User talk:Squash Racket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] Von Neumann "Personality"

I did not write the original text (I am only reinserting what was deleted) so I can not give the exact source for everything, although at least some of it seems to come from Notes: #1. Most of what is contained within the paragraph conforms with everything I have read about von Neumann. My only point in reinserting this material is that I believe it has a legitimate and important place in any portrait of von Neumann. If someone else can work it into better shape, great! I may even try to do so myself.

[edit] Von Neumann

Sorry but I mistakenly placed my response to your message in your archives. Please look there. Again, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Hello Squash Racket, I was wondering if you would like to come vote for this article to become an FA. I have done extensive reworking and I would like to know what you think. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over to the page and giving me your comments. I addressed them to your satisfaction I hope. Let me know what you think. Thanks again! NancyHeise (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I contacted the user you recommended and I appreciate your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian Americans

Hi Squash racket, thanks for fixing any mistakes I made. I am trying to correct nationality in the lead sentences per wp:mosbio. For people born in Hungry and then naturalized here it can be a little less cut and dry. I would go with "Hungarian-born American" as a last resort unless duel nationality can be established. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Jerusalem

Hi Squash Racket, thanks for your help on the Kingdom of Jerusalem article - but yes, I do argue that that reference is not necessary. There are two reasons that it is not - firstly, it is from another encyclopedia. Britannica is of course a better encyclopedia, but it's very odd to use one encyclopedia as a source for another, especially since anything they say should be equally transparently sourced, and we can just use whatever sources they use. Secondly, the very basic definition of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a crusader state founded in 1099, does not need a source. Every source will agree on this simple fact, and there is no possible way for there to be confusion or controversy about it, so it is unnecessary to give a reference for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my...are FA requirements really that strict these days? I find that a reference for every statement is ugly and distracting. I cannot even attempt to read the Israel article! I don't think that's a good idea at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, I've just created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, so I thought you might be interested in helping out. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Moravian empire

Szia Squash Racket! We do not know each other yet, but I see it how you are interested in the Hungarian topics. Did you revise all of the sources on the talk page? MarkBA complains because I forced him that let he wipe the proto Slovak-state before the Hungarian conquest from history of Nitra yesterday.Cheers Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pozsonyi vár

Szia Squash Racket! I read what you had asked on the Bratislava castle's talk page. That is the reason that the Slovaks checking of the Pozsony topics. Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Szia Squash Racket! You did not set up for yourself e-mail messaging alternative on your user page. The email address is secret on the wikipédia but anybody can read the messages on your talk page.All the best.Nmate (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't have e-mail enabled. If you have something to say, please add it here. Squash Racket (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All right.

Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Svetovid

Yes, I saw all the prior sections. Instead of trying to piece together months of arguments, I decided to ignore it for the most part (unless someone else chimes in at WP:AN) and started pushing him to specifically describe his issues with the article. I hope this works out better than what happened the last time I got myself in a dispute like this. If he personally continues his incivility, I'll just block him myself (regardless of the accusations I'll invariably get). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not respond to his incivility. He will simply ignore it and continue to aggravate. Again, use the warning template and report him to WP:AIV if he goes at it again. I am not in a mood to try to piece together past incivility as the blocking policy, blocks are not punitive but attempts to stop future problems. In this case, I didn't care about his last comments, but when it was clear that he would continue calling everyone "nationalists", it seemed clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I've just tried to avoid repeatedly reporting someone if possible. This time he called an administrator himself and the case ended up at WP:AN, so I had no problems with discussing the situation. Thanks for the advice, maybe in the future I will turn to administrators earlier in a similar case. Squash Racket (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Turn to them immediately. Nobody touches this stuff because it gets poured on the admins who get involved. I'm waiting for the typical "Ricky81682 is a biased admin who needs to be blocked FOREVER" post at WP:AN. It just comes with the territory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I hope that we all agree that Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy need to be deleted ?? I ask this because of you demand to administrator.--Rjecina (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed my comment. If everything useful is saved from the article, then no problem. Squash Racket (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive IP edit summaries

Squash, take care of filing the checkuser request if you feel that it will help. Frankly, it's been a large number of individual IP addresses with few edits each, so I'm sure that there is an off-wiki connection to this nonsense. I'm not able to block and deal with all of them, so I'll just repeat my spiel:

If you are annoyed with some else's edits, use the warning templates on their talk page and then report it to WP:AIV. If it is appropriate, the person will be blocked. Be prepared that if you are the one who initiated it (or it is equal), you could be blocked as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to deal with the IPs (yet), many of them. Probably some pages should be semi-protected for a while.

It's just a bit strange that some are trying to mislead you as an administrator with messages left on your talk page. I've not initiated anything. (Or someone accused me of anything?) Only dropped a few words for some new users who are not being treated very well here by some experienced editors. Squash Racket (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be strange =) The comments was just the same for you and everyone who went into the specific complaining mode (either starting it or reflexively responding). I doubt anyone user who get themselves blocked is actually going to use the templates. Most will simply post links to the opposition's edits and act like they didn't do anything to provoke it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ban_a_biased_user. Your friend will soon be gone, and you're next to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.43.31 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A message from about 17 hours before:

I'm waiting for the typical "Ricky81682 is a biased admin who needs to be blocked FOREVER" post at WP:AN. It just comes with the territory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No more comment. Squash Racket (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

Since it is obvious that I have become too involved, I have asked for other admins to comment at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sáros and other counties

I moved the starting discussion about Hungarian counties to Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#Disputed edits in articles about counties. Markussep ^Talk 09:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The relevance of a link depends on what do you want to prove with it

What do you want to prove with the NYT article? The fact that the Treaty of Trianon was concluded after WW1? We don't need a recent article from NYT, where some comparisons with Kosovo are made, to prove this. You liked NYT and you liked that specific article, but this is not a reason to include that article everywhere on Wikipedia. Include it only where it is really relevant.--MariusM (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PS vs hp

Hello! While I very much appreciate your inserting of power templates in car articles, please bear in mind that PS is not the same as hp. For a PS/hp/kW template, please see user:Typ932`s user page. Cheers! --328cia (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Squash Racket! No need to apologize; there indeed is a lot of confusion about this. 1 (SAE net) hp equals exactly 1.0134 PS ("Pferdestärke" = literally "horsepower"); PS is a German measure, hp the equivalent used by the SAE (AFAIK). 1 bhp (British measure) is, as far as I know, 1 PS. You should be able to find more on this topic on the horsepower page; conversion formulae are to be found on the German version of that page ("Pferdestärke"). --- Strangely, the PS/hp/kW template is not included in the current Automotive Templates page; therefore I´m using the template to be found at Typ932`s page. --328cia (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have lots of reference works to look these data up; or I just happen to know the PS/hp numbers - this is one (of many) advantages you enjoy when being older... Like, I just knew that the Porsche turbo initally had 260 and later 300 PS, because I was around at the time. And of course, Euro factories do use PS (at least over here and as long as the Eurocrats don´t force them to use kW) and US factories hp. -- As for printed sources, I´m using a) 1960 to 2008 Automobil Revue cataloge numbers (from Switzerland), b) Auto Katalog numbers (from Germany), c) Standard Catalogs (from the USA) as references. -- Of course, without knowledge or sources, you simply cannot say if a given PS or hp number is correct. -- And then there´s the Japanese JIS hp figures...but that´s another matter. --328cia (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I forgot to mention that my personal policy when inserting power templates is this: Use PS/hp/kW templates for older Euro cars; kW/PS/hp templates for newer Euro cars (since officially kW ratings were introduced in 1992); and hp/PS/kW templates for US cars since 1972 (when net SAE hp replaced gross SAE hp ratings). In other words, I adopted the wikipedia:car policy that is also preferred for deciding on giving measurements in inches or centimeters/millimeters or cc/cu in. --328cia (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Hungary

Hello, I noticed the last edit of this article by you. Okay, I agree, I do not care if it will stay like this. If it was called the Kingdom of Hungary, let the Hungarian name as first. About that years of life span, I accept this too, the important is to differentiate the states before 1918 and after 1919. I would be glad if this compromise version will stay saved, cause it was the former country of both of us, so I would like to have the correct informations here. Thank you very much. It was not my intention to confuse the readers, just to add exact info. --Wizzard (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KoH discussion

I think the discussion would have been the same anywhere. If you don't want to waste time on disturbing comments, don't respond to them. Markussep ^Talk 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea

Hello, Squash.
This is good idea [1]. Kamarad Walter (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tankred

I'm not actually seeing him do reverts, I'm seeing legitimate changes. But as a caution to both of you, please remember to discuss things at the talkpage if there's a dispute, and not just in edit summaries. --El on ka 03:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find a related RfC and extensive debate at Talk:Hunt-Poznan. Sources say these families came from Swabia (or Italy) and settled in Hungary. They don't say these families have Hungarian origin.

These articles were written by User:Juro almost word by word based on this "source". Squash Racket (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommend spelling that out at the Poznan Family talkpage. --El on ka 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paris

Actually, describing a city as the capital of a ruler is done all the time - the king is the state. kwami (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think "seat" is better, but if you feel "capital of the king" is more appropriate, then add it back. Squash Racket (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links

I don't think we actually remove dead links. [2] [3]. They should be left commented out or just left. Or try and find an archived version. There should be a "dead link, please find new source" template around that is better than just removing the links and replacing with a fact tag. Carcharoth (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Found the guideline. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". In particular: "When a link in the References section or Notes section "goes dead" (see link rot), it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but the citation need not be deleted." (my emphasis). Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antlion

Thanks! Very interesting! Because this puts the whole "antlion" thing into context. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Squash Racket (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCookie

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, kind of you. Squash Racket (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monica Seles

I have no knowledge or real comment or opinion on the edit itself. My point was to Tennisexpert who doesn't seem to understand that there is no way for random editors to know that there had been a discussion of any type about the topic. To go and immediately revert every editor without explanation is not the way to do things here. I've worked on an article where I would see 20 IPs a day, each was reverted, nonsense removed, and a comment on the talk page. I kept asking if they wanted to keep playing whack-a-mole or deal with the actual issue and I finally just put a hidden comment about that exact issue so that it was clear to new editors that it wasn't just forgotten which started moving the argument to the discussion page where it belongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. This is much easier than the fun we had last month together. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for information. After seeing damage done by user:Velebit aka Standshown aka Stagalj aka... on Croatia related articles in fall of 2007 I have started to delete all his contributions. His way of working is to write POV stuff with knowledge that he will be discovered and again banned but his changes will stay in article. To block that sort of POV edits which are staying in articles I am deleting all his contributions --Rjecina (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rome: link to Achacachi

OK: the link you have deleted guides to a page which can be found only by searching the newspaper's archive.--Broletto (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually I didn't delete it per an earlier comment above. But thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to understand this new thing (new to me, I mean). Thanks.--Broletto (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining.--Broletto (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Budapest

I that the "Islands" section in this article should be included within "Geography" section because it is part of geography. What is your opinion? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but there are a number of major issues with the article. I think we should pick some featured articles of cities comparable in size to Budapest and use that as a basis for the layout/section titles etc. Than work on those sections one by one and adding only referenced information. Squash Racket (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convert template

Hi,

I reverted your addition of the convert templates to Israel, for the following reasons:

I initially removed them due to a display issue ruining the article's formatting. It seems there's some limit to the number of templates/display elements an article can have, and this very complex article has reached it. I removed these templates and others to fix the problem (see Talk:Israel#Display issues - template).
The templates are superfluous. The serve no real purpose. The definition of mile isn't changing, the numbers are constant. Using the template just makes editing more complicated, and less approachable.

Note that while I don't like the templates, I didn't act on the issue until the display issues, and they are the main cause here.

okedem (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand and accept. But generally these templates make it sure that one of the data won't get changed and the conversion remains accurate, so in other articles I think these are advisable. I see that Israel may have reached that limit which is unlikely at other, less complicated articles. Israel receives enough attention anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that positive result, but I still think such a simple conversion can be left to editing, like other issues editors need to take care of themselves. Whatever... okedem (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAA Fan 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC

I left a response to your comment for you on the FAC page. Neat cookie award by the way. NancyHeise (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SquashRacket, your additional edit to the communist paragraph added a notable fact but it did not change the factual accuracy of the paragraph. I welcomed your edit because it improved it. Your comment on the FAC page makes it sound as if there are omitted facts on the page but I consider that an exaggeration. Your added fact is not a worldwide phenomenon receiving constant and global press coverage but an isolated area that does not affect the majority of priests but a small minority. The fact was notable but it was not a terrible omission and one we certainly did not omit intentionally. It is a fairly recent event as the date of your references reveals. I will continue to hope that you will have a bit more faith in our work.

It is not a worldwide phenomenon, only the ex-Communist areas could be affected. But it is also clear that we are talking about more than a "small minority" here and that it is not a recent event, the few sources I added after a quick search are really just touching the surface of this issue. I didn't want to overemphasize this, because the efforts of John Paul II are also summarized in the same sentence. I didn't assume anything was omitted intentionally.

This article is definitely heading in the right direction, the FA status to me sounds like a final stage.

I hope that part of my comment answers your last sentence. Squash Racket (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming issues

Re Britannica: tell me about it. These are the people's real names. I'm aware that with Hungarian, Serbian and Romanian in particular the diacritic actually changes the letter and so is important. Re moving the rest: I'm on wikibreak atm and have exams this coming week, but any user can correct those, including yourself if you so desire. Orderinchaos 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but I really haven't the time to fix it at present (between sleep, cooking, travelling and exams :). I have no problem with someone else fixing them in the appropriate manner and notifying me on my talk page. If done in that order, I can look through the user contribs, see that the edits were done correctly, fix if necessary, and will be happy to defend them along with my 82 reversions. Orderinchaos 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrote a detailed response. Hope it's sufficient, as I won't be around for a while (exam week here). I find it somewhat amusing, I must admit, how crazy things are outside my home project sometimes - we Australians lead sheltered wikilives! Orderinchaos 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] date formatting

Thanks for cleaning up Salomon Group. However, I noticed you dewikified several dates. A wikified date is displayed according to the user's date format preference, the preferred way to write full dates per WP:MOSDATE. An incomplete date, on the other hand (such as "January 2002") should not be wikified, since that won't format it, but links it uselessly to January and/or 2002. Hopefully that clears things up for you. If not, by all means let me know. Thanks again. —EncMstr (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the clarification. I read somewhere a long time ago that all dates could be delinked as unnecessary, not just the month-year format (don't ask for a diff though, it was just a comment). Squash Racket (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a long hot dispute, and even I and admins I work closely with are divided on the issue. If I'm editing an article substantially I tend to remove year links but keep date links (until such time as MediaWiki software can correctly display dates in line with user preferences without linking). Others favour linking years, but I've never understood what purpose such links serve. Orderinchaos 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Film

Hi. Well, though I will thank you for adding the urls, the problem that got to me was that, from all the urls in the article, you added the template to those two. I almost never use the templates in the articles I edit, unless they happen to have been used in other references. Why? I think they are cumbersome and restrictive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no requirement to use citation templates, as long as the style you use features all relevant data (and for published sources, the data we have is relevant enough - a published text does not need a retrieval date if you cite it in its original context). There is however a requirement to adapt one's editing style to what is already in there, if what is already in there is correct - both for text consistency and editing courtesy.

As for the redlink: what I usually do when I source an article is to check out if we have links to the authors, publishers etc. (red or blue, doesn't matter). Where I know about the author and think that he or she is worth an article, I even add the redlinks without them being mentioned elsewhere on wiki. Why? Because I want to "streamline" the entry and cover all possible ground, instead of revisiting the article each time we have a new link from it (there is little that bugs me more than wasting my time doing that). In this case, I found that others had created a redlink for the author in some other article. On one hand, I do wonder myself if all NYT contributors are notable by default, but, in this case, others seem to have decided so - let them remove the links in case they change their minds.

I'm sorry if I seemed hostile. What I wanted to do in fact was to cover all these issues in my edit summary, which may render my messages more bitter than I intend them, and I was quite annoyed because at least some of the above seemed obvious to me. Dahn (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ágnes Szávay

Hey. I reverted only the ones I happened to notice. There are probably a few more, but I don't have time to dig much deeper now. You don't need admin tools to move over a redirect with no page history, though, so you can revert the move yourself if you wish. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)