they "may be wikilinked if relevant". How the fuck is linking Routledge "relevant"? (Clue: it isn't); 99% of the time it isn't, so stop bloody doing it.

Ditto the spaces: changing hidden codes are fucking annoying to anyone watching the article concerned. It's not necessary, has absolutely no effect on the reader (which should be something to think about, rather than stupid changes to coding). And no, it's not sloppy, because it doesn't bloody matter!

You do very little in grammar fixes: you do pointless changes to coding and introducing lots of linking, much of which is WP:OVERLINKING (which really is something you should read properly).

You may have been editing for ten years, but small, crap edits are not often picked up, and I see several people on this page have already asked you not to mess about with spacing, or not to make so many changes in one edit, or do other such minor pointless changes. Perhaps you should stop and think next time you are about to edit. Actually engage your brain and think about whether your edit really is necessary. Don't forget - particularly on the TFAs you edit - lots of people have to check every edit you make; just imaging the wasted Wiki-man hours spent your pointless and unnecessary changes, amongst the positive changes you do make. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "The link you are using as the basis for linking publishers is specious and misleading". My linking to it can't be misleading, since it's the directly applicable guide on the topic. BTW, since you think linking book publishers is foolish and awful, why don't you have the same attitude on links to newspaper and website names, which you seem to leave untouched? Anyway, I've taken a few minutes to look at your recent talk page discussions (since you suggested taking disagreements to talk pages), and they strike me as remarkably and almost uniformly hostile to other editors' points of view. Instead of regarding a difference of opinion as such, you call me a liar (that's really mature). You seem to like attacking those you disagree with, so I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore. MisfitToys (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a staggering blinkered approach you take. I am not surprised you ignore any criticism of your actions: you have done so several times from the many editors who have asked you not to do the same things I have asked you to, and seen you edit war against many editors who have reverted your peculiar and pointless edits. The fact you have ignored all those other editors speaks volumes about the level of arrogance you show. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I just looked at this exchange out of curiosity. I had never come across your user name, MisfitToys, but I have had exchanges with SchroCat in the past, though not recently. In fact, I have often disagreed with SchroCat on different issues, but in this case, I have to agree with him/her. I have not looked at any of your edits, MisfitToys, and I'm sure in ten years you've done a lot of good work. I, too, appreciate and work toward consistency in articles, but when the edit does not make any difference to what readers see, other things must be considered. I'm not sure about spaces in references because I don't often add or change references, but capitalizing the first term in a piped link I definitely do not agree with. You say it makes the link easier to read. I think it does the opposite. Since I spend most of my time on Wikipedia copy-editing articles, I read the articles primarily in edit mode. The capital letter at the beginning of the first term in a piped link makes it stand out so that it does not appear as merely another word in the sentence, making it easier for the eye to skip over. It also makes clear what the title of the article being linked to is, in case I want to look at the article in another window. This last is helpful for readers who mouse over the link. So, in view of this, and the fact that other editors have asked you to stop doing this, I suggest that you discontinue this. Also, when editors are working together to bring an article up to FA standards, seeing it through the FA review, and then getting it ready for Today's Featured Article, they keep a close eye on developments in the article and study every edit. I think SchroCat has a point when he says that making small, unnecessary edits at this stage in the article unnecessarily takes editing time away from editors, so might be seen as annoying. I suggest to you that these small edits for consistency (but please, not decapitalizing the first term in a piped link!) are better made when an article is not being reviewed for FA or TFA, when fewer editors will be scrutinizing every edit. I also think that looking at SchroCat's talk page to see how he interacts with other editors, and then pointing out disagreements and what you see as a hostile attitude, is irrelevant. SchroCat has given you several good reasons why you should not make those types of edits, and has asked you not to make them, and has said other editors have asked you not to make them. He has not been rude to you here. Sometimes SchroCat does sound hostile, but that does not mean s/he is not right. You seem to have an eye for detail. I suggest to you that there are many articles that need basic copy-editing: correcting spelling errors, fixing capitalization and punctuation errors, making sure terms are linked at first mention, correcting incorrect verb forms and tenses, making sure date formats are consistent throughout an article, etc., that could keep you busy making edits that really do appear to readers. Well, I really don't wish to antagonize you, but I felt SchroCat was making good points and wanted to express my agreement, at least with the things I know about. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what you describe IS what I'm doing (correcting sentence forms in captions, grammar errors, better photo layout, etc.); my main complaint is that editors who have an uncanny fixation on whitespace changes (which is really easy to ignore, since looking for text changes only is pretty simple) have shown an eagerness to revert everything I do (whether controversial or not) rather than simply ignore what they themselves concede is a purely technical, cosmetic revision with little (if any) effect on the displayed text. (And I acknowledge there have been a few editors who complained about my whitespace alterations, but typically only once every couple of weeks; it hasn't been anywhere near a daily - or even weekly - complaint.) Anyway, thanks for your input. MisfitToys (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment in this edit summary, from 1916 to 1920 The Sun and The New York Herald were merged and for whatever reason the publisher decided the masthead should read The Sun and The New York Herald. So they were one paper for the issue cited in the article. Strange but true! --RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I had wondered whether the review was simply printed in both newspapers. I hope someone with a good source can revise the articles for the newspapers accordingly. MisfitToys (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Lutheran Church of Venice is now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Lutheran Church of Venice (second nomination); editor who created the discussion appears to have failed to notify you. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I added another notable church activity to the discussion. MisfitToys (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisfitToys. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Bellamy Brothers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice for lists of on-air staff is no article, no listing Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it at this moment. MisfitToys (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Michael Fisher (disambiguation 2). Since you had some involvement with the Michael Fisher (disambiguation 2) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 15:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boston Braves has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kevin Kiley (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of the Pacific.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Lee Smith (baseball) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi MisfitToys! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated J. R. Richard for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March songs

Thank you for copy-editing Bach's No. 1 for today! I doubt that "sermon" is not understood without a link, but why not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American paddlefish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Jacinto River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sandy Koufax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Louis Cardinal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A previously existing link that I didn't spot in editing. Fixed now. MisfitToys (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you fixing links like this, which don't appear broken? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since yesterday, most of the links to Charles have been revised to avoid redirects (probably mostly by bots); I was just doing a few of the remainder. MisfitToys (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HistBaseHitLdr1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HistBaseHitLdr2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Major League Baseball career games played as a third baseman leaders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bobby Wallace.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a catcher leaders, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a first baseman leaders, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) While the single reference does support the stats table, the lead section is wholly unsourced. Rather than delete all that information, I moved it to draft, which I though was less disruptive. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of references; the basic definitions in the first paragraph are either covered in the Official Rules of Baseball (the double play definition), or they are so basic that even the Official Rules don't bother to explain them (defining a first baseman, for instance; the Official Rules refer to first baseman at various points while presenting sample scenarios, but never actually state what a first baseman is - that's the same basic premise for the examples in the second paragraph). I added a link for the notes on single-season leaders. MisfitToys (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in baseball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Elder.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mother's Day (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lei.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Industrial design, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drafting.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cleveland Indians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]