Is that an abbreviation for something I ought to know? This response to my refdesk question looked like a reasonable one to me, so I'm curious about your removal of it. I know the refdesk is under threat at the moment, and it would be sad to see it go, so I want to understand as part of these discussions what kind of answers are considered legitimate or otherwise. Beorhtwulf (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
to first mock other users for their oddities (without even pretending to give any helpful answer to their question(s)), and THEN selectively invoke civility rules when they reply to you in kind, while making believe that the same rules do not apply to you! But then, from a user whom I know to be a self-admitted liberal, this is only to be expected! 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:70AE:764:63A1:67AC (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry it took me so long to reply to your message, but after Medeis' death I haven't felt like logging in. I do have details about their death, but I would like to discuss it with their family before letting anyone else know, if you don't mind. Thanks for your message. Kind regards. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My memory is failing me. Do you recall a problematic editor who was focused on cartoon shows and who also claimed visual impairment that used to pop up on the Ent Desk several years ago? Recent events have brought that user to mind, though I'm damned if I can recall the name. Ringing any bells? Matt Deres (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bugs, looking at the table of List of pre-World Series baseball champions — [which I re-formatted and amplified after KillerVogel (no longer with us) detached it from the post-1903 List of World Series champions ] — for the first time in I guess a year, I noticed some changes to the line for 1876, edited by an IP user on 4 April 2018, who was apparently copying my format for a tied inter-league game, even though St Louis won it 4-1 against another NL team. (Check the list's history to see how it looked after his half-dozen edits.)
[Of course, this induces a certain amount of humility in me; if those conventions were not apparent to an apparent expert, then they must be nearly invisible to the average Joe on the Web casually browwing for some basic information.]
I was just wondering if you had any further information or knowledge about this unofficial 1876 series.
Thanks for that research, Bugs. Now I feel a little more certain of the line I was editing. Since you did the research and have citations to hand, perhaps you might want to add a mention, or at least an additional box in its timeline to 1876 in baseball, which is one of the sites I first visited (without success) in order to confirm and clarify the LC of the W. (Notice how nicely I suggest more grunt work for someone else.)
Since I think every AL/NL Series plus the Temple Cup and the Chronicle-Telegraph Cup has its own Wikipedia article for just such purposes, the LC of the W might merit an article, or at least a stub for others to expand, either alone or in conjunction with the two tied or cancelled exhibition series (1882 & 1883) between the NL and the Am. Assn. (Come to think of it, I'm not sure if the non-exhibition 1884-1890/1891 NL/AA series in this sequence yet has an article of its own.)
If Wikipedia long-time editors didn’t by definition go out of their way to find punitive labor, I'd apologize for even hinting at such work for others, no matter how much better-qualified than me. :-)
I have redacted your response and those of several others at the Ref Desk. I can see what you were trying to do, but what you managed to achieve was a significant breach of WP:BLP, which applies to the Ref Desks as much as it does to article space. Please be much more careful with BLP. First, because it's bloody important. Secondly, because a heavier handed admin than me might have done more than just drop a carefully worded message for a breach like that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's correctly pointed out to me that she's been dead too long to count for BLP, but it was a comment in very poor taste and with highly offensive unprovable implications. I don't know if you were trying to be sardonic, but if you were replying like that because you felt the OP was a troll, you not only fed the troll, but outtrolled him. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, you'll need to explain [better] what's so funny about "I Should Have Known Better" I just don't follow. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Buccaneer Bunny 1.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).
I hadn't seen that. But I would have expected you to have a better reason to delete it than simply the fact that another user had previously deleted it. You need to form your own view on whether CiaPan's removal was justified. --Viennese Waltz 13:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What the IP did was restate the word in question to its Russian alphabet equivalent. Is that a proper answer, or is it just fooling around? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. The point is, you should be satisfied that he's "just fooling around" before you go around deleting it. Doesn't sound like you were. --Viennese Waltz 14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deor is reverting some other of the IP's comments. Looks like you'll need to lecture him too. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
personal attack
I posted a question sincerely at science desk, user:Soupvector removed it because of his philosophy. I politely, and civilly initiated a conversation at their talkpage, and later humorously changed the wording of the question, keeping the original Q intact. I even provided a diff-link to original post, and courtesy pinged Soupvector. And yet you called a 3 year old editor (with 20k+ edits, without any behavioural or any other issues in last 2.5 years) as "troll/vandal". I feel it is an outright personal attack on character, and highly impolite. Just wanted to let you know. If you had a problem with the post, you could have reverted it with an appropriate edit summary, or could have let me know; instead of calling me a troll. It was hurtful. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ParamountLogo1930s.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:ParamountLogo1930s.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while. I just stopped by to say hey "hey" - and ask how you're doing "how ya doin"? Hope all is well where you are. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link below the star ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see my name on the list. What I supposedly did 10 years ago, I have no recollection. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask Rlevse, but he was driven away. Good to still have you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it was simply overall goodness ;) - some helpdesk edits at the time, some general musing about RfA, fighting vandalism, - nothing new but adding up to awesomeness! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball, there's a reason why my topic was "In your jurisdiction, can bus drivers have schizophrenia?" Because I know I wasn't asking about my specific jurisdiction. And my example was the reasoning on how I came up with that question, encountering a talking bus driver. So my thread was not "does anyone think this bus driver has schizophrenia?" Just because I mentioned my example inside my paragraph doesn't change my thread title, even though I would welcome people to discuss either subject. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Fungo bats
Hey, BB. As a person ignorant of, though interested in, reading about baseball, I recently came across the fungo bat. It has its own subsection at Baseball_bat#Fungo_bat, and I thought it might be worth adding an image. I then looked at Commons' fungo bat pics, and saw that you had provided the one with Yogi Berra (someone even I had known about since childhood). Anyway, my question directed at your Bugsy expertise is which of those images you would suggest for illustrating the article? ---Sluzzelintalk 20:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing that one. It's from a long time ago. I recommend going with a reasonably recent pic, as the technology has changed a bit. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for returning the ball right back at me :-). I will pick one tomorrow. ---Sluzzelintalk 22:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had provided a non-existing link to Commons. Commons:Category:Fungo_bats is the one I meant. I now added this pic, though Yogi Berra's is certainly the most dynamic one. ---Sluzzelintalk 13:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that out. :) If you're looking for an action picture, then Yogi would be good. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just an IMHO - I think the Berra one is a bit blurry - I like either the Narahara one or the Kawana75 one. — Ched (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you. Another option might be Jim Leyland, whole bat in display, mildly dynamic (though also a bit blurry), coach-emphasis .. but again, I'm quite the dodo when it comes to baseball, so feel free to change the image. I just thought it'd be useful to show an image of the fungo bat, but I defer to either of your judgment. --Sluzzelintalk 22:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in any way related to the users you mentioned, Anton or the IP. Feel free to AM or PM me. --C est moi anton (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RD/S goof?
Something seems to have gone wrong in [3] this edit of yours. DMacks (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Duck Soup Hornpipe.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).
I am aware of your editing restriction, but since you had a direct interaction with RTG, I think this would be an exemption. Regardless, I thought you'd like to know that I've taken it there.--Jasper Deng(talk) 14:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I don't think I'm the one on the hot seat there, so I'll leave it be. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RTG and RDMA.