User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 5

Thanks for the Welcome!

Cheers for the welcome and the toolbox on my talk page. Very useful! - Phydaux 23:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers bru! Thats a welcome! Noserider 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are (both) most welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit 13:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

beware the purple oyster .. Noserider 11:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Adrienne Shelley

Welcome to Wikipedia! I know there are tons of editorial policies and guidelines, so check out WP:CITE, and you'll see why I made the change to adjust "External links" to "References." Thanks!--69.22.254.111 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Those are not references because they were not used as references (I wrote the article; please see the page history). References are those things that were relied on to garner information for an article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources#"Notes" section for the format where notes are the only references. External links sections are ubiquitous across many articles, are created by convention (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading/External links) and are used to provide links to useful information on the topic but which were not used as references. By the way, thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia, but I have over 18,000 edits here:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see a fellow admirer of Shelley's and Hartley's work. The reason I say that IMDb biographical data and similar biographical material falls under Reference is that, whether you yourself used them or not, her biographical information has to come from somewhere. Also, please see WP:OWN. --69.22.254.111 20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It did not come from there. I was not claiming ownership over the article so referring me to WP:OWN is not helpful. I state that I created the article to alert you to the fact that the references I used are not those in the external links section.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Late-coming, third-party comment to 69.22.254.111: Throwing WP:OWN at someone without really severe provocation and a whole lot of solid evidence of POV editwarring is often responded to with a counter-reference to WP:DICK. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Film credits on the IMDB

Credits on the IMDB aren't reliable either. 6 years ago, I uploaded the full cast and crew of a Christopher Walken film called "The Prophecy 3: The Ascent" into the IMDB. As a joke, I added popular B-movie actress Linnea Quigley to the cast, credited as a "Hooker". The IMDB fully accepted my addition. Quigley is still listed on that page (although she has been downgraded to "uncredited"). This credit is now also listed all over the net. Quigley was even asked about the role in this interview: "You had a small part as a hooker in The Prophecy 3 in 2000, did you have any scenes with Christopher Walken and what was he like? I don’t think unless they used old footage that I’m in Prophecy 3. I have to see it sometime but I wish I could have worked with them. Damn, if you have seen it and I’m in it let me know." Mad Jack 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Well, first you should definitely bring that up on the talk page of WP:RS. I'm not sure though that your incident though can be used right now to deprecate imdb entirely for filmography. I believe you, but your incident may be an anomaly in the face of the quite clear statement that such sources are provided not by users by by the writers' guild. So, I agree that it should not be used for her birthdate, and would be happy if you found a different and more reliable source for the same information and replaced the references with that citation, but I don't think they should be removed and leave a gap requiring a {{fact}} template at this time.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't shown me that...

I'm still laughing. Seriously. That made my day, thanks for sharing :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alley Cats Strike Again

Got the second one now, thanks. Yomangani^talk 09:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

This is concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29&curid=5779956&diff=86669236&oldid=86664273. Your reasoning was "(Revert Jeopardy! edit--"Criteria" is perfectly descriptive and parsimony in section headers is a virtue)."

I believe "What are the criteria for notability of books?" is much more descriptive and headers in question format are much more useful, though I agree it is not a parsimony, in which it is a benefit to the article.

Check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parsimony. Parsimony is "extreme or excessive economy or frugality." This is not necessary especially in a header. "What are the criteria for notability of books?" is not to long and if you still believe it to be so, then you may suggest a shorting of it, and afterward we can discuss. Please reply on my talk page so I get the alert, and duplication would be nice as well, if you could. Thank you. FactsOnly 07:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi FactsOnly! The reason I think "Criteria" is a better section heading because it is monolithic, not susceptible to multiple interpretations, whereas the lengthier change is not so clear cut. In a page entirely devoted to criteria for a certain topic, the only thing one would expect to find below a banner marked criteria is...the criteria promised by the nature of the page; it is implicitly declaratory, inviting us to put a colon after it in our mind's eye. I would ask you: What purpose is served by lengthening the header and turning it into a question? The form of announcing a question as a header often precedes a discussion, rather than a listing. The header is also more in keeping with Wikipedia's heading style guideline which states that we should "[a]void restating the subject of the article or of an enclosing section in heading," which the change does.

The reason I didn't answer you within moments of your post is because that was my last edit for the night. I also went to work the next day. If you're going to run with reverting unless you receive a response to a post, you need to acknowledge mortal considerations. For the same reason, consider archiving posts a few days apart, which will avoid fractured discussion, such as this one. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My Reply:

First, I like to thank you for your kind and well-written explanatory note. "Criteria" is sufficient enough, and I have nothing further to contend with you, though many comments you made are not entirely accurate. If you are curious on my reasons and rebuttal, you may read them below:

"monolithic, not susceptible to multiple interpretations, whereas the lengthier change is not so clear cut."

• For the pure fact that it is monolithic is precisely why it is susceptible to multiple interpretations. For instance, consider the monolithic words, justice, love, and blue. What shade of blue? Dark? Light? Any hints? Romantic love? Platonic love? And let's not even go on to justice. Not susceptible to multiple interpretation? I doubt it. The lengthier change is more specific and thus more clear as to what follows.

"In a page entirely devoted to criteria for a certain topic, the only thing one would expect to find below a banner marked criteria"

• This is a assumption that is mostly true for experienced Wikipedia users. I think we need to consider how newcomers will view things and try to make things easier for them.

"it is implicitly declaratory, inviting us to put a colon after it in our mind's eye."

• It may demand some by declaring, though the page is a guideline page, to guide, not demand. As such, the page is only the view of those who edited it, and the question format whould be as if a newcomer to Wikipedia had asked it.

"The form of announcing a question as a header often precedes a discussion, rather than a listing."

• Or it may precedes an explanation of criteria for a particular topic.

Personally, if I were advocating for it, I believe these are the best reasons for "Criteria": Simple & Sufficient

Regarding the MOS: "It is assumed that you are writing about the same subject, so you usually do not need to refer to it again. Thus "Early life", not "His early life"."

• Yes, it may be assumed, but "His Early Life" is much more preferred. It's more specific and it's such a minor difference.

"Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

• "Rules and Regulations" is better. Looks better. Parallel "R"'s. Able to become acronym RR. Is better. Is presented better with both caps is my main argument. The opposing argument would likely be that it doesn't follow a trivial rule that has no major practical significance and really doesn't matter in the case of titles.

Thank you for referring to it. I will go now and examine MOS, and make my suggestions to the MOS talks, after a few days of thought. SolelyFacts 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oil Painting Reproductions

So why don't you add some more information? Its a work in progress. I am doing a PHD in Art Histroy, I don't know what you are talking about—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barcelona3006 (talk • contribs) .

Let me clarify then. First, articles at their start should ideally meet with the requirements of Wikipedia:Stub (<---that's blue meaning it's a link), meaning the article provides enough information to be useful—generally three to ten short sentences. A one sentence article is really little different than no article at all. Second, the article appeared to be an advertisement masquerading as an article, since the one sentence text was followed by a link to a commercial website selling paintings. Even if you are not involved in that website and advertizing was not your intent, the impression given is otherwise, and such a website link is inappropriate for an article in an encyclopedia; see WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles and WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. For those reasons the article was tagged for speedy deletion, and was thereafter deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cue sports

Left you a big response (and request for some little actions) at User talk:SMcCandlish/WikiProject Cue sports#Towards making this a real WikiProject. Cheers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to edit in there; just because it's temporarily in my juicerspace doesn't mean I think I Own it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, maybe you didn't notice--I added some detail to the section in which you talk about DYK two days ago--I've had a few articles featured there and they need to be more than stubs and must cite sources in order to be accepted (even if they are on silly pokemon monsters).--Fuhghettaboutit 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on notability, and inclusionism vs. deletionism

[From 'WikiProjects Cue sports' talk.] Heh, well, I'll peek into the can of worms... Better a can o' worms than a can o' whoopass! Anyway, yeah, I thought I'd seen you in there, in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It seems likely we'll be working together a lot in billiardspace, so we ought to get a good handle on each other's takes on these issues to avoid unexpected stepping on toes (or feelings). For the record, I don't think everyone who strongly supports the concept of WP:Notability is a deletionist, much less a rabid one. And I'm not an extremist inclusionist, either - I've AfD'd stuff myself (and have identified 1-3 cue sports articles that need that treatment already - Beer-In-Hand and two alleged games that appear to be WP:OR / WP:NFT). Rather, the notability guidelines (and more to the point, contentious draft guidelines that may never go anywhere "official" as well as pro-notability essays that are nowhere near guidelines) get abused daily in WP:AFD to remove articles that aren't flawed in any other non-reparable way, just because 5 or 10 or 20 rabid deletionists "vote" Delete vs. 1 or 2 others objecting, sometimes none. Part of the problem is that a lot of the newer admins forget (or never understood at all) that "AfD is not a vote" and treat it precisely as that, declaring "consensus" to delete when nothing actionable on WP Policy grounds has actually been established, only vague notability concerns. <shrug> I see it as a serious Wikipedia problem: for hardcore deletionists, AfD is a sport, a pastime of immense satisfaction, while for man others (esp. inclusionists) it's a stressful morass, so the "sport deletionists" have a perpetual upper hand - they are actively hunting for things to delete, and in many cases seem to genuinely enjoy fighting about them in WP:AFD, while inclusionists are generally writing/improving articles and not being particularly vigilant about AfD fetishism, often avoiding getting involved in the whirlwind of WP policy/guideline "lawyering" in WP:AFD at all. All that said, I've actually been a mild supporter of Wikipedia:Notability (books) because the extant "guideline" on the topic, buried at the bottom of the guideline on book naming conventions, is very vague and hasn't been subjected to enough debate and consensus building. The amount of involvement bubbling up in Wikipedia Talk:Notability (books) is encouraging. I'm not happy with the way notability is being abused, but the concept is part of the wikiculture and I support efforts to improve it (which almost necessarily will hamper efforts to abuse it). Anyway, you don't seem like a deletionist by my definitions. I think I may have called you that at some point, when I didn't understand your operating mode better. Well, hopefully this is more of a can of gummiworms.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I for one do not think of myself as a deletionist and also get annoyed when labeled as such because I drafted that guideline. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The War on Freedom for me going against a tide of "delete per nom," among other articles. But from what I see, and I have participates in probably 1,000 afds, most articles that get deleted should be deleted. What annoys me is per noms that are truly blind. I occasionally (rarely) "per nom" myself, but I also research every afd I comment on; my per nom really does mean I looked myself and agree with the reasons given for deletion. I think we're probably not too far apart with you leaning toward an inclusionist stance and me leaning he other way, but both near the line. But I am also very annoyed by (to parallel your phraseology) "rabid inclusionists." Everything should be kept. Just the fact that something was posted makes it sacrosanct. No standards. It's an encyclopedia dammit! I think User:Uncle G/On notability captures my beliefs very well. Anyway, as Cleopatra said, or at least as Shakespeare wrote of her saying, "let's to billiards" and forget all these distractions.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

> also get annoyed when labeled as such because I drafted that guideline.

Noted!

> most articles that get deleted should be deleted.

I'd agree, but I think that a) the vast majority of them that are deleted largely or entirely because of a "consensus" that the subject is not notable would still have been deleted for other reasons; b) that when this is not true it is dubious that the article should have been deleted (and my reading of policy and guidelines is that they indeed should not be). That to me seems to be what most anti-NN or concerned-about-NN people are really saying.

> but I also research every afd I comment on; my per nom really does mean I looked myself

Yep. My solution to this problem is to simply not use the phrase, convenient though it may be. I'll instead say something like:

* Delete. After going over all of this I have to agree with the nom., MKing, and with the additional concerns raised by several others.

Takes more time, but pretty much impossible to mistake for a blind "me-too".  :-)

> but both near the line. But I am also very annoyed by (to parallel your phraseology) "rabid inclusionists."

I hear ya. Ironically, while deletionists seem to rule AfD, their counterparts seem to have undue influence on the Featured and DYK processes. I've seen incredibly asinine, embarassing garbage show up there. Once around mid-summer, I think, the FAotD was an in-depth examination of some very minor Pokemon monster, something like Tortomongu or whatever, a turtle-thing. I just about coughed up my skull. It's one thing to have the review processes label something a Good Article because of the quality of the research and editing - that's about form, not content per se. It's a way different ball-game, and an alarming one, when there's an apparent consensus among the people active in selecting FAotDs that the best article they can find, to represent Wikipedia, its participants and its purpose and progress, is juvenile (and manipulatively commercial) gibberish (and minor blather at that; perhaps Pikachu him/itself would have almost, sorta, been OK...

> "let's to billiards"

YES! My new table is GORGEOUS. My back already hurts from practice-playing on it nonstop for hours! Whooo-hooo! 13-year dream come true. It's 9' teak Presidential Edinburgh, with Simonis's fastest, and AccuFasts, and Super Aramith Pros with the measel ball (I love that thing) - not the hideous pink & tan TV set, though. >;-)

Anyway, good to get to know you better, compadre. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah...Simonis 860—there is no substitute. Hope your taking some time out to do drills. Damn I had to go and spoil it all didn't I?--Fuhghettaboutit 06:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll think I've lost my mind...

User talk:SMcCandlish/WikiProject Cue sports/Notability !! Very rough draft. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

On 27 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irving Crane, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow that was faster than usual. Thanks for the work in updating.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Tags

Is it okay to use subst? or db? or a little bit of both? I don't have VP. Bearly541 07:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a ethernet connection, fast typing skills, and a firefox browser. Thanks for the help! Bearly541 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

No problem! :-) (I blocked him too) Khoikhoi 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

John Carpenter

Good catch! Earlier today I was reverting vandalism (before I logged in) and making another minor edit, and I didn't even notice that the template had been deleted.

Sullenspice 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was at the bottom of the article and there were many edits in between. I also had an unfair advantage: ego factor; I created the template so human nature, of course I looked for it. Glad to see you've struck around:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't added a significant amount of content in a while, but I do monitor what's going on and edit new contributions when needed.

Sullenspice 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 6 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Artistic billiards, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great article! I had never heard of this before; well done. Doc Tropics 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Doc!--Fuhghettaboutit 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK notification

That's actually a really good idea. I've knocked up a quick template at User:GeeJo/Nom, since I typically write nominations for around 4-6 articles per day, and from now I'll make sure to add it to the talk pages of the users behind the creation of the articles I nominate. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'm sure doing so will lead to some articles being in better shape by the time they are selected.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Hazlehurst

You've just changed my title from "Thomas Hazlehurst, businessman" to "Thomas Hazlehurst". My next article will be about his son, Thomas Hazlehurst - hence the qualification added to the title. I was going to differentiate (disambiguate?) by using the title "Thomas Hazlehurst, chapel builder" and I don't want the father just to be plain "Thomas Hazlehurst" as this will lead to confusion. I am rather new to Wikipaedia. What should I do? By the way I did explain this on the talk page - did you not notice? Peter I. Vardy 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Peter. I made a series of edits this morning and then went to work, so no, I didn't see the talk page and just got this message. I get ya--two people named Thomas Hazlehurst. My suggestion then is to make Thomas Hazelhurst into a disambiguation page (rather than a redirect) and make the two articles with disambiguation appenders as you had started doing (in the form Thomas Hazlehurst (businessman), which is the style). Please understand, there are thousands of new articles created every day. Those of us who patrol the new articles pages work frantically to keep up with the tide and we see many of the same things over and over. One of them is article titles that have disambiguators that are unnecessary. In your case, it was necessary, so sorry about that. I'll go make the disambiguation page:-)>--Fuhghettaboutit 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks; that is most helpful. I can now proceed with the other TH. I did know about the painter (well spotted) but I think I'll leave him to someone else. I do appreciate how much pressure there must be on those patrolling the new articles but imagine the "distress" to a new contributor to be told that your article is about to be deleted! So I did the "hangon" as directed and left a message but action was still taken. At least it was not deleted but the redirection was a further confusion to me. Perhaps I should have done a disambiguation page first, but I'm not sure how to go about that. Anyway I am learning fast! Thank's for your offer of help in the future - I may well need it when I can't understand all the stuff on the "Help" pages. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 09:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Overdue kudos!

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For the incalculably valuable (and tedious) task of creating and making navigable the Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks! I'm now going to retaliate with a thanking you for awarding me a barnstar award award.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

CSD Templates

Thanks for your edit to Template:empty-warn, so right, if your so inclined could you look at the other in the CSC deletion/nomination groups - see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Deletion notifications, especially my suggestion of merging spam-warn and notice and nn-warn and notice. Cheers Lethaniol 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lethaniol. I do think the -warn templates are more complete, but some users may prefer the brevity of the -notice templates. Both are used fairly often so I'm not so sure a redirect is in order. As for the merge, do you really think there's anything from the -notice templates that is missing and required in the -warns? But since I use only the -warn templates (I created {{Empty-warn}}), and don't feel really strongly about it either way, I'll wait for others to comment at the templates. I wouldn't be surprised though if after you take action, someone who didn't see the talk page message but tried to use the template and got the redirected template instead, reverted in short order.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Witchfinder General

Hi Fuh,

I did edit the Witchfinder General page. Unfortunately I made an error so I had to go back and re-edit. LemonGrass68 23:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey great, you got a username. Stick around and explore. There's a few million pages and lots to do:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SpamAVI

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for all that hard work cleaning up the doo-doos left by a vandal on a major spam-fest. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy pool

On 20 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cowboy pool, which you substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— ERcheck (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Wishing you the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year. I want to thank you for initially welcoming me to Wikipedia and your continued support to the project. Although I got off to a rough start in the beginning, Wikipedia is certainly a great environment with lots of friendly helpful people. As for the past, well, I say Fuhghettaboutit! Best regards, --Lperez2029 19:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

On December 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Honolulu (billiards), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Balkline and straight rail, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- tariqabjotu 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Billard

That never seems to have been the spelling - billiard (sing.) may have been in use in French but I think it is just easier to have it modern English spelling, so I've updated it accordingly. See here for etymology which suggests this was in use by the time of the picture. Nice series of articles, btw. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 14:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, cushion caroms, was selected for DYK!

On January 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article cushion caroms, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 14:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I realized that too, but I don't think DYK could have any affect on this. It's probably a MediaWiki error. I also went ahead and fixed your DYK entry. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, carom billiards, was selected for DYK!

On January 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article carom billiards, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 04:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cuegloss for your editing pleasure

I think you'll find this very helpful. So much easier to type than the full Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms article name! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedily delete

Why was Genius Products deleted before I got a chance to defend it? --(trogga) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It was tagged by me under {{db-bio}} as failing to contain any assertion of notability. If I remember correctly, it was also a very short article, so it may have also been speedable under {{db-empty}} or {{db-nocontext}}. Once tagged, an administrator looks at the article and determines whether they agree that the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. There is no set wait time (which is why it's called "speedy"). Another words, once placed in the category, candidates for speedy deletion, the article can be deleted within moments, although there is usually a bit of lag time before it is checked. The deletion log entry for the article is here.

You have a couple of options. You can contact the deleting administrator (by posting to his or her talk page) and ask to be provided with a copy of the text. You can have the deletion reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review and you can recreate the article, but if it does not contain an assertion of notability it will likely be deleted again in short order, and a deletion review will not be fruitful if it did not. Once an article contains such an assertion and is not empty, etc., then it can only be deleted after discussion or by WP:PROD, but the latter has a long wait time. Please take into consideration a few guidelines and policies:

Beginning articles should at least comport with WP:STUB—3 to 10 informative sentences about the subject. Ideally, every statement in an article should be substantiated by a reliable source, and as already alluded to, there are notability considerations. As I take it Genius Productions was a web based company, please note the criteria at WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --(trogga) 00:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been 2 months since my page was deleted. Is it too late to try to recreate it with the options you've given me, or can I go ahead and create a more detailed page for Genius Products? --(trogga) 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete reasons

I got your note about tag corrections and reposts. Thanks for the help!! Magichands 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

new page patrol

Thanks for the help, I'll start using those. Is there not an speedy delete template for pages such as this Signature Spas of Hickory, Inc., or other blatent advertisements for NN-businesses, or do they as well need to be taken to AfD or PRODs? Cornell Rockey 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why People Believe Weird Things is now on my Half.com wishlist. Thanks for the recommendation. Keep up the wikipedia-ing. Cornell Rockey 16:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

GA nominated articles

Hi. I'm sorry, but I've removed two articles that you put up at Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates, since you didn't follow the procedure, specifically you didn't add the GA template to the article talk pages. I ask that you renominate the articles, and follow the process properly.

Fred-Chess 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I did not. Smacking forehead.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mouse and the Traps

Thank you, "Fuhghettaboutit" for your comments on my article. I was called to breakfast about the time I got your message. I had intended to do an article on Mouse (the musician) and then one on the band, but now think it might be better as a subtitle under "Mouse and the Traps", since most know that name. I realized about halfway through writing it up that I really didn't know that much about Weiss himself. I'll probably redirect Ronnie Weiss also, but I do plan to add something to the "mouse (disambiguation)" page.

I am still learning my way around -- uploading and using images is something I still haven't tried yet but I have bookmarked the article on it. I didn't even really know how to respond to your message; hope I stumbled onto the right way.

Love your name! When I was just learning my way around the New York real estate appraisal market in the early 1990's, a guy in the Property Tax Department up there had that slogan up and used it several times in my hearing. (Different spelling though -- :-) ). I've been hearing it a lot more lately, seems like.

P. S. For some reason, the tag line came in as 8 P.M.; it's actually the morning. My clock is right.

Shocking Blue 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User Warnings

I just updated my toolbox with the new {uw} user warning templates. If you decide to switch to the new templates, feel free to borrow my code if you don't feel like typing all the danged things. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stress

Ok, no problem. Right now my wife is in hospital dying with liver and kidney failure. You do not know what stress is. Sorry.--Anthony.bradbury 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Family

I thank you, truly sincerely, for your concern. I guess we both know that external cicumstances can affect our editing stryle.--Anthony.bradbury 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Parents

I am truly sorry about your parents. And I thank you for your supportive comments about my wife, even though the situation appears irreversible. Any supportve comment of any kind is helpful in my time of stress, and i thank you for it.--Anthony.bradbury 00:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Halloween

This has been going on for several days: his first edit to the article was on January 11. Others have reverted it and warned him; the image is currently nominated for deletion. He has violated 3RR several times, but as far as I know he hasn't been blocked once. I'm not an administrator, and therefore can't really do anything regarding this. I have been hesitant to post a message on an administrator's page because, as you noted, in the past my complaints of vandalism have been shot down as content disputes. So, I have no idea what to do. Perhaps the course of action you suggest would be best. Dmoon1 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen the persistence. You'll note in the edit summary of my reversion of him about two days ago I had counted the number of times the material was added and it was 43 at that time! What a pain.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that October weather reverted his own edit today. Perhaps he has finally given up? Dmoon1 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Hope really does spring eternal. Don't count your chickens. I'm out of aphorisms;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Slow down and smell the roses" from my talk page

Sorry about that. I didn't realize the problem I was causing. I'll try to stop doing that now. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK error

Just to clarify, though I won't replace it on the main page: the Acts of Parliament in the UK are always refered to as the Such and Such Act, Date as there may be more than one with the same name. In this case it was the Lunacy (Vacating of Seats) Act 1886, not the Lunacy Act 1845 . Yomangani^talk 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Got ya. The missing comma certainly didnlt help!--Fuhghettaboutit 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Fuhghettaboutit

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Fuhghettaboutit and have approximately 195 times the threshold number of required edits for voting--Fuhghettaboutit 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B p taylor

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, the article creator seems to have made a genuine mistake while editing the page, leading to all that Hugh Jackman stuff getting included in it. Would you mind looking over the article once again, and reconsidering your opinion? riana_dzasta 13:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course--Fuhghettaboutit 13:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

Thanks for your message on my talk page on Wiktionary.

Your assessment of the situation (if it can be called that) is off base. The glossaries and lists are categorically earmarked for transwiki, because of course, they are dictionary, not encyclopedia material.

Your removal of the talk page tag is what seems to be causing the problem. Indeed, I have been refining the "prevent duplicate transwiki" logic, adding different safety levels. I've also been making periodic sweeps to remove duplicate tags that crept in. The last two bugs have been fixed, so if you see similar problems in the future, please feel free to let me know. --CopyToWiktionaryBot 02:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 02:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to both the above and to your comments at Talk:Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms, there are many Wikipedians who would disagree with you that the material in a glossary such as this is "of course" dictionary and not encyclopedia material. Certainly I disagree but that is a debate, if ever necessary, for another day. Still, I cannot tell from your post whether you feel the material should be removed from Wikipedia, but I am aware that transwiki-ing an article does not necessarily mean that the article here will or is even intended to be deleted.

In your response at the talk page you said (responding to a different editor) that you were "distressed by the misconception of what a transwiki is." I think you are misinterpreting what's happening. It's not that tranwiki-ing is a problem, it's the plain text of the tag that's the problem. It doesn't say "this article has been transwikied" or words to that effect, which is all it should say when placed in a page such as this glossary.

It says: "The article has content that is more useful at Wiktionary" (sharply debatable, I think just plain wrong, though there's nothing wrong with Wiktionary having a [completely out of date] version of the page); "the final disposition of the article on Wikipedia has not yet been determined" (this implies there is some process—deletion, redirection etc.—that is warranted and in process or in the offing, which there has been no indication of other than the tag at issue); "it may be redirected, it may go to Articles for deletion"; (not bloody likely); "or it may evolve beyond a dictionary definition" and remain on Wikipedia (completely untailored and inappropriate for obvious reasons).

The tag also does not explain that the bot will continue to place the wholly unsuitable tag if it is removed. I understand that there are articles posted on Wikipedia to which this tag is perfectly relevant; that is not the case here and its boilerplate text does not belong in this article. Question: if instead of the tag, we place on the talk page Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary, will that stop the bot from retagging?

By the way, does the parenthetical part of your post above, "(if it can be called that)" refer to my "assessment," or to "situation"? I was unclear if this was a barb or not and I like to be sure I've been insulted before becoming offended.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Fuhghettaboutit on all of this. No one here is saying transwikiing is bad, we're saying that it's grossly inappropriate for a bot to be going around posting AfD advocacy messages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, my parenthetical comment was a reference to "situation"...that is, if it can even be raised to the level of "a situation". I chose the word "situation" for lack of a better term, but wanted you, the reader, to understand that I don't think it is earth-shattering.

Unfortunately, the addition of Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary to the page does not prevent further attempts. The much nicer news, (that I think I mentioned elsewhere already) is that I fixed the bug that wasn't associating the talk page's inclusion of "{{transwikied to Wiktionary}}" properly. So, (for now, at the very least) as long as the tag remains on the talk page, my bot should not may any further attempts on it.

I agree on some level, that the blanket addition of the tag to articles is not 100% appropriate, all the time. I had been blindly following the recommendations I'd been given during the bot approval phase...that indicated that they all should be tagged. I also understand there is considerable flexibility built into that Wikipedia process, so that I can do things like the talk page tagging work-around.

As far as the various AfD debates: I have been trying to avoid them. My personal view is that all glossaries, "belong" in the dictionary appendix, not in the encyclopedia. Taken from that standpoint, it only makes sense to assume that the article, having been moved to Wiktionary (correctly, in my opinion) should then be deleted here. But, as I said, I'm trying to avoid Wikipedia AfDs.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I think that clears the matter up. Note that the glossary version at Wiktionary is incredibly out of date and the present glossary is used in a hundreds and hundreds of links across many Wikipedia articles to define terms of art in the subject area.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A delayed postscript. If there were a true general consensus that all glossary material should move to Wiktionary, I'd could live with that. What I couldn't live with is no glossaries at all, i.e. simply merging the glossary-contained definitions into the Wiktionary definitions of the words (i.e. merging our "rack" related definitions into wikt:rack and then deleting the glossary from both Wikipedia and Wikitionary. So long as the glossary were preserved, I personally don't care what namespace it is in. That said, I do not agree with the "get all glossaries off of Wikipedia" people, and will resist any such movement. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrow of time

So you'd delete Spider-Man 3 just because it's not out yet? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You realize that's another way of saying crystalballism? The point is there's tons of reliable sources on Spider Man 3 but none for this movie. When I first saw your post here I figured the article was your baby. Boy was I surprised when I saw you were the AFD nominator.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion on Robert Benfer

The other nine Knox articles that had been made were nonsense, but [almost] all of my information has been written by Benfer himself. Just because the capitalized version has been deleted multiple times doesn't mean mine isn't factual, and a lot of people could use this as a resource on Benfer. Benfer is of very notable value, and is more notable than a large amount of internet artists on the forum, and is completely deserving of a Wikipedia article. What reason is there for Benfer not to have a Wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AMFilmsInc (talk • contribs).

Robert Benfer

Why was my article just deleted in the middle of defending it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AMFilmsInc (talk • contribs).

I am not an administrator and I did not delete it. The article was tagged for speedy deletion by me as a repost, which means it could be deleted at any time (as opposed to the process at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, where deletion is only done after formal debate). In this case, the deleting administrator speedy deleted the article (deletion log entry) not as a repost, but under another ground: Criteria for speedy deletion A7, which is for articles on people, groups, companies and web content that do not assert the notability of the subject. From my memory of the article, I think there was an assertion of notability, though it's hard to remember exactly what it said, but I do think it could have been speedily deleted as I as a respost, as I originally tagged it. You can contact the administrator here. Please note that posts on talk pages go at the bottom of the page, and please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) which automatically becomes your signature when you save.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Copley

Yes, honest mistake. Sorry for that. It's just that none of those names are known to me in the slightest and I don't think they were wikilinked at the time, so it didn't seem like an assertion of notability. I'm still skeptical as to his notability in his own right but I'll have to do some more research before an AfD. Any advice for me? Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha! That didn't even occur to me (you must have tried very hard to avoid knowing any rock musicians:-) The source I added confirms that at least this is not a hoax—he did play with Jeff Beck. My sense is that since that is true, the others are likely also true. Given the prominence of the musicians/bands cited, (trust me, they are preeminent; people you would mention in the same breath with the Rolling Stones) he may very well be notable and meet multiple criteria at WP:BAND. I would certainly do a fair bit of checking before taking to afd. Note that in the book I cited, he is referred to as "Jim" rather than "Jimmy" so check under other names. Ah—this should help as background: [1].--Fuhghettaboutit 19:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you seen my userpage? Seen what I write about? Not surprising I know sweet FA about rock musicians :-)) Thanks for all the help. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol. I see. Although great involvement in one area of music doesn't always imply avoidance of others, I take it you might disagree that rock is music. I feel similiarly about most rap. By the way, in another context I would know exactly what you meant by "FA" but because we're on Wikipedia, it took me a few moments while I tried to figure out what featured articles had to do with this. Cheers.;-)>--Fuhghettaboutit 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nooo, not at all. Certainly rock is music...rap just about crosses the line...Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk headers

What if GA/FA were up top, and "news" like DYK at bottom? There are loads of these "news" templates (see Talk:Albinism and Talk:Godwin's law for just a few) which can pile up quite considerably after a year or longer. I concede that GA/FA is a big enough deal it should always be at top. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Without comparing the relative weight, like making GA or FA, making it into the dyk and the front page is an achievement. A project banner is nothing more than advertizing to get your project out there. I really don't think there is any reason a project banner should ever take priority over any type of accolade an article receives.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me. :-) That was easy. (Though actually the projbanner can and will eventually do more than that, per the WP:BIO one.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of GA/FA...

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Assessment. Just got started, and based it on the ones from the Biography and Football projects. The example articles under quality class don't actually represent the present, since we don't have any FA's at all, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Crap. If I'm going to be contrary, I hate to do it two times in a row to the same person no less, but here goes. I mean this with the greatest respect for the effort, but it seems to me such assessment projects are meant for and useful in topics with huge numbers of articles that require sorting in order to make sense of an unmanageable catalogue, and with a project with large numbers of participants that need the information the assessment would provide. We are a two man show, not likely to blossom into huge numbers of participants ever given the specialization, and the total number of articles to tag and rate, well it would take an hour or two, and then what would we do with it? There are about 150-200 articles that are in the ambit of the project in toto right? Just to compare, there are about 400 articles for each football team category—many thousands of articles in all. Am I missing it?--Fuhghettaboutit 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, maybe I'm just bored with all the gnoming, tired of fighting with the Filipinos who (understandably, don't get me wrong - my Tagalog would be much worse!) keep making ungrammatical and (not understandably) unsourced edits to player bios, and frustrated that I can't yet find any more sources for Three-ball and Five-pins and Yotsudama. Also figured that if the project looked really "with it", it might be easier to attract more editors (you'll note I've not "advertised" the project on WP:VP yet; was hoping to get it into more useable shape first. I suppose I should really be working on pool, etc., player infoboxes first, though. <fzzt> Well, at least a big chunk of the Assessment stuff is done now, in case we ever want to activate it. All it really needs is the jazzified project banner that does the assement coding (not hard - just modify an existing one like the soccer one), get the bot stuff talking to it, and make the sorting categories and there ya have it. Not pressing I suppose. Thanks for the reality check! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FACs?

Are there any FACs at all in our purview yet? And (since think most if not all of them are yours) are there any GAs and GACs? There's an uncommentable section on the WP:CUE page at which they can/should be listed to toot the horn a bit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well as I'm sure you're aware, Irving Crane and carom billiards are both GAs. I put up balkline and straight rail for GA consideration but it failed for a few reasons which I'm mulling over. On the prose end, the article is I think (if I do say so myself), pretty sturdy, as is the depth and research, but it doesn't lend itself easily to lots of section headers because it's an integrated history. I also don't want or see an easy way to expand the already substantial lead with spoonfeeding (I understand this is a general interest encyclopedia, but...well...I hate spoonfeeding exposition and it should only be taken so far). Let's also not forget that a GA review is the opinion of one editor.

It's difficult in some topics to meet the various standards. Take cushion caroms for instance. I'd be happy to expand it but there is no further information I can find to add. I exhausted all my resources and while I think the article is fairly well written and, of course, every paragraph is cited, I highly doubt it could pass GA. So many topics are like that. For Honolulu (billiards), I searched high and low for any information; history, famous mention, etymology, etc. All that I found was alternate names of the game and the rules so that's all I was able to write about. By the way, I will shortly be posting kelly pool. You can also look in my sandbox for a half-formed write up on Luther Lassiter (I'm proscratinating right now). Making a featured article on topics where there is a dearth of information is well nigh impossible. That is the situation we are in for many topics in the area.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya. How long does one need to wait before doing another GAC (i.e. to get around "only one editor's opinion"). You ought to be able to get another. Also, it may be possible to requst GA review from someone who agrees that not all articles have to be long to be good. There are plenty of GAs and even a few FAs on narrow topics that are quite short and to-the-point. PS: I did recall seeing that at least 2 WP:CUE articles were GAs or GACs, I just couldn't remember which right off hand. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alfredo de Oro

PS: I can't believe that is still sitting in AfD. That's a totally speedy keep if I ever saw one. Grumble. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's so patently a bad faith nomination, it doesn't matter much--"non-notable" for a guy written up in about 300 New York Times articles! Did you check his edits? he had 9 total including that nomination. Hey, I just checked, it was closed a few minutes ago.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, did you see the sleuthing I did that uncovered him as a vandal/COI sockpuppet? I actually got bashed in my RfA for doing so. WTF? I just withdrew my nomination and said "the hell with it". I'm not entirely sure I want to be an admin anyway. Well, anyway, I moved the article to the more proper spelling and stuff. I'm pretty sure I can add sourced deets from a few places. 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for the code (on Moreschi's Talk page), which I've put on my Userpage. I'll make a point of checking last thing at night and/or first thing in the morning. I'm glad to have your assurance that Florence Quivar wouldn't have got the chop anyway, but many hands make light work, eh? Best. --GuillaumeTell 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kelly pool

Great job! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As with all such articles, its up for dyk here.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Side question: Do any of the game names in the list at Cue sport look like bogus nonsense to you? I don't have my Shamos handy (in a box somewhere along with 2/3 of my other pool books; grr... About to go create WP:CUEGAMES to keep a separate list and make WP:CUETODO a little shorter at the top. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All look okay, except for flanges. Have no idea what that is and it's not in Shamos. I know all of the other red-linked (cribbage is a great game; have been meaning to wrote it up at some point). I am removing Zone ball though. It's advertizing I think for a non-notable, proprietary game.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to Zone ball by about 5 seconds. :-) I removed some of them and documented why at WP:CUEGAMES. If one of the removals now listed under non-notable there is notable despite the Ghits results, feel free to re-redlink it of course. Also removed Indian pool because the game appears long extinct and if even WP:SNOOKER hasn't written anything on it (it was apparently one of the ancestors of snooker, and often called "slosh"), I doubt anyone will within the next year or 3. Anyway, I think the new CUEGAMES list gives us a nice starting point for where to go next on non-bio articles. I think a bunch are missing from the BCA rulebook, too, but my copy is in the box I can't find in the garage. fzzt. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Removed "Golf pool" as it already exists at Golf (pool) (a better name, and is quite notable), added American four-ball billiards and Mr. and Mrs., and fixed baseball, which is known as baseball pocket billiards. On a separate issue, regarding the Drascombe matter I noticed on your talk page, I agree that it's totally out of process and have some comments: first, the edit history of sandboxes don't generally get put into edit histories at all, so the request is outre in that regard (i'm not going to be asking for my fifty revisions of Luther Lassiter to appear once I post the article, I'm just going to post, people write articles in their sandboxes all the time) and 2) if this must be done, is a merge necessary at all? If it's proper to ask for the sandbox revision history to be preserved at all, wouldn't that be a job for WP:SPLICE since no actually content is being merged? Since the article already exists, the correct thing here is for the sandbox version to simply be placed in the article. The fact that the expansion took place in a sandbox is no different than if it was created offline.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten Golf (pool) even existed. Just did some wikifying in it, but still needs work. I think we may haved edited CUEGAMES past each other on a couple of points; will go look at it in more details. Drascombe - I think he was implying that other partied has also edited it (didn't look, myself) and if so, I don't see any particular reason not to splice-merge them. If it's all just him, then yeah, and I already told him no one cares about his sandboxing. I agree with the rest of your points on that, and just pasting his new article over the stub was precisely what I advised from the start, but he refuses. I was going to cite his AfD as a prime example of what I was talking about, in a "speedy keep" mini-debate in the TfD on {{Chinese name}}; frivolous deletion nominations do strike me as bad faith. I guess not everyone agrees with that though. I'm a hardass in a number of ways around here (e.g. I oppose the continuance of anonymous editing, and think real-not-cluebie-sandboxer vandals should not get 1-2-3-4 warnings, but maybe 2 at most, and group IP addresses known to be at schools should be blocked from editing period, since they are the source of about 90% of vandalism and about than 0.1% of useful edits. I may change my username to SMcCurmudgeon.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See if WP:CUEGAMES matches your reality tunnel as well as mine now (specifically with regard to the low-prio./maybe-NN baseball and golf variants. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I was under the misapprehension that baseball pool and golf pool were just misnomers for golf (pool) and baseball pocket billiards. There are a number of other games that may be useful for article ideas in the future but I think you have most of the major ones covered. I do plan on eventually expanding and breaking 3-cushion out into its own article and adding {{main}} to its entry at carom billiards.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Would love to see balkline in its own article from straight rail, too, with deets on the variants (I recall at least 8 or so variants, from an article Shamos did, in BD as usual.) I think my next big editorama will bee the eight-ball/blackball split. Overdue! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But balkline already has an extensive article balkline and straight rail (probably the most difficult article I've written thus far and the one I'm most proud of for its integrated comparative history); variations of specific balkline games fit perfectly right at the end of the present text.--23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no crit. intended at all; the article rawks. Was just thinking the games are significant enough to have own articles, like with a "See main article..." from Straight rail leading to Balkline. Hardly urgent or anything. Maybe the article needs to be longer before that. In 5 years, maybe the 18.1 and 18.2 articles would even be separate, after addition of lots of sourced material about each world championship, and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

At least 8 or so variants? Take a look at the last paragraph in Balkline and straight rail:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 01:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

12-1/2.2?!? What were they thinking... Hadn't seen that part yet! My watchlist is getting so big, I often don't read edits that aren't likely to be boneheaded or vandalism. Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am responding because I want to see how it formats this close to the edge of the page;-)--Fuhghettaboutit 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out! Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

William A. Spinks

Just did that one. Sent it to DYK. His cohort William Hoskins (inventor) is next. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff! Well done. I didn't know much about him aside from detailing his 1,000+ point chuck nurse run for the balkline article.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thx. About 1/3 done with the Hoskins one (necessarily a bigger article - he invented a bunch o' stuffs). Could I get a copy of that obit.? I guess in e-mail, the site being gmail.com and the username being the same as the one I use here. I don't have access to NYT's fancy schtuff. Does it say anything about how old he was at time of death? That would allow us to have a "ca. 18##" birthdate in there for now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Update! Not only got DYK, but top DYK. I am very excited and all; it's my first DYK. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! That dyk has a very nice hook and I'm not surprised it was chosen as top. If you look at many entries, you'll notice a lot often feature kind of blasé facts..."did you know that John Doe was a was a member of some council?"--Fuhghettaboutit 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was the dealio. If you're bored, have a look at the article history for Talk:DYK (whatever the actual URL is). One of the regulars there (admin or not I'm not sure) commented (unattributedly, but I attributed it), that it should just read something like "...William A. Spinks and a chemist friend invented modern billiards chalk". Period. Totally missed the point - da "chalk" ain't chalk at all! I re-edited to get at what I thought he/she might be getting at (too many wikilinks was the guess), and threw in a stock image and there ya go, numero uno. The very hook you comment on was what the said someone tried to axe, while the DYK-editing admin of the moment got it and ran with it. Just got lucky, I think. Mine was the only one on that date that hadn't been axed for a specified reason, yet they were already picking ones from dates above it. Sure glad I added that picture... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 25 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article kelly pool, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Besubaru

Do you know of a source for baseball p.b. ball sets? Might as well add one to my collection. >;-) Good art., BTW. Updated WP:CUE and stuff. Someone unwise in Wikiways just created a 1-sentence stub for Equal offense. <sigh> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Domo arigato for noticing. Very hard game to find additional sources other than the ones I used. Please let me know if in the future you ever happen across any other sources even mentioning the game. I wish I could give the article some verve with more detail and history. As for equal offense, I say let it be deleted and am tagging it as empty. One sentence stubs are as useful as no article at all and we can all create that same article for every missing billiards game in literally five minutes. I've never understood why some editors view creation as sacrosanct. For the very reason that equal offense is a notable game, it will eventually be created with real content (probably by me;-)). As for a baseball set, see not so cheap set but comes with oversize triangle apparently. I love the way they are advertizing it: "...is becoming one of today's players most popular games." Uh huh. Having just written the article, I can barely find mention of it today.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Updating WP:CUEGAMES; the allegedly different "baseball pool" I found is actually that very set, from Mueller; on a closer read of the sales page and the PDF rules file available at that page (don't bother - it's just a summary of the BCA version), there is no mention of the little bat and the glove; they must just be in the picture for emphasis' sake. Actually, that's a pretty good price though, for a 21-ball set. The rack's not included, however. Separate item. Waaah. PS: Beware of the modern variants of golf pool, with the big dry erase charts. I ordered both of them in Dec., never received either! Looks like two fly-by-night companies. Will try to get to the bottom of that later this week. Worked on the Walter Lindrum article a little, and got it rated as B-Class by WP:BIO. Looked into getting the book about him, to cite specific pages (I think it is great GA and eventually FA candidate), but the cheapest copy I can find is over $60. Want to save up for the big encyclopedia... Ever get yours back? Looks like Lindrum himself wrote a book; Amazon lists it but has none available. Blah blah blah...— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm also speedying World Professional Billiards Championship for same reason as Equal offense; it's just a tautological one-liner. Updated WP:CUEGAMES further with info on the "billiard golf" games (3 not 2 versions - there's a new Canadian variant). Not worthy of an article, at this point anyway, but potentially amusing. PS: Bocce billiards is actually quite fun. When my sister (who also plays pool) visited we ended up playing that for about 3 hours after we got bored with me whooping her at eight-ball. Heh. About a 50/50 ratio with b.b., esp. when we played with hands instead of a cue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a 21 ball set? I thought (having just glanced at it) that it was a 16-21 set, as I detailed from shamos in the article, as a "baseball set." As for the Victor Stein/Paul Rubino book--please don't mention it--I never got it back and used copies are selling for $700. I'm dying over here.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right it is just an add-on set of a few balls. Now the price doesn't look too hot. Re: Stein/Rubino - I occasionally see it for as "low" as $500. <sigh> Some day... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suturaiku! (you out)

I think I've goofed. You may have refs that can be sure on this. Based on the info in the Walter Lindrum article when I got to it, he was a world champ at English billiards, and was not a (notable, anyway) carom billiards player, and various other parties were mentioned as competitors. Of those that had extant stubs, I updated them to disambiguate their stub statements that so and so was a billiards player (old version) to say they were players of English billiards (new ver.), and recategorized them thusly. Now, looking closely at the pics attached to the Lindrum article, the postcard one is very clearly of him playing carom billiards, presuambly balkline, given the era. Crap. This has bigger repercussions. The new "English billiards players" section in WP:CUEBIOS may be wrong, in whole or in part. The idenfication in WP:CUEEVENTS of the World Professional Billiards Championship as an English billiards tournament may be wrong, and indeed its differentiation from the World Billiards Championship (Alfredo de Oro, etc.) may also be wrong. I am now having a big headache. I really hope that the tournments he won were really in E.b. and the carom pic was just of him goofing around, or I have a lot of self-reverts to do. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries; no goof. See my sourced existing history section in English billiards. Walter Lindrum was champion at that game from 1933-34. There's nothing inconsistent about a champion in one game and a predominant player of that game also dabbling in many others. In fact, I would be surprised if a champion at any game did not occasionally play others. The fact that there's a photograph of Lindrum playing carom billiards proves only that he was photographed playing carom billiards, and not at all that he shouldn't be classified as an English Billiards player. I have played Blomdahl and Sang Lee at nine ball--Blomdahl is an A player and Sang Lee—well he didn't know the game well but man you could see the talent in whatever he was doing. Lee and Blomdahl are nevertheless carom billiards players and Lindrum was an English billiards player. Given the time period, and the fact that English billiards involves caroms to score, wouldn't you expect Lindrum to also play balkline, etc.? You want more proof: see [2], [3].--Fuhghettaboutit 13:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Any evidence of Lindrum playing balkline or three-cushion at the intl. level? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 63 articles in the nyt archive on Lindrum you can look at the search results yourself here. Every single article appears to be about English billiards and every single one is dated between 1930 and 1934. So if he played anything other than English billiards in tournamnets it certainly didn't make headlines in he U.S., and it also appears that he had about a four year run and dropped off the map in 1934. If you want any of those articles, just provide the urls and I'll shoot you the pdfs.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a relief then. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK Nom

The creation date is the 27th according to the history. Yomangani^talk 22:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I never noticed but I always thought article history dates displayed the same for all users regardless of preference settings. When I look at the article's history it reports "21:46, February 26, 2007" as the first edit. It's really not a big deal; if we are going to go by a benchmark clock and that reports the 27th, move it back to the 27th.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm set to UTC, and it reports 00.46 on the 27th, but it doesn't make much odds, so I'll leave it on 26th for now in case we need the picture early. Yomangani^talk 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Allied Steel Buildings

Question regarding the deletion of Allied Steel Buildings. I see other companies with their info on wikipedia, did I go about this the wrong way? please advise, thank you Rzucker200 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rzucker200. The article read like an advertizement and as such was deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. For more on this, please see Wikipedia:Spam. Please also note our notability requirements for companies, and our prohibitions on insiders creating articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and response. Rzucker200 13:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Billiards table

You just beat me to it! I was doing precisely what you were. Your version is better, so I just abandoned mine when the edit conflict came up. PS: Sad to see your noob message disappear. I found it rather endearing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Discovering that message there today, and having no memory of writing it, I felt a bit embarassed by it—the sheer newbie-ness of it!. First, I was editing under my ip address and typed out my signature and the time stamp. The way I couched that message I must have thought the edit would immediately be seen and immediate action would be taken. I sort of introduced myself, as if I needed to give some qualifications for my edit, and I guess I felt I needed to tell people I had made changes but hadn't yet discovered edit summaries. Your message made me smile.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you manually did the timestamp? Ouch! Did you have to go find a UTC time zone converter? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Baruku-rainu!

If a late 1894 source says "fourteen-inch balkline" is it a safe bet they mean 14.2 balkline? I don't know that billiard-era very well at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: What about when they say "eighteen-inch balkline"; does it just depend on the year? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Could you please get the page number in Shamos for the Spinks 1010 chunk nurse run? While I did have sources for it they weren't nearly as authoritative. Oh, and the anchor space rules being introduced to thwart that nurse shot (guessing they may be different pages). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can rest assured that any mention of 14 inch balkline prior to 1914 will always refer to 14.2. The first tournament at 14.1 was played in 1914. With regard to 18 inch balkline, it's very hard to say. Both 18.1. and 18.2 were first played in tournaments in 1896, with 18.2. first and 18.1 first played six weeks after that first 18.2 tournament. Thereafter they both had multiple world championship tournaments, though apparently there were more championship matches in 18.1 than 18.2. See Shamos, pages 86-87. For the chuck nurse and Spinks, the page reference for Shamos is 50-51. For the anchor nursepage reference for Shamos is 8 and it specifically says "the expnasion to this size ocurred in 1914 fo the first 14.1 balkline tournament to prevent the chuck nurse."--Fuhghettaboutit 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. So what shall we do when source does not specify 18.1 or 18.2? I guess we could just say "eighteen-inch balkline", but that generic term would need to be introduced into the Balkline and straight rail article, methinks. Oh, and thanks for the page #s. Article is insta-better-sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we just acknowledge it: "...at either 18.1 or 18.2 balkline." However, if you come across this problem, tell me the date, the players, the source, and I'll see if I can confirm which game with a different source.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baseball pocket billiards, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 12:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pix

User:SMcCandlish/Gallery. They're not incredible, and I intend to replace several of them (at same filenames) with clearer shots of the same thing (esp. the bottle pool setup #1; I'm going to re-shoot that from atop a ladder so I can get a downward instead of very oblique view.) One of the seven-ball pics is wrong, too. But it's a start!

Mein Gott that was fast! Thanks. The kelly pool pic is a good thing. Picture worth a thousand words there. A couple of side topics:

• What do you think about the recent (today) addition to the glossary of "killer pool"? Seems to me we don't describe games in a glossary (not sure if the game is even notable enough for an article).
• Since you may be more familiar than me with licensing at commons, do you think I can properly upload an ebay auction picture showing the cover of the 1923-24 Brunswick pool table catalogue; what would be the licensing, PD-old? (if you aren't familiar with such issues, don't bother, just thought you might know off the top of your head).
• I like all the recent changes to balkline except for the last. The old image and description gives the article an air of "we are dealing with a long history of historic importance." It also serves as a more general (and very interesting image) until people can follow along with the more detailed images and their descriptions later in the article. Also, the image you took from later in the article was tailored to the section it appears in and with a description that will be meaningless until readers have reached that point in the text, not to mention that the article was balanced with images and now has a hole at the end.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Well, feel free to use the bottle pool setup pic. I realize it is not very helpful at thumb size, but I'll replace it in-situ with something better.
2. I guess it isn't hurtful to have a brief game definition in there if there's no game article (or if game name and term are confusable, as with snooker). I'd say killer is notable enough for an article (I thought it already had one), and if/when it has one the glossary entry should just go away or be a See main article name here.
3. Sadly PD-old only applies if it is 1922 or earlier; off by one! I think this marches on in time so if you keep that pic for 1 year that should do it.
4. Sorry, didn't mean to fudge the balkline article. I think the croquet-billiards pic in particular seems very out-of-place; something from the 19th or even 18th c. showing actual cues and a non-obstacle normally proportioned table would probably be better. But we do certainly have a limited number of old pics at this point, and recycle them plenty (like the one with the two ladies and little girl), so no real reason not to have it there too. I hear you about the caption on the card image I moved up to the top not being too helpful up there. I like that it actually illustrated balklines, getting that msg. across immediately, but then again the article is mostly chronological... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: Major update at User:SMcCandlish/Gallery - loads of new pics and much better bottle pool setup shots. See Three-ball for example of how to use both the sweeping and cropped shot of the same thing at once.

Great bottle pool pic! Article will be posted later tonight. Oh Note that there is a variation that uses two cue balls, but the source was just one private club's rules. Was looking at that at the time I posted to your page. So I guess I have to wait till 2008 to post the calendar. It's a pretty pic (pic) albeit with a noticeable stain on the cover and a not perfectly centered, flat picture. Thought it would go well in Billiards table. Regarding using both sweeping and cropped pics, I think one is enough, though I don't what you mean about an example in Three-ball (a prior edit?). Regarding that article, are you aware that you can submit an article to dyk for the date you significantly expanded it (another words, not just limited to brand new articles; of course, too late now).--Fuhghettaboutit 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Two ball version: Well, at least it's a source, so good enough for mentioning. Three-ball article, two pics in one: explicated on my page. DYK: I didn't know that at the time, do now (alas; I think I could've easily gotten 2 DYKs, one for 3B and one for 5P.) Antique pic: Hah, I see you've hit on same trick I have. According to the "faithful reproduction" terms, any pic, whoever took it, on eBay or anywhere else (museum sites, Shamos's book, etc.) that "faithfully reproduces" (without further creative embellishment) something from 1922 or earlier that could be categorized as a 2-dimensional artwork (commercial art doesn't appear to be excluded) is automagically public domain. That's how I got the Spinks's billiard chalk picture; I don't actually own that item. I think the (full, near-perfect condition) box was auctioning for over $200 last I looked! Anyway as to the item you're talking about, I believe I can convincingly flatten it out with Photoshop, given enough twiddling. I haven't done that particular trick in about 5 years (haven't had a need to), but I did do it successfully once (and used same plug-in in the opposite direction to take a flat flag image and futz it into looking like a flag blowing in the wind), so it can be done when the time comes. I'll save a copy of the images myself, so I can toy with it later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird

OK, so I saw this "gimmick" 7 ball, in Mueller's online catalog, for playing seven-ball, that has a black stripe around it, with the numeral seven in white in a small red (well, maroon - trad. 7 ball color) circle. I got one, because it was cute and I'm a sucker for weird billiard balls. It has obviously borrowed the black from the 8 ball and the stripe from the 9 ball, as the "money balls" of their respective namesake games; manufactured by Saluc/Aramith according to Mueller. Well, here I am marvelling at the fact that my copyvio speedy delete tag on the seven-ball article hasn't been acted on (I'd "heard" that copyvio SDs were top of the pile), and I ended up reading some of it, and there it is: "The seven ball has a black stripe around it, the numeral seven is white in a red circle." My 2004 BCA book does not say this; I think I would have noticed that. Neither does my 2006 ed. which arrived on Sat. (Wouldn't know about my 1971 ed., which despite the fact that you got your '70 in 2 days, still hasn't shown up.) Gsearch for 'seven-ball site:bca-pool.com', '7-ball site:bca-pool.com', '"7 ball" site:bca-pool.com', and '"seven ball" site:bca-pool.com' produce nothing whatsoever; their site contains far less material than the book does on rules. Google searching on the phrase itself produces two non-authoritative sources that got it from somewhere else (without saying where), plus a third in Spanish of all things, that says they got it from the VNEA rules. Meanwhile, I've actually lost my damned VNEA booklet, and the local league director said she'd send me another one 2 months ago but didn't. So the funny parts of this are that there does seem to be a lurking source, somewhere, for the "funky" ball, and if they are VNEA rules, VNEA ripped off the BCA rules pretty much word for word except for little twiddles like about the weird 7 ball, and I sure hope they did so with permission. The unfunny part is I still don't have a VNEA booklet, and need one (both for the eight-ball article and the games I'm actually playing. Believe it or not, I've been playing by BCA rules, out of habit/no choice since I think Nov., and no one seems to notice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The game is or was attempted to be patented by The Big Fights, Inc., 9 East 4Oth St., New York, New York 10016 (looked for the patent information but didn't find it). More information is here. Myabe you can give the owner a call? My suspicion is, though, that like you said, this is a gimmick ball and any rule that it must be used is a ploy to sell it. That having a ball with those specifications is a requirement of play is absurd. I hate seven ball by the way. Not playing it (I don't) but watching it. Like watching flies fuck. All offense, no subtlety. Course I order accustats one-pocket matches and rewind safety wars if a miss anything, so I'm not your average viewer.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The seven-ball article I'll probably do won't say that any such ball is required (unless it actually is in VNEA rules, which I would note specifically). If it turns out that the Spanish source made that up themselves, then of course it wouldn't even go that far. As for Big Fights I don't see how they could possibly get a such a patent (which is why you didn't find one). The prior art blows them out of the water, since the game an sich has been around for generations, and simply making a new-colored ball isn't novel. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Next update

You're right, thanks for making me aware of this. Would you be ok with using the following hook instead:

...that Hurricane Guillermo in 1997 was the second strongest storm on record in the Eastern Pacific basin with a minimal pressure of 919 millibars?

-- Carabinieri 13:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Glad it didn't go up before someone noticed.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 10 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bottle pool, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaninglessness

Why did you remove the prod tag from the Meaninglessness page? This is an obvious case of a vanity writer, going across wikipedia and adding references to his writings, which are published by his own press and not referred to anywhere else on the net. darkskyz 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the constraints of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. It is, in essence, a form of speedy deletion, in that is shares lack of debate on the merits of the article, though it it is not speedy per se. If an article meets a criteria for speedy deletion then it should be tagged as such. Prod is for articles that don't meet the speedy deletion criteria but which are uncontroversial deletion candidates. As such, if anyone objects to the deletion, including the article's creator, the deletion has become controversial and prod is no longer proper. If deletion is still to be sought, the article must be listed on an xfd process (AFD, MFD, TFD) where it considered for deletion on the merits.

Quoting from the policy page itself: "Articles flagged with {{prod}} can be deleted without a full Articles for deletion debate after five days — if no one objects" (emphasis supplied). This means that once the prod tag is disputed, the article is no longer a proper prod candidate, even if the disputer fails to realize that (quoting again from the policy) "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion" (emphasis in original).

If you'd like some help with listing the article at afd (where it now belongs since the creator clearly objected to the deletion), just give me a shout.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I see you have already listed it.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if you remove a tag you should list it there... Anyhow I did it myself. darkskyz 20:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually follow the your-prod-your-afd rule of thumb. I always prefer to take articles I prod to afd after prod removal than having someone else do so, and give others the same deference, though if you hadn't taken it to afd by tomorrow I would have.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Cribbage (pool)

Good one! Very well multi-sourced all things considered. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Believe me I looked for other sources to add interesting details. No Sinclair Lewis mentions this time. Just nothing out there.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'd totally forgotten about the pic request. Just posted some up, and used two of them in the article. I'm not sure that two are all that helpful, really, but oh well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Old BCA books

Finally got my '71 edition. Let's compare notes. These are the games my version lists, in ToC order:

Straight rail, bank billiards, red-ball, four-ball caroms, cushion caroms, three-cushion billiards, basic pocket billiards, fifteen-ball, rotation, eight-ball, 14.1 continuous (championship game), 14.1-ball (BCA league sanctioning rules), line up, bottle, cowboy, cribbage, forty-one, golf, Mr. & Mrs., one-and-nine ball, baseball, poker, nine-ball, one-pocket, and American snooker (I'm not using their wildly inconsistent spellings, and the pool ones were mostly labelled "(whatever) pocket billiards"; they were really pushing that term!)

It has 128 pages, with stats back to the following dates:

18.2 - 1903

18.1 - 1903

14.1 carom - 1914 (only)

28.2 - 1937 (only)

17.2 - 1938 (only)

three-cushion - 1878

14.1 continuous - 1929

red-ball - 1907

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kay. I have the same list exact list of games. By the way, noting the pocket billiards mentions, note that in Shamos he talks about the incredible resistance to calling the game pool among the industry, mentions a law passed in New York in 1925 forbidding the use of pool in any billiard establishment sign, and states that "pool is not, in fact, a synonym for pocket billiards, although it is used that way. The original game of skittle pool was played on a table with without pockets...see also Western pool which is a pure carom billiards game" (page 178).

Back to the comparison. The 1970 edition is 112 pages. I have all the same record stats as you. I think they are all there are. You can note that, for example, three cushion goes back to 1878 because that's the year it was first played in tournament, around the same time it was popularized and/or invented by Wayman C. McCreery, as I detail in carom Billiards. I also have some records you don't mention (but probably have also), including "world pocket billiards champions", a boatload of amateur records, womens' records, boys club records, and so on. Not sure where our editions differ exactly but they're pretty close I think.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, mine has those additional records too. I wonder about the 16pp discrepancy though. Might be real material, or less intro crap, or even just a different font size. Does yours have any iii, iv, vi, etc. pages? (mine does not; literally the first page in the book, the frontispiece, is numbered "1". About "pool", I think the pocket billiards article could go into that a little more, but it's not a hugely urgent deal right now. Oh! I got my (rather misnamed, since a lot of it's about carom games and even snooker, too) Shamos Pool: History, Strategy and Legends book today, too. Thanks for the tip; I somehow didn't know about that one. The great thing ism about half of the pics in it are PD because of their age, and can legally be scanned right out of the book, and the paper and printing are of sufficient quality that the scans will actually be worthwhile. There're even a few extant images on Commons that can be replaced with better scans as a result, as well as all the additional ones. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Didn't occur to me but then again I don't have a scanner. Just looked and yeah, the book has a ton of great pics. Regarding the missing pages—nope, starts with the first page numbered 1. No way to know what the differences are.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Yours does have the 14.1 "BCA League Sanctioning Rules"? The cover of mine implies that it's a new addition in "this issue". It would actually be interesting to know the year these were introduced, since eventually the straight pool article should mention these rules and how they differ. Not sure I relish buying the 1969 edition, then 1968, then... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pool vs. pocket billiards names

Proposal: Given that comparing the '70/'71 BCA book to the new one demonstrates that they've largely abandoned pushing the "pocket billiards" term in favor of "pool", future articles on these games should probably be Forty-one pool, One-and-nine-ball pool, etc, vs. the "(something) pocket billiards versions of the names, yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it depends. One notable exception is baseball pocket billiards, which should never be called baseball pool. The game is apparently only called that, ever and now, for a very logical reason: baseball pools (betting pools) are very common so the name needed to always be disambiguated. But it's deeper than that. Baseball pocket billiards is the game's actual name. What I mean is, in a world where baseball was no longer played, so the disambiguator is no longer necessary to serve the function of disambiguating, we would still need to call that article baseball pocket billiards because regardless of why it evolved in that way, "pocket billiards" is not in parentheses, it's the actual name used in the world outside of Wikipedia. There are other games with the same distinction. So we have to be ever mindful of the distinction between simple disambiguation and the name itself. Nine ball is nine ball, not nine ball pool; Bank pool is bank pool and banks but never bank pocket billiards; but since golf is just golf, and we need to disambiguate it, we can choose to use golf (pool) over golf (pocket billiards) which I certainly am ageeable to.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On this same front, I just discovered the changes to the dyk entry and reverted. The game is called cribbage and just cribbage in most sources, which is why I chose to use a disambiguator in the title (pool)—in parentheses—despite that it is sometimes disambiguated with pool and pocket billiards in the name itself, but apparently only by the BCA when introducing the public to the game. The entry makes it clear that it's a pocket billiards game named after the card game but there's no reason to call it by another barely used name.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I can get behind that (though I have to laugh at BCA a little; the '70s books actually said "Nine Ball Pocket Billiards", but that's just them being a bit unintentionally silly.) I think my point of departure is that I would rename golf (pool) and cribbage (pool) to golf pool and cribbage pool, because in both cases they borrowed the name from existing games and calling them by the other-game names without the ambiguator only makes sense in a very narrow context (i.e. "What game shall we play on this table?" "Golf." Even "What game shall we play next?" "Golf." said in a pool hall could elicit a response of "OK, I've got my clubs in the trunk, let's hit the links.") I do get the baseball pool problem, though. Mainly I was reacting against the idea of names like "bottle pocket billiards" and "fifteen-ball pocket billiards" and other old-BCA nonsense. Perhaps surprisingly to you, though, I would also advocate renaming cowboy pool to cowboy pocket billiards since it isn't really a pool game as that term is generally applied; it's much more of a "billiards, with pockets" game. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I almost think discussions like this should be at WP:CUETALK so we don't behave too much like a duopoly. >;-) Maybe we can at least refactor them in later so they're at least on record on the project's talk page.

It may make sense to those who aren't already familiar with the games, only in a narrow context, but those are the main names used in the real world which is why I disagree. Let me llustrate by analogy. Changing golf (pool) to golf pool is maybe not as extreme but is akin to changing Power (sociology) to Power sociology. The only reason it feels different to you is because the disambiguator in our context is a word that doesn't lead to a non sequitur. But the effect of the change is similar. We are taking the name of something and applying a disambiguator not used in real life, and instead of using it in disambiguator fashion (i.e. in parentheses) suggesting that the game's actual name uses the disambiguator. It is not our role to introduce neologisms, nor to use the uncommon name of a game instead of the common name. For golf and cribbage, it's not as extreme because though not common, at least one source actual does use "golf pool" and cribbage pool" but for historic games where, for instance no sources can be found ever calling it ____ pool, but always ____ pocket billiards, we should never insert our sensibilities and change the name it went by to a new name it never went by. We should keep games that are mostly known without pool or pocket billiards in their names as just the regular name with a disambiguator in parentheses, regardless of context here, and we should call games like cowboy pool (and to cite Shamos, Western pool), by their common names regardless of whether they are carom games. Agree this should be duplicated at talk once we're done fulminating:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 12:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm agreeing with all that, other than I'm not entirely on board with the "commonness" aspect. I'm definitely not in favor of making up bogus name (snooker pocket billiards, anyone?). The issue in my head is that my 1971 BCA book says "cowboy pocket billiards" (providing a source for the rename.) It also says "cribbage pocket billiards" and "golf pocket billiards". We know that BCA uses "pocket billiards" and "pool" as pretty much synonymous (they kept "baseball pocket billiards" surely for the reason you pointed out). But the 2006 ed. simply dropped both. So my two widely-time-separated BCA books don't quite provide a source for "golf pool" and "cribbage pool" but hint that there's probably an intermediary copy, or some other source that didn't go quite as gung ho with "pocket billiards", that did use those terms. At very least it suggests that golf pocket billiards and cribbage pocket billiards are more proper article names. The present 2006 ed. usage of "golf" and "cribbage" with neither "pocket billiards" nor "pool" was just an editing decision to reflect BCA's internal preferences (shorten the game names, because the section those rules appear in is already titled "Pocket Billiards Games", so the long names are redunant, but God(s) forbid don't use "pool" because we officially don't like that word.) Does that make any more sense? You do seem to have a golf pool and cribbage pool source, so they're not bogus name, and I guess my addl. contention is that real pool players who play(ed) such games probably call(ed) them by the longer names much of the time rather than just "golf" or "cribbage", unless they were actually standing at the table. I.e. if a player's wife said "what are you doing on Tue. night", he'd reply "playing golf pool with Joe", not "playing golf with Joe". This isn't a huge deal, really, just something that occurred to me. In short, it runs something like: If we have a disambiguating and sourced name for something but it's not necessarily the most common name, but also not a weird one, why not use that instead of a dab name like "golf (pool)"? And for cowboy, if both cowboy pool and cowboy pocket billiards are sourceable as real names for the game, and the latter is marginally more appropriate but perhaps less common, it might still be better to use it because it's more accurately descriptive, and the game is nearly exitinct anyway; i.e. it's not like renaming "nine-ball" to "nine-ball pocket billiards" just for the heck of it.  :-) Or something like that. I wouldn't propose this for Rotation -> Rotation pool (even given a source for the latter), since there isn't some other, more established, non-cue game called "rotation" that the pool game is a take-off of. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneak peek

Have a gander at User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox/Nav. It's about half-done (the snooker segment - page down a bit to see it - which could later have equivalents for carom, or even more narrow things like nine-ball, or whatever we want, just by adding extra "switches", is just dummy text, some of which you'll recognize. The functionality is all working precisely as-expected though, so far. NB: This isn't even the 'baddassest ever" template I mentioned a week or so ago. That one's for talk page WikiProject headers, and way more inventive, but only maybe 20% done. Anyway, I think this one could actually be influential once employed, because other people whose favorite articles have 5 nav boxes on them, or who are having problem (as I have been) with subproject people complaining about the overarching parent project's nav, will think "hey, I can do that too..." The talk page one could be HUGELY influential if I get it all working - instead of 5 WPP templates on a page there would just be one, but any project could make their use of it; it will kick some boo-tay. It started as me thinking about how to use our WPP template but use WP:SPORTS's assessment system (and then I realized for player bios we'd actually need to use WP:BIO's assessments), since as we agreed WP:CUE doesn't have the resources to have our own assessment system. And then I just kinda went nuts from there. Still much to do (mainly because I want to make a "master" template that can be used for literally ANY project, and that means I have to look at the templates of ALL projects and integrate their features.) Blah blah blah yak yak yak. The preview for that one is User:SMcCandlish/Sandbox/Template — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha, my angry tarsier will be pleased. That's very cool. Is anything similar in use anywhere or is that out of whole cloth?--Fuhghettaboutit 07:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WRT the nav box, after I upgraded ours to the base code that provides more features, I was digging around in the code of it and noticed the autocollapsing stuff, and that gave me the idea. I've not seen any other nav boxes that do this sort of stuff for more than one (related) project at a time. WRT the talk page header of doom, I'd seen various features in some of them (see Talk:Pool TV for a nifty one that combines three projects into one, though it is badly screwed up in that it transcludes the /Comments file and that transclusion not only isn't collapsed by default it isn't collapsible at all). It just started giving me ideas; also inspired by increasing WP:PUMP and elsewhere concerns that talk pages are getting too crowded, and I tend to agree (have a look at Talk:Albert Einstein; someone I'm a bit irritated with came up with the idea of just stuffing them all in some hidden box that virtually no one will ever open; but open it, and you can see how excessive the WPP tagging was there). Eventual goal is to produce a talk page header template that in ONE instance can handle any/all projects' needs. It'll probably take me all year; I have to examine all project's header templates for their features and integrate them (or a more sensible equivalent in some cases). The idea is that only the most relevant project would get top-billing, and other projects "laying claim" would appear as miniatures like in the one at Pool TV (I haven't actually implemented that part yet, just the ability of multiple projects to apply assessments). I did already plunder the WP:BIO one for auto-generated "needs an infobox" and "needs a picture" features, though I think I would want to integrate those even better to save yet more space. The ultimate deal would be a meta-template that generates for you the template you want for your WikiProject. But because I'm biased I'm early-integrating ideas into the WP:CUE banner first. Heh. The sandbox version is already almost good enough to deploy in that it has features that would allow the WP:SPORTS and WP:BIO banners to be integrated into this one and preserve the assessments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

Revert needed for Mrázovce, which was image vandalized after you edited it. OlavN 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You realize that anyone can revert vandalism. All you have to do is go into the page history, click on the date before the vandalism was placed, and then save the page (best to do so with an appropriate edit summary). After you do so, it's always a good idea to warn the vandal. See the various templates at WP:WARN. In this case I used {{uw-vandalism1}}.--Fuhghettaboutit 07:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd warning Richard D. Smith

Yep, duplication... my sort of bad... However, he did add to the article (just a category) after your warning, which doesn't change the copyvio problem. Should I remove #2 or just let it stand? (p.s. can you archive this page, it's 130KB long now)SkierRMH 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

'PlK

On 20 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cribbage (pool), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Top billing even! Cool. I updated WP:CUE#Articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The article had a decent hook with that massive number. How's the template coming?--Fuhghettaboutit 03:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven't touched either of them since we last talked. There's too much going on in the "what to do with WikiProjects and their headers" field to continue to invest time on that megatemplate until is settles down a bit, because any moment now it could all be mooted by a new direction for all anyone knows. And I've been embroiled in major issues at WP:MOSNUM and WP:ATT which have kept me from working any further on the nav template stuff; they don't relate in any way to that, but have been very time-consuming. The Jimbo weighed in personally (for once) on the WP:ATT issue, so as you can imagine it's a royal goat...<ahem>roping. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dinlas

The Dinlas article which, after discussing that it appeared to be a hoax with Theranos, you successfully nominated for deletion is back, as are a couple of other references to it on in other articles, not sure what the process is when a page comes back after deletion, is it merely another nomination for deletion?Number36 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No wait, sorry, found it under criteria for speedy deletion, 'Recreation of deleted material'.Number36 02:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Number361. Thanks for the heads up and glad you found {{db-repost}}. I am duly impressed that as a new user you found the deletion log entry and found me through that as well—welcome to the site! Feel free to drop by my talk page for any reason.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Toolbox

Thanks for the nifty and convient toolbox. It will make looking stuff up so much easier. Hornandsoccer^Talk 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Note that the the warning templates are out of date now that {{testtemplates}} has been deprecated. I'll be updating it soon.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Having the uw-series templates in there would be great; I too use your toolbox. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

$49.99 Sewer Man

This is the first sewer drain cleaning service provider with price in its name. Since last year it has changed the price structure of this industry which comprises of more then 400 companies in just New York Metro area. Even in ads or listings a lot of companies have started imitating this trend following $49.99 Sewer Man. I believe it's a unique company and a very bold one because most of the companies charge 3-5 times what this company advertise and since their name is their price they can not over charge otherwise they lose customers right away. I asked them how they survive and their answer was that since they started this company and their advertisement came out there is not been a single hour that they didn't have a job. I beleive it is a unique concept they came up with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alpha1965 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Alpha1965. Notability here has nothing to do with uniqueness or inherent merit of the subject, but focuses on whether the wider world has recognized the company by reliable sources sources (movies, newspapers, newspaper articles, books, etc.) publishing non-trivial material about it. This goes hand-in-hand with our policy that all articles must provide attribution to verify the material stated in the article. We also have a policy against articles that function essentially as advertizements for companies. Our specific notability guidelines for companies are listed at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). So the company may provide a great service; it may even have influenced the plumbing price structure of NYC plumbing companies, but nothing in the unsourced article you posted made it notable enough for an encyclopedia article.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)