User talk:Dubc0724/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archive 1 2 Welcome! 3 Global Warming 4 Removing Messages 5 Media bias in the United States 6 Editing JFK Assassination sites 7 UNC-Duke rivalry and Dean Smith 8 Request for Comment:Clay Shaw 9 CFB Welcome 10 Editor's Barnstar 11 Disputes with Duke53 on Dean Smith article 12 List of All That episodes 13 Smile 14 Impressive work 15 Credit Union article 16 WikiProject on College Basketball 17 Pulled pork 18 WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue I - August 2006 19 Hello 20 unc-ch page 21 Thanks 22 List of bluegrass musicians deletions 23 cameron crazy cheers

[edit] Archive 1

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Dubc0724, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  BD2412 T 20:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dubc0724 19:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

From GW article:

• The warming is within the range of natural variation.
• The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the Little Ice Age.
• The warming is a result of variances in solar irradiance.

Actually, zero articles -- not a single one -- that is zero -- have ever been published in peer-reviewed journals in support of these theories to explain global warming. But, for the time being, I left your revert. -Abscissa 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I came into it in the middle of the discussion. I thought "no support" seemed excessive, but I'm out of the discussion at this time. Dubc0724 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Messages

Removing messages from your talk page is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia. - Abscissa 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I was just trying to keep it neat. Thanks for the heads up. Dubc0724 00:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I made the same mistake :-) One of the administrators called me a racist because I thought that David Copperfield should be labeled Jewish. When we had cleared up issue, some other admin freaked out at me.... Anyway, when your talk page gets filled up, you can archive it. - Abscissa 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Live & Learn! :-) Thanks again... Dubc0724 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to keep your talk page clean, you can create an archive (at, for example User talk:Dubc0724/Archive 1 with a link at the top of you talk page, and you can move comments there as they become stale. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media bias in the United States

Hello! Regarding your "tweaking" of the Byrd/Lott comments, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the time you took to clarify the nature of the Lott quote while still including the nature of the controversy (which revolved around a perceived pro-segregation tone of the comment(s)). As originally written, the section had no indication whatsoever of what Lott's comment actually was, and I thought it was important to mention that.--Hal Raglan 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I thought I was done with it, until I realized that if one didn't know better, they'd wonder what the big deal was. So I had to make sure that Thurmond's segregationist views were put back in. Sorry for the over-zealous editing! Dubc0724 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing JFK Assassination sites

Welcome to the JFK Assassination related sites. These are a collection of troublesome pages where a great deal of reverting goes on. You may or may not enjoy it. There are a number of editors that have fixed ideas that the Warren Report, written in 1964 is correct, and any contrary information is nonsense. Because there are several of them, they merely revert out anything they don't like, and do it contrary to the web site rules that handle conflicting viewpoints by including all significant viewpoints.

RPJ 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we can reach a fair compromise on the external links. I'm not trying to censor anyone's viewpoint, but I think certain sites are getting undue weight based on certain editors' support of their content. Dubc0724 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNC-Duke rivalry and Dean Smith

I thought you might be interested and helping make the following page better UNC-Duke rivalry. I also thought you might be helpful in dealing with the editing issues related to the Dean Smith article. Remember 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

One thing that would be helpful is to expand the charts on the scores and the records of the teams. Another thing that I think should be done is having descriptions of some of the memorable games. Finally, I think the page needs some more pictures. If you could help with any of that I would greatly appreciate it.

In addition, if you feel like a workaholic feel free to help me work on the Roy Williams (coach) page, which also needs a lot of work. Remember 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I done a good deal of work on the Dean Smith article and I think it could become a good article or a feature article with some clean-up. I'm going to try to see if I can get it up to that level. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Remember 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment:Clay Shaw

I realize you have not edited the above cite, but you may be able to provide some helpful commentary on the above mentioned cite. I have started an RfC and am looking for all helpful comments. [1] Ramsquire 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFB Welcome

--MECU≈talk 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Dubc0724 for his efforts in the area of category and list clean-up. Specifically, for his removal of Carrie Underwood from the "List of guitarists" and his removal of Michael Jackson and Christina Aguilera from the "List of singer-songwriters". -MrFizyx 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. -MrFizyx 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes with Duke53 on Dean Smith article

I was wondering if you could take a look at the Dean Smith article when you get a chance and help me with the issues associated with Duke53's edits.23:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Thanks a lot for helping out on this article. I am still figuring out the best way to deal with difficult editors and your help is greatly appreciated. Remember 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you disputing the facts I have added, or the fact that they don't always put Smith in a good light?

If by 'difficult' you mean "someone who likes to see both sides of the story", Thank You.

I removed some stuff because it wasn't cited ... stuff that I had cited was removed. Hmm.Duke53 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Duke53

Not sure what all the back-and-forth is about. I think the article does a good job of telling the reader about Smith's career. It includes what few low points there were in an otherwise very positive and successful career. But the article's not a Duke/UNC blog; it's just an encyclopedia article. I suggest a little chilling out for both sides. Dubc0724 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of All That episodes

I noticed you listed this for deletion. You missed two steps in the proccess step 2 and step 3 please see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page for further info. Whispering^(talk/c) 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Either way, the article needs to go. Thanks for the info though; I'll do better next time. Dubc0724 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impressive work

		The Original Barnstar
		For your many edits regarding the Dean Smith article that helped make it better.Remember 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credit Union article

Hello! You mentioned that you are available to help on credit union and related articles.... well, I'm a relative newbie editor, and I noticed that an anonymous editor added a link to a person wiki-article. The person is noted for their Socialist party affiliation, not as a credit union officer. I feel that it's completely inappropriate for that person to be there, but I'm not familiar with the correct way to revert it back out, without potentially starting a revert war. I guess I should take it out, and make a comment on the article's discussion page?

I took care of it. Under WP standards, that individual is not notable and we don't need a list of credit union officers, as that would grow unwieldy. Thanks Dubc0724 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject on College Basketball

I thought you might be interested in this Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball and maybe this Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. Remember 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulled pork

Thanks for your contributions to this article, and for correcting my errors! --Macrakis 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue I - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Aguerriero (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

My name is Gary Goldstein, and I just wanted to say, that I love what you have done with you user page, by putting up all those things about yourself I was wondering if you can tell me or show me how to do that, It looks very organized.

Thank You,

Gary

Hi Gary - I can't remember, to be honest. If you go to the Help section and search for Userboxes, you should be able to find a wide assortment of them. Tons of them. Good luck! Dubc0724 03:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unc-ch page

When (and how) did you become the arbiter of where items belong on that page? I put Carowhina in the section on names that refer to unc-ch; that is where it belongs, IMO, since it is a name commonly used when referring to the school ^[1] --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 20:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't. I just had good enough sense to know that if you're going to put "rival nicknames" in, you should put them in the section regarding rival nicknames. I guess I should put "Dook" and "University of New Jersey at Durham" in the Duke article? Don't worry - I won't. Dubc0724 03:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the name in the popular names section ... and am going to put it back there ... if you want to get a third party involved, go ahead. I am probably going to get a third party involved anyway, to see if calling a rival institution 'shit' is considered NPOV. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 07:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Who used the word "shit"? Also, you might want to consider how prevalent "Carowhina" (never heard it used, ever) is versus the other two. A Google search would reveal that "Carowhina" is obscure, and is often used for the Carolina Hurricanes & Carolina Panthers. If "Carowhina" shows up in the article's lead rather than in the "Traditions" section, I don't think it will stand. Good luck. Dubc0724 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You did, when you used the word 'dook'. and to pretend otherwise is very disengenuous of you (which I think is the major problem here). Your 'respect' for Wikipedia ain't showing so much anymore. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 16:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's a stretch. Here are the facts. (1) The word "Dook" was in the article when I got here. (2) I didn't invent the nickname - it's been around for years. (3)My respect for Wikipedia is still in tact, although my patience sometimes wavers. (4) I believe the word you're looking for is "disingenuous". Thanks Dubc0724 00:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like a third person involved, but don't know how to get one.

You're the one who keeps putting the word back in, so get off that argument. Are you saying you didn't / don't know the meaning of the word 'dook'? Careful now, your credibility is on the line here.--Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in because you took it out for POV. "Dook" may a be stupid and juvenile nickname, but simply mentioning the existence of an established nickname is hardly POV. However, taking it out simply because you don't like it is POV. "Careful now, your credibility is on the line here"... Wow; could we be a little more over-dramatic please? Dubc0724 12:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

" ... but simply mentioning the existence of an established nickname is hardly POV". Huh? It was considered POV when I mentioned that Dean Smith was referred to as Coach Smif by rival fans. Can't have it both ways.

We all know how the Coach Smif thing started, and it is actually making fun of someone other than Smith. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 04:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned it on a talk page and I made a comment that the "Smif" joke had worn thin. Nobody said anything about POV because it wasn't in an article. However, as I've heard it told, "Coach Smif" is actually offensive - using an unfair stereotype to make fun of African-American players' pronunciation of "Smith". Is that about right? If so, I wouldn't be too proud of using that nickname. At least Dook and UNJD are in good fun. Dubc0724 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Smif thing isn't / wasn't a joke. I know folks who never call deano anything but that. The good fun angle cuts both ways, as does the wearing thin complaint.

The mention of Maryland on the unc-ch page is important to me since much of the page is unc-ch being compared to other schools. I sourced the fact that the incidents are called riot; unc-ch had at least one riot which you suggest is just a harmless incident. I wonder if the people whose car(s) were destroyed see it that way? I will be reverting to that fact about unc-ch's celebrations. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Smif: I guess Duke fans don't mind racist jokes.

Maryland: In the spirit of compromise, I left in the part about the car being burned and took out another editor's POV regarding it not being a "trend". And I never suggested that someone getting their car burned up was "a harmless incident". I simply find it silly to pick another school and scream "See...See..they called it a riot when it happened there!?!" (Especially when you ignore the level of actual damage from the two events) So really, is there a point, or are you just grinding your axe? Dubc0724 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: " ...please take the chip off your shoulder. how is UMD relevant? it could be called a number of things depending on the news outlet covering it - what is the point?" So are we not using news organizations as sources any longer? That is a confusing statement at best. Are news organizations supposed to hold unc-ch in higher esteem than other schools? If you can take potshots at other schools then accept the fact that unc-ch has warts also.

Chip on my shoulder? Nope. In favor of NPOV? Yep. You want it both ways, and I'm not buying it.--Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you understand what I was saying just fine. News stories aren't the problem. They are valid sources. You just seem to want to pick through them and then scream when it's called a riot at Maryland and called something else at Carolina. You seem to be insisting there's some sort of pro-Carolina conspiracy going on. Get real.

As for hiding Carolina's warts and taking potshots at other teams, I'm doing neither. You don't see me trying to add stuff about the lacrosse rapists to the Duke article. If anyone's taking potshots it's you. I'm just trying to keep things reasonable, and once things are in, I do like to keep them somewhat resembling an encyclopedia. Dubc0724 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

'Lacrosse rapists'? Nope, no potshots from you. Mike Nifong might want to talk to you ... sounds like you might have some inside info on one of his cases. Nice. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. No potshots from me. That one was only to sarcastically illustrate that Duke has its own "warts" that I could be choosing to point out in its article. But I'm not doing it. Dubc0724 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm = a weapon of the weak. Hypocrite. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 00:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Knowles. How cute. Dubc0724 00:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the star, and thanks a lot for your work on all of the UNC articles. I really appreciate it. Remember 12:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bluegrass musicians deletions

I am struggling to understand your deletions in the list of bluegrass musicians. You marked your latest as "delete non-notable"; however there are several problems with this.

1. Many are prima facie notable. Chesapeake, for example, has recorded 2 albums on major label Sugar Hill and won a Washington Area Music Award three consecutive years. Charlie Sizemore was Ralph Stanley's lead singer at age 16, recorded a number one single, recorded on two Grammy-nominated albums, and written countless songs. And Dolly Parton not notable??? Come on!
2. See notability requirements at WP:MUSIC. Most are notable under these criteria.
3. Is the threshold of notability for inclusion in a list the same as the threshold for having an article? I argue that it is not, and I am unable to find any policy to the contrary. (Please let me know if there is such a policy!)

I have restored the musicians pending your explanation. Cmadler 19:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete Chesapeake, Dolly Parton, or Charlie Sizemore. My edit was deleting bands lacking Wikipedia articles and sufficient notability in the bluegrass community. I would stand by a deletion of Dolly Parton because I don't consider her bluegrass just because she cut a couple of records with bluegrass artists in the wake of the O Brother Where Art Thou popularity. Your comments are certainly welcome and appreciated. Dubc0724 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cameron crazy cheers

I realize you are a UNC fan, but do you really think it is POV to say Duke fan cheers are "innovative." The ESPN link pretty much attests to the innovativeness of the cheer, and there is no great reason to think ESPN would have an agenda (except perhaps for Dicky V). Debivort 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

POV in the sense that what is innovative to one person may not be considered the same by another. However, if ESPN used the word "innovative" then by all means, put it back in. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers! Dubc0724 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure they did - but by your very own reasoning, if ESPN called it innovative, that would be just the consideration of one writer/editor. I think something like this is objectively evaluable. Do Duke fans come up with kinds of cheers that are new, or cheers that are more clever than other schools? I would imagine yes, and the ESPN article give explicit examples. But being innovative isn't unique to Duke, so are fans at other rivalry-intense schools like UNC or UMD. Duke fans being innovative does not exclude other groups from being innovative. Debivort 22:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not mutually exclusive. Again, if ESPN documented the cheers being unique, new, etc, then the word innovative should be fine. Feel free to revert. Thanks! Dubc0724 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)