User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive024

Unprotected talk page
User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive021
User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive022
User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive023
Commons
Wiktionary
Simple English Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer
Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer
Wikipedia:General disclaimer

Note

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Clean and sober of WP:ANI for ONE YEAR and SEVEN MONTHS and counting.[1] (Complete with typo - should say LAST post.)

Orphaned non-free image File:BackAlleyOproarHornpipe1.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BackAlleyOproarHornpipe1.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I don't do ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. After looking at this more closely I indeffed them. If their block expired they have the burden of proof to establish that. Until they do, they will remain blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False

Reporting you for continuous false/inaccurate edits Dwest25 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ID reminds me of a book title: "Dwest faw success". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phillip Pine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adventures of Superman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Clean and sober of WP:ANI for TWO FULL YEARS (314 weeks ago) (2201 days ago) and counting.[2] (Complete with typo - should say LAST post.)

Ref desks edits

It's a long and boring story, but basically during Coronavirus isolation I'm limited to using an edit tool which does not have full compatibility with Unicode... AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs gets it, but I don't. Why does this property of your edit tool cause you to edit other editors' posts, at all? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely get why, I just get that it does, due to some limitation of the editing program he's using. But it's one thing to convert arrows like if spellcheck were to intercept it, but converting some of your characters to at-signs seems weird. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 02:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:JackofOz -- when I edit a Reference Desk section, the entire section appears in the edit box, and so is processed by my non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool, whether I want it to or not (I would much rather it didn't). I don't "edit" those parts of other people's comments at all, in the sense of making a conscious effort to substitute one thing for another thing. It's just an automatic consequence of my choosing to edit a ref-desk section at at all... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Schwa is displayed as an at-sign for me when I view Wikipedia in this way (over an indirect connection), so when I edit Wikipedia in that way, a schwa character is automatically changed to an at-sign in the edit box... AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnonMoos, thanks for the explanation. I hope you can solve this problem very soon. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to "solve" it is for me to buy completely new computer, but I was putting off doing that before coronavirus isolation, and it's a little difficult for me to do during coronavirus isolation... AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't work out

... who you were replying to with this comment. Could you clarify? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13th anniversary on Wikipedia!

Hey, Baseball Bugs. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers

There is currently a discussion at WP:BLPN#Bill Ayers related to the recent edits that have been made to this article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agricultural Society Fair Grounds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairground (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed, thanks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you set me up

When I said "A, B, C" and you responded "what did you say?" Me: "A" You: "What does A have to do with it?" Me: "B" You: "What does B have to do with A?" Me: "C." You: "Okay, I can't tell whether you're ultra-ignorant or just trolling."

You basically had me repeat everything I said part by part, which made me look like I was overtalking, which is setup fodder. I took the bait. Even though I technically only repeated what I said. This stinks. But certainly smart tactic on your end. I see what you did. I fell for the bait. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

My reaction to your comment

[3] --Wester (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the free...

( Moved from Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities —— Shakescene (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

If you don't want those items discussed, how about you remove them from your question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the entire nation of North Korea is effectively a prison with a population of some 25 million. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effective prison systems are the best kind, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does the job for Kim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing a solid chunk are Kim, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Koreans are named Kim. It's like the Korean analogue to Smith or Jones. But there's only one guy named Kim who actually matters in NK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For more about the concept of freedom, see Liberty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you're mixing your metaphors. Police brutality, "excessive force", is often against the law, but it still happens. In contrast, the drinking age, along with whether to allow capital punishment, are chosen by the people of the individual states. If you don't like those things in your state, you are free to exercise your First Amendment rights and lobby for change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying is too expensive for the average "you", same with suing corporations. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It just matters how badly you want it. States with the death penalty are apparently OK with it. Likewise with the drinking age. But there's nothing stopping anyone from speaking out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hearing constituents complain. That's what legislators value over money. Good luck, folks! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your priorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how dare someone say something about the US that isn't entirely positive eh? What is this? Fox News? Can we have some semblance of an adult discussion here? The OP asked an interesting, if somewhat naive question. The contradictions they mention are indeed odd to those outside the US, especially those used to a more liberal (in the American use of the word) society. Now, the question is probably not within the remit of the Refdesk, but there is no need to go off on nationalistic rants. And what does North Korea have to do with anything? Fgf10 (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He said the US has the "largest prison population on Earth", which is a biased claim. The OP probably won't be back anyway, so this section will soon die. P.S. I hope you enjoy your national leader as much as we enjoy ours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of countries by incarceration rate, the US comes top on both "Prison Population" and "Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population" (by a substantial margin in both cases), so where is the "biased claim"? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is in those numbers. North Koreans can't leave their country. That's prison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about biased claims... --Lambiam 17:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more interesting that in the list of things OP chooses to point out as contrary to freedom, the first item is the drinking age, and at the head of a list including of mass incarceration, capital punishment, and police brutality. I am reminded of the second half of Gil Scott-Heron's "Comment No. 1" (on Small Talk at 125th and Lenox). A good listen for those ITT. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team nicknames in pre-W/Series baseball champs

Hi, Bugs, I was idly rehaunting — for no particular, good, innocent or productive reason — the List of pre-World Series baseball champions , when I ran across this item on its Talk Page

Team nicknames need reformation
While no team "name" was official in the 1800s aside from club names like Eckford, Atlantic and Metropolitan, some were actually used (by reporters, not the clubs), such as "Giants", "Browns", and, towards the end of the century, "Pirates" and "Orioles." But most of the others never really existed at all, except as arbitrarily concocted by Turkin and Thompson (you won't find them in Lanigan, or contemporary newspaper accounts.) Artificialities like "Beaneaters," "Colonels" and "Bridegrooms" really need to be purged. Solicitr (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you are infinitely more capable than I of addressing such questions about the National Pastime, perhaps you could respond either on the article's Talk Page, on User talk:Solicitr or through editing the article itself.

¶ I suppose I should congratulate you on the forthcoming anniversary of a tragic separation, but as an Englishman by birth and as a British citizen, the best I can manage is either a cheerful, friendly "Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish!" or a plaintive "Come home, Sam, all is forgiven !" :-)

And don't forget that Canada Day (or Dominion Day) is this Wednesday, the glorious First of July.

Patriotically yours as always—— Shakescene (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I just came here to congratulate Bugs on his big 344th! Ok, it's not exactly a "big" number, but neither was 153. The important thing is my neck of the woods got sweet frickin' lightnin' on America's birthday, and all Trudeau managed to whip up for ours was humbling stifling humidity. Also, it recently occured to me that I've heard "The Star-Spangled Banner" way more times in mainstream media than "O Canada", and it really is quite catchy. Nowhere near as good as Brazil's, France's, England's, Poland's or Russia's, but way better than that cheap pop from China, Taiwan and the Philippines. So go Yankees! USA, USA! God Save the Queen! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your community-imposed topic ban from WP:AN. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have an active, community-imposed AN TBAN listed at WP:EDRC. Looking at your edit history, you do not have appeared to have recently appealed the TBAN and had it overturned. As a previously-highly active AN/ANI participant who has seemingly abided by the TBAN since its inception, I do not suspect that you have suddenly forgotten about it. Honestly I'm not sure why you would violate it now. If the TBAN has been overturned and your active ban from AN on EDRC is in error, please let me know and I will overturn the block with apologies. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what you're talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Following the link Swarm provided, it says "Baseball Bugs banned indefinitely from AN and AN/I." and that commenced mid-2018, yet you made this edit at AN, thus contravening the topic ban. Hope that clears things up. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stopped editing ANI on May 1, 2018. I don't recall any ban other than the one I imposed on myself. As to this matter today, the user Futurist had asked about death certificates, and while I confirmed what another user said, I still had to question whether documentation behind a pay firewall is considered "public". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The ban states you can't edit AN/I or AN and you edited AN, regardless of what you added, it was a contravention of the topic ban, so hopefully now you do know what is being talked about. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you say so. Maybe you can help answer my question about pay sites vs. "public" information? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not "if I say so", it's a matter of plain fact. You broke your topic ban. And yes, of course a pay site is still public information. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        How do you figure? What if the family doesn't want death certificate details made public, e.g. putting that info in the article on Walter Bruening as I assume Futurist is fixin' to do? Prior to his question, there was no free website that had it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you can pay for information via a subscription or accessing publicly available records such as death certificates, that's fine and public information. Whether that is something a family wants or not is not relevant. Anyway, I simply came here to explain why you had been blocked again. Hopefully now you get it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not convinced. In any case, I hadn't been blocked in nearly 6 years, so I'll have to start a new streak tomorrow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I would have advocated a warning instead of a block. Baseball Bugs, might I gently suggest that you go to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and look up your username? Note that your name is on the list in three places. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't know about this one until it was pointed out. Apparently my having been involved in the discussion on the ref desk page itself is considered irrelevant. And it's interesting to note the great glee some users are taking in this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with you there. In general, it does appear that some users are constantly watching for violations so they can play "gotcha" (I would have to search the history to see if this is true in this particular case). That's why I think that a warning should usually precede a block. Nonetheless, I think we both know you should have kept up with what restrictions are imposed on you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Whether you feel convinced or not is irrelevant. The sanctions are there in black-and-white and you violated them. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry to see this Bugs. I think it's wrong, but given that it's only 24 hours - I just don't have the energy to "go to bat" for you as they say. Once the block is over you may want to appeal the page(s) ban/restriction - unless you want to keep it as a deterrent as a self-monitoring tool.

As far as your original question - I don't have an answer for that either. I know I've seen it discussed in many places over the years in the "should we use pay sites as reliable sources" vein. Not sure I've ever seen the "pay sites as RS for death posts" discussion though. Anyway, hope you are well. Best always. — Ched (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to do an unblock. My recently-clean record is now blemished, and you can't fix that. I'll just wait until it expires, and never again edit the AN page. (I was already off the ANI page for over 2 years.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to block replies

I see you replied to my block, saying, repeatedly, that you were unaware of the ban that was being enforced: I am simply noting for the record, that you were formally banned, notified, and you acknowledged the notification.[4] This was not kept secret. Likewise, addressing Guy Macon's accusation that I am a user who has been constantly watching for violations so [I] can play "gotcha", it's AN. Yes, I watch AN. Yes, remember you as an AN/AN/I regular. You were extremely vocal and prominent at AN/I back in the day, how could I not? I knew of you, because I was, overwhelmingly, a fan of your commentary. So of course I remember you getting banned from both boards. No, I literally haven't seen you around since then. Yes, I just so happened to have popped by AN, and I saw your comment there, remembered that you were banned from that page, and consulted the log, in which you were still listed as being banned. I then scoured your contribs, to make sure that your ban listing was not in error. It did not appear to be. I then issued a minimal block, with a caveat that I would unblock you if it was in error. You made no such claim. I simply enforced an existing ban that you were made aware of and have abided by for years. It's strange to me that I would be framed as some sort of malicious stalker just waiting on you to slip up. Also, I am not sure what your message on my talk page is supposed to mean. Feel free to clarify. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation

Sorry to reopen a small part of an archived thread, but I was falsely accused and would like to set the record straight.

Swarm wrote[5] the following:

...addressing Guy Macon's accusation that I am a user who has been constantly watching for violations so [I] can play "gotcha"

What I actually wrote[6] was

In general, it does appear that some users are constantly watching for violations so they can play "gotcha" (I would have to search the history to see if this is true in this particular case). (Emphasis added)

So not only did I not mention Swarm by name, I was careful to say that I don't post accusations unless I have personally reviewed the history and determined that the accusations are true.

Let me say this again: in my opinion Baseball Bugs was not given the same treatment that any other good-faith contributor would get after such a minor infraction. Yes, a block was technically allowed, but we have a long tradition of warning users who seem to be trying to abide by their restrictions and of using blocks without warning only for those editors who keep pushing the envelope, standing with their toes over the line. That's not Bugs. As a long-term contributor who does a lot of good work, he should have been warned.

Finally, this "you should have known" club that you are beating Bugs with after the block was imposed looks a lot like grave dancing. It is entirely plausible that the restriction slipped his mind. People overlook things. sometimes they overlook really important things. It's part of being human.

Bugs, feel free to archive this in the same archive as Swarm's false accusation, so that anyone reading it will see my response. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of questions and answers from the Reference Desk

On 19 August a User at the Science Reference Desk asked a question about Klebsiella pneumoniae. The question attracted good-faith responses from Shantavira, Tribe of Tiger, Count Iblis and Lambiam.

On 20 August you removed the entire thread, including the good-faith edits by the four responders. Your edit summary simply said “WP:DENY”. See your diff.

Removing signed edits from the Reference Desks is a highly controversial subject. There is currently a Request for Comment in progress on a subject related to removal of questions and answers from the Reference Desks. The RfC originated with Guy Macon challenging the way in which good-faith edits on the Reference Desks are removed in violation of the broad principles existing at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Guy wrote: “In particular, categorizing this page as a guideline would allow any editor to delete comments from other editors in direct violation of our existing policy at WP:TPOC.” See his diff.

The explanation you offered for removing the question about Klebsiella pneumoniae, and the four good-faith responses was WP:DENY. I have looked very carefully at this essay and I see nothing that authorizes you or anyone else to remove questions or answers from the Reference Desks. Besides, Wikipedia:Deny recognition is stated clearly to be an essay; it “is not one of Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines …”

The User who asked the question about Klebsiella pneumoniae has now been blocked but not before he also asked a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse. His question at the Teahouse was boxed by Marchjuly – see his diff. Significantly, User:Marchjuly did not remove the thread as you did.

It seems clear to me that your removal of the question regarding Klebsiella pneumoniae, and its good-faith responses, was in violation of Wikipedia’s broad principles at WP:TPOC. It seems that you mistakenly believe WP:DENY authorizes you to remove questions and answers from the Reference Desks without notifying any of the affected Users, and without drawing your actions to the notice of the Ref Desk Community at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Your misunderstanding of WP:DENY is very serious. Are you able to offer anything as explanation of your actions? Dolphin (t) 13:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good-faith responses were an (unintended) form of recognition. WP:TPOC explicitly mentions as an example of appropriately editing others' comments:

Removing harmful posts, including [...] trolling,

the last complete with a link to WP:DENY. Removing the post but leaving the responses would have made little sense. As you know, Guy Macon's issue with the guidelines was specifically related to the removal of medical advice, and his characterization of WP:TPOC as policy is mistaken. I see no reason to make a fuss about this, but if you feel strong enough about this to modify the guidelines, you know where to make your case (which is not here). --Lambiam 14:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another user called the edit trolling.[7] If Dolphin thinks it's appropriate to restore it, he can answer for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lambiam, please don't write things like "[Guy's] characterization of WP:TPOC as policy is mistaken" as if they are established facts that everyone agrees with. I believe that I have made it clear that WP:TPOC is an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline, and if I accidentally used the phrase "policy" I apologize for my error. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays for an explanation of the differences.

User:Dolphin51, If indeed the question was trolling (I didn't bother reading it) then WP:TPOC allows removal of the harmful post. Removing all replies is controversial, but I am not going to get into a dispute over removing replies to harmful posts on a page that I don't want to have anything to do with.

On the related issue of removing medial advice I have decided to boycott the reference desks because of the decision to allow any user to remove anything that any other user writes by writing the magic words "medical advice". "legal advice" or "professional advice", with zero requirement to seek consensus over whether, say, saying that the CDC advises you to wash your hands or saying that crystal meth is bad for you is "medical advice" that can be removed at will. The reference desks just lost a good faith contributor who has helped hundreds of people with computer and engineering questions, but the clear consensus was that losing me was an acceptable loss.

Lambian is correct if says that there is a consensus to allow such removals on the reference desks, and I agree with him when he says that that you will get nowhere by complaining. All you can do is boycott the reference desk pages.

I think that it will eventually become clear that this was a huge mistake, but like everyone else here, you and I have to accept the consensus no matter how bad we believe the decision is.

Finally, I predict that the self-appointed censors will not stop at the reference desks, and when the day comes that they try to allow anyone to delete anything somewhere else on Wikipedia, I fully intend to file a case at Arbcom.

In the meantime, boycott means boycott, and I do not want to have anything to do with the reference desks. I will not be reading any further posts in this thread, and I ask you and everyone else to please stop pinging me about this. I don't want to have anything to do with the reference desks. They are dead to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam’s interpretation of "Removing harmful posts including … trolling …” at WP:TPOC is legally naïve. This refers to a category of removals called Removing harmful posts; and trolling is one example offered. At WP:TPOC trolling is not a category of removal, although trolling can be removed if a sound case can be made that it is harmful.

These guidelines were written by a group of wise Users many years ago, and refined over the years by other, equally wise, Users. We must assume that if they wanted trolling to be a category for removing signed edits they would have made trolling a category on its own. I think they were very wise not to have done so – the concept of trolling is highly subjective. I looked in the Concise Oxford Dictionary and it doesn’t have an explanation of trolling in the context of on-line mischief. Harmful, on the other hand, is a well-understood concept and is supported by helpful sources of information such as dictionaries; consequently any attempt to persuade others that a signed edit is harmful will be much less subjective than a similar attempt for trolling. Wise Users indeed!

In respect of trolling, the current situation at WP:TPOC can be summarised as:

If a signed edit is harmful, for whatever reason, it may qualify for removal
If a signed edit is trolling AND it is also harmful, it may qualify for removal
If a signed edit is trolling but it is NOT harmful, it does not qualify for removal.

No-one has attempted to persuade us that the question about Klebsiella pneumoniae, or any of the responses, were harmful. Dolphin (t) 05:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"unprotected" eh?

And what exactly makes you think that this page won't also soon need protection implemented? Whatever happened to that guy? (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It won't need protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill note

...to self, that this yo-yo banned me from his talk page, 4 bloody years ago, and somehow expected me to remember that today.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shortest street.

Sorry did I do something wrong in reinststing that question?Spinney Hill (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC) If you had said he/she was a banned user in your edit summary I would not have reinstated the question. The subject matter seemed innocent enough.Spinney Hill (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Spangled Banner

Your patriotism is admirable. Long may it wave indeed! Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury bubble car

This concept was well ahead of its time. Very few were ever produced.