MAY 2007 - NOV 2007
Carnation Building: http://betterlivingtv.blogspot.com/2006/02/great-metropolitan-newspaper.html
As I said at the time, it's not much of a photo - it's the white building just beyond the Wilson Building in the frame capture at the bottom of the page. Sure wish something better would turn up on the web.
Welcome back!
Welcome back to Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Frankyboy5 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, after trying before and you still erased it, I have reduced the so-called "curse" to two paragraphs which are factual and verifiable. I don't see that there is enough info to warrant a separate article about it at this time, but it would be misleading to ignore the impact the scandal had on the White Sox francise. When they won the pennant in 1959, that 40-year gap was the longest in history. Since surpassed by various teams, of course, including themselves. Baseball Bugs 19:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My reply is at User_talk:Flyguy649#McDonald.27s. Let me know if you have any more questions. Regards, Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I simply just put an "S" on a blue background. If you know of something better, and is in the public domain, let me know. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. I removed the redundancy. Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you agreed with me on the section about the stadium! Andy4226uk 06:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it's an ongoing problem, but it's one that several admins are aware of and they block his socks on sight. Keeping the SSP case open isn't going to make any difference. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I saw the discussion was marked as archived and that it should not be modified. Also, the removal of a lot of information by one of the named suspected sockpuppets also made me guess that this was probably a bad faith edit. I'm not involved in the discussion, nor am I an admin, so I wasn't able to make any better informed action; it seemed like a standard piece of housekeeping. Again, sorry. Angus Lepper( T, C, D) 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cap_Anson_WSP_19080422.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ( talk) 17:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought a 1908 photograph was assumed to be in the public domain. Baseball Bugs 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, I removed the bugs bunny image from your user page. Per our policy on unfree content usage, we use unfree material only in articles. -- Abu badali ( talk) 18:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have any information on this picture's author and/or copyright holder? -- Abu badali ( talk) 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care to engage in debates with you. This is not an emotional issue. I am here to try and make the information as accurate AND relevant as possible. Please stop reverting my edits unless you use better discretion and reasoning. If you want to add content, please do so. I will continue to be aggressive in my edits and remove content that does not belong. There is really no need for you to leave comments on my talk page, as they will not be considered. Happy editing and good luck in the future. // Tecmobowl 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have left a message on Tecmobowl's talk page with some general information about dispute resolution and the trivia policy. Let's hope that the two of you can agree to work out these issues together. Cheers. -- No Guru 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting ready to move this content to a new article, please retain any information so that we don't lose your work. I am taking the content from this version to start the new article. This will allow for a further elaboration on the event as it seems worthy of its' own article. // Tecmobowl 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well. Since you brought it up, I checked the guidelines here.
Things you can change on talk pages:
Not one of them says anything about deleting "jibber-jabber" on a talk page. The appropriate action is to just ask them to get back on topic, not delete it. I'm reverting it again, please leave it alone or it will be considered vandalism. Wikidan829 15:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to show you what Ron could be like if he were more single-minded, see here. Oh, the joys of the obsessive-compulsive. *lol* - Ebyabe 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for posting your comments. I see I am not the only one having problems with User talk:Tecmobowl. I don't necessarily have a problem with all his edits, just with his inflexible attitude. His idea of "discussion" is lecturing the rest of us on how things are going to be. Baseball Bugs 15:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed that you've been trying to add stuff to this article. You might want to read WP:SELF. We're not supposed to talk about Wikipedia in the mainspace because this is a free encyclopedia that can be used anywhere. Only when the situation is notable should we talk about Wikipedia on Wikipedia. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I will be a nice person and ask if the user knows any good sources that would help the article, because this article deserves to look good. -- transaspie 03:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason for full-protection at RFPP-
A well-intentioned editor wants to fix accumalated problems, but to save the time of fixing the issues one at a time they reverted back a week, reverting over 40 edits. I want to discuss it with them, but I'm afraid that while we discuss it, other editors will start updating the wrong version (some already have), requiring a very time-consuming merging of versions. Please freeze it while we work it out. The discussion is here. Guanxi 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the conversation has calmed, I guess I'll unprotect. Sr 13 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Sanfranman, trying to count noses, counted you as against Fangraphs on the baseball wiki discussion. I wrote that you appeared to be in support (though for a moment you thought that it might be a registration site, which it is not). Obviously one of us is wrong, so feel free to correct whichever one it is on the page. Tx.-- Epeefleche 07:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that I was leaving, which I'm not. It appears you also followed El Redactor around because of your post here and your edit here. Stalking an editor is not looked upon fondly here. I will be happy to point you to the section on wiki that discusses it if you are not familiar with it. Further, You can cite the 3rv rule all you want. I am here to discuss content and content only. The fact that you and User:Epeefleche have been engaging me on multiple fronts will not stop me from preventing bad content to leak into wiki. I have had another editor call me stupid as well as an administrator, I don't care. I'm still here, and I'm still going to contribute content. Stop removing sites simply to instigate a fight. Stick to the topic at hand and that's it. That site is not a commercial site. // Tecmobowl 06:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
is that even though it is true that a World Series that goes 7 games this year will be played in November, there isn't any way of guaranteeing that the series will go the full 7 games. I believe it violates WP:CBALL because it might not happen. We don't know for sure yet. It's an event in the future that might not occur. From WP:CBALL:
“ | Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. | ” |
Game 7 of the 2007 World Series is far from "certain" to occur. As it says in the article (maybe another article but I saw it earlier, most likely 2002 World Series), the 2002 World Series was the last to go 7 games. The 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 World Series' didn't go the full 7 games. There isn't any way possible to assure that it will go 7 games. It could go 4 games... it could go 5 games... it could go 6 games. It can be any of those lengths or 7 games, but there is no way of knowing how many games it will go until the games have been played. Since WP:CBALL is about preventing future outlook on events certain to happen, I believe this violates that because it's a future event not certain to happen. -- Ksy92003 ( talk) 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl Miss Mondegreen talk 13:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
To help you out with your spanish translation - El redactor is translated as either "The Editor" or "The Columnist" (as in - at a newspaper) and not "The Remover". I am going to tell you the same thing I told IrishGuy (and something I will tell Epeefleche and Neil the same thing if need be). I will no longer be willing to engage any of you in a discussion about the content until you start coming up with well thought out, well backed, logical discussions. I am no longer going to engage you in discussions about editing style, I am just going to continue to do my thing and you can continue to do yours. If you have an honest and reasonable reason to discuss content on an article, I will be more than happy to engage you. I want to spend most of my time looking at content, not chatting about it. // Tecmobowl 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
In this link, Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 admitted to being Tecmobowl. Odd, no? It looks more like Tecmobowl is Blacksoxfan than that he simply knows Blacksoxfan. IrishGuy talk 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia. Could be coincidence...but I think not. IrishGuy talk 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I dropped you an email. IrishGuy talk 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason why you followed each of my edits? El redactor
Yo tengo solamente tres y medio años. 0:) Baseball Bugs 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I retained one of your changes (removing the editorializing) but missed the other one (linking USA as American). Sorry about that. Baseball Bugs 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
An interesting article. A font of trivia that I'll be studying more closely. But there is at least one item missing. In contrast to NYC, "The city that never sleeps", there is Jersey City, NJ, or any other NJ suburb of NYC that you want to pick on: "The city that never sweeps." Baseball Bugs 03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have read, and understood, the need to de-trivialize trivia sections in wikipages. I personally feel that baseball-related topics should be treated a little differently. Baseball surrounds itself in statistics and it's history is fascinating enough to warrant the inclusion of a separate section for fast, interesting facts.
The bulk of World Series pages consisted of bare-bones information before I started to include other relevant data and text. It doesn't appear as if any other wiki-writers are contributing much, expect maybe a tidbit or two. I'm working my way through each year which takes a considerable amount of time for a full-time employee and full-time husband and father. I would like the trivia kept as-is until they can properly be inserted into the main sections after all pages have been edited as uniformly as possible.
Please comment as needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_Cleanup
regards, Kjbopp 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Baseball Bugs, thanks for the note. I think ^demon is perceptive enough to understand the situation, and in any case there seem to be a number of editors watching the situation now. Since you've decided to reduce your stress level by unwatching some pages (not a bad idea) let me know if there's any pages that don't have enough eyes right now. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#External_links, I felt compelled to share my view that -- as the title of the poll suggests -- the poll to my mind is about whether those 4 urls should be included. Not whether only those 4 should be included. We of course have to address other urls, but the conversation of a dozen or so at once is unwieldy with this crew IMHO. So, to make progress, I am voting on these 4 now, hoping to achieve consensus, and will then be prepared to move on to discuss others that are in contention. -- Epeefleche 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
what you mean by "the premise about the 1899 Cleveland club is false, because they played a 154-game schedule that year." The Spiders do in fact have the worst winning percentage in the history of the sport, in any era. The only exception is the Wilmington Quicksteps of the 1884 Union Association, who played only 18 games and went 2-16 for a .125. As far as "modern era" goes, the 1901 date is relatively artificial, since the game was being played with "modern" rules starting in 1893.
Ah, now that I look closer I see that another user put "modern era" in there, which may be what you are referring to. When I wrote the article I put in the 140-game minimum because not doing so would have cluttered the list up with a whole bunch of nineteenth-century teams, such as the 1876 Cincinnati franchise, which went 9-56.
I don't feel that there is any POV issue in this article because the definition of "worst records" is clear, a percentage W-L with a 140-game minimum. However, I do like the idea of a companion article with the BEST team records of all time. Maybe everybody who played .700 ball and up. I'd have to actually see how many teams would wind up on that list. Vidor 04:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Turns out that setting the bar at .700 makes for a list of only 14 teams, and that's only with dropping the games-played bar to 120. Make the percentage lower, do you suppose? Maybe .667, listing all teams that won two-thirds of their games? Vidor 05:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I attended the SABR Negro League Conference in Kansas City last year, where the featured speakers were seven of Satchel Paige's children. According to his son, Paige was not 100% sure of his birth year, but he was about 95% sure it was 1906. He just enjoyed mythologizing with his legend, and wouldn't admit his age publicly. This is not a source that can be used in Wikipedia (my telling it renders it hearsay), but it makes me more confident of the many sources that DO say 1906. -- Couillaud 04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Paige messed with everyone's heads. He was a tireless self-promoter and a natural showman. He had excellent control all his career, and his story about warming up over a Coke bottle cap may not have been exaggerated. It is confirmed by several reliable sources that he used to warm up before games by pitching the ball directly over a matchbook, 10 out of 10 times. He did it from the 60 1/2' distance (or nearly so), though no one timed him to see if he was throwing over 40 mph. He also made money on occasional bets by throwing a baseball 100 feet through a hole barely larger than the ball; Whitey Herzog was a witness to that one.
He would have never gotten away with pitching like that in a real game (pitches like that could be called "batting practice" by some), but it was enough to mess with batters' heads.
My problem with Tecmobowl is that he wants to say that every single claim on Paige's birth date has equal weight, when some of them are outright false. The Wiki standard is to go with the accepted data until and unless there is sufficient evidence to challenge it. Couillaud 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You asked about this.
The story of Paige and Gibson is part of Negro league baseball, under the header "The Great Paige/Gibson confrontation"; someone originally put in the legend, and there was a minor edit war, so I wrote up what I knew to be true, and then wrote up the stub 1942 Colored World Series.
The original story never sounded true to me, and when I was researching the 1942 season, I made particular effort to document the second game, where the event was said to have happened. I've looked at stories that appeared in four Negro weeklies (Defender, Call, Courier, and Afro American) as well as the three local Pittsburgh dailies, and I'm reasonably certain that I've seen the lion's share of the original coverage on the game.
While Paige did strike out Gibson on three pitches in the seventh inning of Game 2 with two out and the bases loaded and a 2-run lead, I found was that there were three singles and no walks in the inning. Several papers noted the high drama of the Monarchs' best pitcher facing the Grays' best hitter, but there was no talk about Paige playing with Gibson's head while pitching. In fact, Gibson had a horrible series, hitting .077 (1 for 13) and being removed from Game 4 in favor of reserve Robert Gaston, so Paige striking him out was not that surprising in retrospect. For the record, Gibson fouled off the first two pitches before whiffing on the third.
Next step was identifying when the legend began, and the earliest reference to Paige's version is his own autobiography in 1962. No one has ever found an earlier reference with ANY of the added detail. It was Paige's first autobiography, and his previous biography (Pitchin' Man, in 1948) didn't mention it at all. While it's possible that Paige mentioned in in an interview somewhere before, it has to have been a pretty obscure one, because SABR hasn't found it yet.
As for Ruth, I haven't read the book, but it's a regular argument among researchers: a recent book about the 1905 Philadelphia Giants quoted their scores and won-lost record, comparing it to the Majors without addressing the quality of competition faced by the Giants. I pointed out (without knowing of the book) that if we counted all the exhibition games players like Ruth participated in, 80 home runs (which has been attributed to Gibson) would be nothing. I was right, apparently.
I am a specialist in some parts of Negro League research, though I resist any label of "expert". I'm probably the third or fourth most accomplished Negro League researcher in Kansas City; that might put me somewhere in the top 100 in the U.S., but I've only published a small bit.
I'm working on completing research on the 1923 Eastern Colored League, having already finished the 1923 NNL. My NNL research got translated into a tabletop game (Replay Publishing { http://www.replaybb.com/BBPages/BBProducts.htm ; you'll see it as occasional reference on entries like Milwaukee Bears and Bullet Rogan. When the ECL is finished (I'm aiming for next year), they will put out that set, and then I'll work on translating the Negro League stats into a Major League Equivalence, and we'll do an integrated 1923 AL/NL season on tabletop, with a share of the profits going to Negro League widows. --- Couillaud 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In all honesty, I can see why that article is a candidate for deletion, although I will not vote to delete it. Vidor 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pedro and Aconcagua.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
He's back again as User:Sportsdude1955. He never gives up doesn't he? hehe Momusufan 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I see another Rob Liebman sock came back before, User:Hotrodharry. I hope he gives up someday, but I doubt that. I still wonder what the real Rob Liebman will say about all this... Momusufan 03:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made the decision to take the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Shoeless Joe Jackson. I hope I will be of some help in this case. I will try to all of you guys communicating in a civil manner and will assist you in finding a compromise. Have a nice week and God bless.-- †Sir James Paul† 08:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start putting it back in articles. Some people are idiots. Vidor 06:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What would satisfy you for a source? It's not the kind of info they're likely to publish in a media guide. It's just one of the myriad of things they play over the loudspeakers and video screens. So you're most likely to see it mentioned in fans' comments about games they've been to. Baseball Bugs 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You have absolutely worn out my patience. Stop following me around commenting on every page i edit. Leave me alone. // Tecmobowl 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to a report by Tecmobowl that you have been editing articles immediately after he has just edited them. Although this may seem innocuous, it really annoys him, and precedent from the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee has established that "Wikistalking" is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment and can result in the stalker being blocked from editing. If you share a common interest in baseball with Tecmobowl, that's wonderful - you can cooperate on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, for example. However, if your editing pattern is making him uncomfortable, you need to change your editing pattern. Shalom Hello 15:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I might need for you to weigh in on a citation debate going on in that poem. Editors keep trying to add that the phrase with but one more inning to play "has sometimes been used by optimists or comedians" to suggest it's the eighth instead of the ninth. That's logically preposterous, but more to the point, the editors need to provide an actual published, non-weblog citation of someone claiming that viewpoint. Right? Baseball Bugs 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the comments to Shoeless Joe Discussion and marked them stricken. I also noted your apology to Tecmobowl. It would probably also be nice if you apologized to him directly rather than "applying polly loggies", but that is up to you.
Lsi john
12:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you reverted one of his many recent deletions of links. Having now been proven by a second checkuser to have used User:El redactor as a block-evading sockpuppet, he has basically gone ape, throwing the f-word at admins and me and so on. I don't much like having the f-word thrown at me, as he did on Cy Young talk page, but it's only words, not sticks-and-stones. Baseball Bugs 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
pfhthththt. Hopefully you had a happy 4th. Cheers. Peace. Lsi john 21:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like your opinions on the talk page as to the edits I have just made and whether or not the "no-hit-walk-hbp" section should even be in the article. User DCGeist reverted all my edits some time ago. Since two weeks have passed and he never returned to the Talk Page to achieve his "consensus", I would like you to visit and give a second opinion. Vidor 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good eye! I'll remove the date taken information. Thanks -- ►ShadowJester07 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for filling in that rationale ( [3]). Good to see that people sometimes do have rationales that a actually make sense! :-) (You know, when you do a lot of image cleanup you sometimes despair of what kinds of poor rationales people come up with... - but this piece of information really nails it down.) So, no offense, and sorry for the trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to Lanigan's Baseball Cyclopedia at McFarland Press. I may have to order that book. How is it?
After I checked out the McFarland link, I went to Lanigan's WP article and much of the text is identical to what's on the McFarland page. Do we have a copyvio here? -- Sanfranman59 02:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ron, that is. Check User talk:Colagrossi, which I put the sock tag on in anticipation (he'd only done one edit to Whitey Ford, so figured it was too soon to report). Only Ron would immediately jump to that conclusion, as opposed to the other. And he wonders how we can tag him so fast. *teehee* -- Ebyabe 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your edit on 2001: A Space Odyssey, can you clarify which critics you mean by your ambiguous expression "some critics"? Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for why I'm asking you this. -- 朝彦 (Asahiko) 05:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not even involved in this dispute. All I did was change two players colors because they reflected the Angels' current colors, rather than the Angels' colors when Nolan Ryan and Wally Joyner actually played with the team. I'm not the right person to come to about this ongoing argument. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I didn't think about removing that from the infobox template code directly. That would be a good way of removing them all at once. However, from past experiences I know that sometimes, if you aren't careful, removing any parameters from a template code like that could potentially screw up the entire template. But if removing those parameters doesn't damage the entire infobox template, then I think that would be a good idea. That would be a good way of definitely getting somebody's attention. I think we should try to remove that parameter from the code itself and see if that works, then see if we have any objections. You can get on that, if you wish. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If your concern is that people will get mad at you, then I will willingly do it myself. But... just to be safe, I'll do it under my IP address, so people won't know that it's me, if they want to get mad... I guess I shouldn't have said that :o But if you don't want to take the risk, then I will do it willingly. I don't really care if people are mad at me, as long as I'm trying to help. It doesn't matter to me what other people think if they don't know my true motives.
Alternatively, I could just go to the template and remove those parameters, but say in my edit summary that it's a test edit, just in case somebody notices that. I did that earlier today when I reverted something to test something else (when there was that bug we had earlier). So I could do that if you want. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I made the attempt to do this, but unsuccessfully. The arrangement of the parameters in the code was far too confusing for me to know what affects what. I removed parts of it, but the colors stayed exactly the same. It had no affect on the infoboxes, as far as I could see. This makes me think that there are some more parameters that affect the color of the infobox aside from what I removed. I'm fairly certain that this is the case. Again, I'm not that knowledgeable in the code that is used for things like templates, so I haven't the slightest clue as to what I would have to remove. Perhaps I will try again later and see if I can remove the color completely by removing all parameters. But I'm going to put this on hold for now. You could still try, if you feel fit to. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just threatened... by a recently-created user account (see User talk:Ksy92003#About the redirect). Apparently, the reason s/he threatened me is because s/he doesn't like that I fixed 136 re-direct pages that were linked to Anaheim Angels and changed it to link to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. I worked from 7:36–8:49, continued from 12:38 AM–1:03 AM, and all that gets me is a threatening notice from a new user.That doesn't make sense to me.
The reason I'm telling you is because I just need to tell somebody that I worked so hard doing all of this, by hand, nonetheless (no AWB or TW or anything like that), 100% manually, and the only thing I get in return is a threat. –– Ksy92003 (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I could only use Ctrl-V to copy one piece of text, not two. So I used it to copy the edit summary and individually typed each Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. So I probably screwed at least a couple up, but somebody will fix it if they see any mistakes.
I'm praying they don't change their name again. I honestly liked the LAAoA name, but as I was doing this, I ended up realizing how much I liked the Anaheim name, and now I'm not sure which I prefer x( As far as my edits, I'm just doing it how it is now, and of course I'll be upset if they change their name again, but again, I know Arte Moreno and he isn't gonna change the name as long as he owns the team, which will be a while because the team has had great success with him as owner and they won't mess around with ownership or management like that.
As far as Disneyland goes, they broke up with their ownership contract with Disney, so I doubt they will go back to include that in any way. But I know you were being facetious with that example... right?
And something that nobody knows... the "Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles" t-shirts given out at Dodger Stadium on Opening Day in 2005 was my idea... well, I had the idea first, but being an Angel fan I didn't want to do anything to help the Dodgers fans cheer, so I kept shut. Somebody else a couple months later suggested it to front office I believe, and that's how the promotion came about. I had the idea originally but I'm an Angels fan so didn't suggest it to Dodgers personnel.
And also, I'm not gonna work on the California Angels links tonight... I'm too tired :o so I'll work on it tomorrow. This Friday,
July 13 (yay, Friday the 13th) I'm attending the
Anaheim Angels oops, I mean Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/
Texas Rangers game, so all Friday night I won't be able to make any edits whatsoever. So don't expect me to reply back to any comment you might leave me while I'm gone. I might reply back later, perhaps early-Saturday morning (and I mean really early, like maybe 12:30 AM. ––
Ksy92003
(talk)
06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not an administrator. Tecmobowl was blocked indefinitely by SirFozzie; I merely posted the block notice on Tecmobowl's user page. If you have concerns regarding a user who may be an abusive sockpuppet of Tecmobowl, I would recommend making a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. John254 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested Entirelybs 18:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This user is a member of WikiProject Baseball, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the sport of baseball. Please feel free to join us. |
Do you know how one goes about changing the name of an article? For example, the page "1903 Boston Pilgrims season" should be changed to "1903 Boston Americans season"... or perhaps something else. But in edit mode, you can not apparently change the articles title (I suspect this is a good safegaurd against vandalism). Maybe I need an administrator to do this...
Although I am not an admin, nor have I been involved in a sockpuppet case before, I believe an admin can simply check the IP address a user is using and compare it against the suspected other accounts. Since this is a fairly serious accusation, it would be good to clear it up quickly. Basar 08:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
How does Tecmobowl keep returning? I mean, did he get a new IP quickly or what. I'm just surprised he quickly returned. Thanks Soxrock 15:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Tecmo is a good contributor, but I think he is killing himself with the Fangraphs stuff. He has many good contributions, but he does need more civility and needs consensus. All he needs to do is contribute well, but he is overdoing it. He needs to layoff for a while if he attempts another comeback. And I guess he's fine to contribute As long as he doesn't violate policy or stir the pot... again. Don't take that as a sign that I want him back, though. I'm just saying. Soxrock 16:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I've read the controversy, and obviously the EL's have killed him. He has a knack for good contributing, but I think he just overdoes it by being anything but consensus friendly. If we want fangraphs on, keep it on. He only needs to lay off that and we will like his edits (like Chief Yellow Horse and 1910 Chalmers Award, those are fairly good...). All he needs is time to clear his head. He is good outside of the EL controversy Soxrock 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information you gave me. And thanks for a good conversation. I really wanted to get additional information from this Tecmobowl/Long Levi/Thousands of sock puppets case. We all know he is a good contributor, but he has very bad issues when it comes to following the rules. If we see anything suspicious within the next two weeks by a new user, block him immediately. We don't need his garbage here. Soxrock 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm a member of the Vikings project. I'm not a fan of them, though. I'm a Buccaneer fan. Don't let the projects fool you. And the AFL is a dual reference, one because I love reading it's history, and because of the user RemembertheAFL. We are good friends. Soxrock 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep taking good pictures. I love how we can have pictures from 1993 here. It's good seeing photos you've taken in your time. Keep up the good work Soxrock 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
1993 were the Forbes Field wall and Honus Wagner statue outside of Three Rivers Stadium. Soxrock 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you like me in that? I would love to travel to the early of the 20th century and watch baseball games from places like Huntington Avenue Grounds, Hilltop Park, West Side Park, Forbes Field... watch Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Homerun Baker, Gavvy Cravath. Baseball had to be more interesting back in the day, you know, when Homeruns were rare and baseball was played with more of a gameplan. Wow, weren't those just the good old days.
As for the 2001 Wagner picture, I know you said it was raining, but it's not even close to as good as the 1993 Wagner picture. Soxrock 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Same for me when looking at a 1907 picture of Ty Cobb sliding into third base, or of the iconic 1903 World Series photo. I know that the game is the same. Ty Cobb would be great today, he just would be torn to shreds by SportsCenter. I would've loved to watch the 1903 World Series between the Americans/Somersets/Puritans/Pilgrims and the Pirates. Deacon Phillipe and Bill Dineen both pitched 6 games for their teams in that series. Why do you think I'm doing so much work with seasonal articles right now? Because those remind me of the early years of baseball and how it was played. And I still have like 18 teams to do, meaning it won't be done for at least three more weeks. Boy, I love baseball and how it was played then and now. Bud Selig has ruined America's Pastime. Soxrock 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, the Cobb photo at Hilltop Park. I think they said sometime in 1909, but I can't confirm a date (the Cobb photo I was talking about in the previous message wasn't the Conlon photo and it was in a chapter labeled 1907). Remember Fay Vincent? Selig should've had that happen to him. HE ALLOWED A FREAKING STRIKE! STEROIDS! THIS SPORT IS IN TURMOIL AND HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE NFL AND MAYBE THE NBA IN POPULARITY! WE NEED A GOOD COMMISSIONER. Anyway, I love baseball and I just wish that it could be played like it was in the early part of the century. Bandboxes done away with, pitchers pitching complete games (what an odd commodity?) and bases being stolen. It's just absolutely ridiculous what Selig is allowing. "Contraction of the Expos and Twins" (Hmm, you allowed Montreal to move and Minnesota's getting a new park...). If you want to contract, DAMNIT CONTRACT. YOU HAVE NO BALLS SELIG! WE ALL WANT YOU OUT AS COMMISH! DAMN! Sorry, but I just hate what Selig has done to such a beautiful game. Soxrock 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not on here. It's in a baseball chronicle (I don't know the title, the book is literally in pieces) and it's the featured photo for 1907. Your right about Anson and Cobb. Cobb has to be the biggest jerk in baseball history. But Cobb is the greatest hitter ever, and Anson won over 1200 games as manager of your Cubs. And thanks for changing the images, I am trying to nicen up my pages and in general (as in in life) I'm trying to become nicer. So thank you for changing them to look better :) Soxrock 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
How odd that the infield has dirt only in the basepath. Doesn't look anything like today's parks. But I enjoy looking at Stadium articles from stadiums of yesteryear. Again, my favorite of them, Huntington Avenue Grounds. I just wish I could watch a game there. Soxrock 19:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, those players like Cobb were never liked. Ruth ate too much. Hornsby was despised. Williams hated the press (How the hell does someone win TWO triple crowns and not be MVP both times?).
As for the Cobb picture, I'm going to give you the following questions to see if you have the same book:
1) Does it give season-by-season descrpitions of baseball seasons from 1901-2002?
2) Does it have a "timeline" at the bottom?
3) Is the 1907 season page on page 36 with the Ty Cobb picture next to it?
Soxrock 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The photos from 1903:
I know about South End Grounds, but where is it in the picture. I am trying to find it, but I don't know where exactly it is.
And the other photo that I uploaded in March proves that the warehouse behind left field is where the picture was taken.
And, 1903 would've been fun because of Cy Young and Honus Wagner and all of the greats. I love baseball history... Soxrock 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
IT was presumably published in 2003 because it has history from 1901-2002 Soxrock 20:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I'd have a better chance with the book. I'm trying, but there are two problems:
1) My eyes hurt because of the smoke
2) And I'm trying to make out the roof, but that's all I see. I'll just look for a book, it's just too hard to pinpoint everything. Thanks for trying, though. Soxrock 20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my bad, I meant it had a timeline, but it wasn't in the name. Do you have a book with a collage of players on the front of it? The Baseball Chronicle is what I think the name is Soxrock 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I THINK I FOUND SOUTH END GROUNDS! FINALLY! THANK YOU! Soxrock 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the book looks like this : http://www.amazon.com/The-Baseball-Chronicle/dp/0785396233/ref=sr_1_6/002-5777627-4180832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184359388&sr=1-6
Soxrock 20:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I definately see it now. Thank you for all your help on this. Soxrock 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh, it's fine as it is right now. It would be perfectly fine on the SEG article as is now. Soxrock 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And not only that, they played at South End Grounds longer than they have at any other park. Surprising that the home they played in so long is poorly circulated. But I still thank you for finally getting South End Grounds in that picture to be found. I just could not find it until the cropped photo was uploaded. Soxrock 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh that is clearly the building (Boston Storage Warehouse), because it is tall enough and it's right at that left-field corner angle where you could look toward right field and see the entry gate. I think it's impossible for it to have been a different building. Jeez, I love talking about this today. Soxrock 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh jeez, I'm busy I don't know at all Soxrock 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
For sure. From the angle, you can't even see the street until you go farther left. And that would be great to see a ground-level pic. That would confirm the building (we all know, but, technically it's still speculation). Soxrock 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's displayed well on both of the ones I use. So I guess it is yours Soxrock 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you assure me that, in the event that articles like 1921 New York Yankees season are put up for deletion that you will vote keep? Thanks Soxrock 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note this; I mean for ALL SEASONS I CREATE. For example, look at 1985 Texas Rangers season. I have to complete that. I meant all seasons I create.
And I think that may be a typo. I took the lead of the created Highlander pages created in May when I did the Yankee seasons. And any help would be appreciated, but I just thought I'd clarify. And baseball-reference is my primary source outside of game logs. Thanks Soxrock 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry I'm late in replying (dinner), but thanks for all your insight. I am currently working on giving broad descriptions of playoff appearances for teams in their seasonal articles and linking the main articles in the section. I just thought I'd check this with you because I think I read somewhere that a few wikipedians think that "If the team didn't win their league's title in the year the article was created, it's not notable and therefore should be deleted". Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but that is essentially what it said from what I remember, and, therefore, I wanted to make sure that a prominent wikipedian thought it was notable. In my mind, every season for a major league sports team is HIGHLY NOTABLE. Thanks for your time. Soxrock 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making them accurate. Today I plan on doing the Royals seasons (1969-2006, won't take forever) and adding playoff information to teams pages. I take what I get from the playoff pages them remove game summaries from it (like you said, I give the broadest scope I get from the playoff pages, I link the articles together as a result). I will someday have stats and playoff information (when applicable) on every teams page, although all you on the project are welcome to help! I have what I call a "laundry-list" that is like miles long (The one linked on my userpage gives the stuff that I will do but won't find others doing, I have a lot more that I want to do and therefore don't want others to know). Anyway, thank you, and I'll likely check back with you before the day is over. And sorry for the long wait (I was tagging American Football League talk pages with the project template, I have it done now for all created pages) Soxrock 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know whether the Tecmobowl comparison was a good or bad (simply because Tecmobowl has been an idiot and impossible to deal with with his repetitious removal of external links (which should not be removed, all are meaningful)), but I don't know how you got the enhanced photo? I mean, I can see the "Wilson" on the right field wall better and I can see the stadium in general much better. Gotta give it to you, you have made a hard to see facility very noticeable. Good job Soxrock 14:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Good job getting the image from the book. I've managed to work on all the tasks while not getting burned out. If I need to, I can try to take a break.
That is fascinating about ballparks built right by other existing ones. I mean, you can't compare Huntington Avenue Grounds and South End Grounds with, say, Riverfront Stadium and Great American Ballpark, and here's why (and I'm sure you know), because both HAG and SEG were used at the same time, while GAB replaced Riverfront. Back then, the nearby stadiums in those cities had to be great. Again, if you and I could go back in time and watch a baseball game from one stadium that was close to another and perhaps watch another game that same day from the other venue. But now, todays stadiums have so many attractions that may not even have to be there (I don't know about you, but, if I go to a stadium for a baseball game, shouldn't I watch the game?) and therefore think that some attractions shouldn't be there. I wonder what you think of that?
And I remember the Orioles story, it reminds me of the Anaheim Angels when Anaheim Stadium was renovated, the Angels continued play there despite the noticeable renovation. Soxrock 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
About the fences... yeah, Bill Veeck when he owned the Indians always tinkered with it. I must say that watching a game at Wrigley Field has to be the best ballpark experience ever. I need to go to a game there. Soxrock 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, do you believe that Rickey Henderson should have Met colors on his page (he is employed by them but he played so long in Oakland I think it should be green and gold)
And something needs to be done to Pascack and Joeidaho, they are the most disrupting people on the project. Soxrock 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
He was banned therefore his opinions are irrelevant? He no longer contributes to consensus, but he didn't at the time--COI, remember? His opinions don't become irrelevant though--just because someone is banned doesn't mean that everything they have said is irrelevant. Plus, I like to be able to read the talk page and I bloodly well can't right now. This is ridiculous--I don't care what your problems are with Tecmo. He's gone and continuing this obsession with him is beyond insane. It's not your talk page, you don't control it. It's a record of conversation--not a record of conversation adjusted to your preferances. When I read old discussion I have to realize that I'm only able to take what's in front of my face for granted--the content. Striking through the comments makes it impossible to read--you aren't striking through your own comment and replacing it, or striking through and improper vote--you're messing with someone else's comments for personal reasons. Miss Mondegreen talk 13:12, July 17 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, let me clarify--by irrelevant, sure, his comments don't get weighed into decisions or anything else. But a banned editor does not equate with everything they did being wrong etc. Editors who are eventually banned often provide lots of good edits and opinions before being banned. Which Tecmo did. Therefore, the opinion itself may still be relevant to the discussion--his banning doesn't change the opinion. And especially in the ongoing ones, other editors may find his opinions useful--may agree with them and present them themself. Tecmo's vote in conversations--it's gone, but he may have presented some very relevant opinions in the past that other people might find useful--for the opinion. People might find them useful in terms of looking at a conversation for historical value as well and there are a whole host of other reasons not to get rid of the comments.
Also for clarification, I saw Epeefleche or someone pointed out on the community sanction board that you had notified me of the reinterpretation of the results on my talk page. I'm sorry for correcting you--I really wasn't aware. I had seen your comment on my talk page, but I'd skimmed it--it was under a section that someone else had started and you and Tecmo hurled a lot of accusations at each other on my talk page so I'd started skimming at that point. When I saw you making that point elsewhere I did go double check the checkuser result, and saw it was the same as before. It was only later I realized that the different interpretation of results was posted on the talk page. Miss Mondegreen talk 00:16, July 19 2007 (UTC)
Nice job. Unlike when the Cubs played at West Side Park, rooftop bleachers are able to be used. I read about the royalty, it's only fair. I wouldn't be the happiest if some people are allowed to watch my team's game without my organization getting the money, so I think the Cubs did a good job with that.
However, the left-field expansion shouldn't have ever happened. I liked the old bleachers out there. Soxrock 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm very lenient on the colors unless their blatantly wrong. Mets blue and orange on Casey Stengel's page? WTF? He may be known partially as a Met, but he didn't win 7 World Series and 10 Pennants as a Met. All it is is annoying on that page, Reggie Jackson's page, and it's also annoying seeing Pascak's Yankee bias (i.e. removing Yankee colors everywhere). His opinions need to be disregarding when it comes to colors, it is only going to be against Yankee colors everywhere. Same applies to Pascak's buddy Joeidaho. Yankee haters need not respond. Soxrock 11:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed that they left Stengel alone, for now, but that still doesn't take away the fact that They let their bias get in the way of their editing. I don't see myself modifying every page that has a player who played for the Yankees/White Sox and making it darkblue/white or black/silver, respectively. Same with you. I don't see you changing all the pages for a player who played for the Cubs and making it red/blue. And you actually had a double 3RR (it was like 7 reverts, but it was a good cause, no harm, no foul in my mind). Something needs to be done to stop the bias and he controversy. All it makes me do is stop what I'm doing to periodically check the Stengel page to see if the idiots have changed it again. I'm sorry that this waste's time for both of us just to make something right that a couple of idiots insist on making wrong. I'd like Pascak and Joeidaho blocked the next time they do something to the colors that is wrong. And I do mean both if one of them does something wrong to them.
And, for he record, I think that Rickey Henderson, despite playing for like 20 teams (exaggeration), should be in A's colors. Just my opinion. Soxrock 11:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Stengel That is exactly why it should be Yankee colors. More successful, better known, and in the HoF as a Yankee. Nuff said. Soxrock 11:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I had to laugh at the Henderson/every team comment. And, yes, Tecmobowl/Short Levi (catch the joke in the name) at least could contribute ( 1910 Chalmers Award, Chief Yellow Horse), but the EL's got rediculous. That requires consensus, and he went bold on something you don't go bold on. You go bold on either adding things or removing MEANINGLESS stuff. What he removed as MEANINGFUL. And, watch out for his next sockpuppet, I can probably catch it if he removes my stats section on Hank Aaron's page. Best of luck with you here. I can understand being worn-off by the EL controversy. Soxrock 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can defend a biased site and remove a very reliable one. Then again, Tecmobowl was out of control to begin with and just couldn't resist the urge to keep his own site up. If he dare come back, it better be weeks from now. We'd be willing to have a good Tecmo here, not the idiot, EL obsessed version. Again, I'm not advocating him come back, but this is in the event that it happens. Soxrock 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure about it. I'll detect it (most likely) if the stats on Hank Aaron's page are removed. I generally try to avoid these things (or else I would likely be gone by now if I got really involved with these things, I just work, I don't care about controversy so much unless it involves me), but I'll give you a notice if a new user removes them. And look out for a new user editing Braves articles, Levi gave it away by editing his favorite teams articles (and for being a blatant moron). Soxrock 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't generally use my watchlist (I have a lot of cleaning up to do for it), but I will say that I was surprised when I read the Braves history and how it lives on in three ways (he Cincinnati Reds and Boston Red Sox, and the Braves red trim). Eh, if you learn a good few facts per day, you'll only be smarter. Soxrock 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Great job, I love reading about that, but I'm not very happy suddenly (I'm sure you noticed I use a different account to reply to messages, well, I just used my main account to make the reply, which is something I never want to do... enough of this, it's my problem only).
I found it odd that MLB decided to add a second Washington team after the original Senators left. They would never be as popular, so it was odd that they decided to add a new team there. Soxrock 13:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see now. There were only 25,000 fans at the Senators II final game. I think that the Orioles could become the "toast" again if Peter Angelos sells the team, he's made them a joke. A baseball-tradition rich town like Baltimore should not be subjected to this junk.
And, for the accounts, I prefer a different talk account so I can check my replies quicker. And because I prefer contributions over edits under this account (in my mind, a contribution can only be made to an article, an edit can be made to anything) Soxrock 13:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and Rusty Torres was on the Senators, just like he was with the Indians on 10 cent Beer night and White Sox on Disco Demolition night Soxrock 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, very odd. I found that out only yesterday. Soxrock 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Most likely, if we continue to talk today, it'll be at my talk page exclusively. Just a note Soxrock 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand why you did it. I left all the other reverts of the IP because it's pretty obviously a sock... there just ins't a reason for the strikethrough of text (there are discussions of this at the WP:BAN talkpage and WP:ANI so I removed those strikes.-- Isotope23 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
THis looks like the 'don't undo strikeout reversions' section. I dropped your comment at the professional baseball page. I understand you wre trying to explain, but it came off as something between a 'gotcha!' sort of embarrassment post, and a trolling post to make tecmo react. The policy debates on AN/I are thoroughly outside the scope of that talk page anyways, so why use it to irritate Tecmo and cause more trouble? ThuranX 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Ragefd look familiar? You've followed the drama more closely than I. — Wknight94 ( talk) 02:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I remember reading about the "I have abandoned Wikipedia" line, and, to tell you the truth, the unfair block I got almost got me pissed off enough to leave here also. First off, and this is relating to me, I got warned about 3RR. But I didn't violate it again after that. However, I got blocked anyway. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU DO THAT? IT'S SO FREAKING UNFAIR! I even talked to Ksy92003 via e-mail regarding the issue. I was that close to actually saying the hell with this place. You guys are so freakin lucky to still have me around here. Same with you, you make this place a whole lot better.
As for Ragefd, based on his contributions, what makes you think he is Tecmobowl? I'm not deriding you, it's just the evidence, other than being new here, doesn't suggest that he's Tecmo... yet. Soxrock 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
PASCAK AND HIS BUDDY JOEIDAHO WERE INDEFINITELY BLOCKED! WE'RE SAVED... for now. Either way, rejoice my friend, rejoice! Soxrock 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
And have you seen my message sent from earlier today, right above this one. I'm really wondering about the suspected Tecmobowl sock, again. Thanks Soxrock 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I only started following the Tecmo controversy, so I didn't see how it would be Tecmo. Eitherway, I see what you mean. I'll watch it too. Soxrock 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to suspect Gmh224 and Jjj222 are the same user... Pascack. Two user names created today, after Pascack's 192.*.*.* IP was unblocked - taking on his anti-Yankees/pro-Mets agenda, starting with Joe Girardi this morning. Mghabmw 22:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi BB,
I added a parodic version of the Yankee Doodle song and you deleted it. I was wondering why. Thx, Weiande
Sorry, I removed the notice but will put back up if it is proven he is Tecmo. Soxrock 18:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed your contributions to a ton of baseball pages so I thought I'd ask your opinion before I made a change myself. Do you identify Keith Hernandez more with the Mets or the Cardinals? I noticed he had Cardinal colors on his page, but I tend to think of him more as a Met since he was the team captain on the dominant 1980's Mets, the Seinfeld episode, and he has been a Mets TV Analyst for years. He also ended his tenure with St. Louis on a pretty sour note. I'll defer to you, but thought I'd ask.
But who then makes the decisions on the colors of the retired non-Hall of Famers? Someone must make the decision, I am new to Wikipedia so not sure how this works.
In theory, I'd agree with you, but on wikipedia, it appears that every retired player has colors in his box. Who is the user that makes those decisions and how is it changed? I just created my account today and don't want to make major changes before I am established. Gmh224 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice quote! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bugs, can you direct me to this person? I don't know who you're talking about when it came to the "whose edit pattern and comments were definitely Tecmo...". Thanks Soxrock 01:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh jeez, is he that stupid? He's got to avoid Baseball articles. However, comparing the two, isn't the one Tecmo edited better? I mean, that version did have an infobox and more text. Soxrock 11:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I did think they they were an improvement. That's why I ask. Soxrock 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
just funnin'! LessHeard vanU 10:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
"Personally, I ignore complaints made by IP addresses. But I'll let Mr. Epeefleche give you his own opinion on that. 0:) Baseball Bugs 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)"
Yes, I'm awfully sorry that I'm IP address scum. Please let me kill myself to make it up to you... :p Just kidding - Please don't bite and be nice. Even if someone is only a IP user, this makes him worth no more or no less that yourself - and who knows, he might even be "normal" contributer who did just not long in due to forgetfullness or an attempt for a wikibreak. 84.145.247.165 18:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Jaranda ( talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to redirect the articles 2006 Kansas City Royals season and 1980 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season. I've saved them and put the underconstruction tag on them, but enough has been said, he's going with the non-notable card. Just an FYI that he is trying to redirect them. Soxrock 23:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
And I, once again, did remove the canvassing part. It doesn't look like canvassing now, so I cleaned it up like I should have Soxrock 11:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses on the project page. And I will be busy all day improving articles. Your help will be appreciated, I love the work you've done on the Yankee pages. Soxrock 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edit, I looked up the original article published in the Times the day after the game in question and it only mentions the team as the "Yankees" once in the article, in the quote included in the reference I had added. If this is indeed the same article, there would seem to be no reason to delete the original source, rather than a tertiary reference about the article in question. I'm also not sure that a single mention of "Yankees" in this article adequately demonstrates that the name had taken hold by that date. Nor would a single mention demonstrate that the article "is noteworthy in that the locals were referred to as the 'New York Yankees' or 'Yanks' throughout the article" when they were only mentioned one, single time as the Yankees and were not referenced as either the "New York Yankees" or "Yanks" at any point in the article. Alansohn 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
For being one of the few users in the WP:BASEBALL talk page that is civil and willing to talk about the copyright concerns other than attacking it or reverting. Jaranda wat's sup 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC) |
Oh please. Now your being a kissup Jaranda. You just can't help us out overall. There are no copyvio problems with baseball-reference due to the fact that they do not own the stats
Soxrock
14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help, but I don't have to much time to really work on anything for too long. 209.244.42.107 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You stated my detailed work on the Pittsburgh Pirates nickname origin sounded like it was copied, but don't worry, it was not. I am just a good writer.
I award you this lame award for coming up with a 'so bad it's good' anagram of my username. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You guessed wrong. (Why you're guessing where I have and haven't lived makes little sense, however; I'm interested in facts, not my or your personal background.) Did the Twins play on April 4, 2007? It doesn't appear they did based on mlb.com. Find me a date on which the Twins played AND the windchill was actually (not nearly) below zero F, and you can include that factoid if you want as being an extreme example of a potentiality. Assuming you source it properly. Moncrief 18:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I never would've known. First off, and it's beside the point, I think that the black and orange combos are better than even black and red combos. But, really, I thought that the Giants wore black-orange for their entire history. Either way, I'm not sure if the Giants adopted those colors or just had them for themselves.
And I've been wondering this for months now; Why do teams, no matter how much black they may where, always seem to use a different color for marketing or for TV (like the Giants always use orange on TV despite the fact that orange is hardly seen, and like the Pirates with yellow despite the fact that yellow is used the same way the Giants use orange). Thank you for the post. Soxrock 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I love your self-sockpuppet thing. I think I'll use it. Can I? Crowstar caws 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know. You're not involved specifically, but... Miss Mondegreen talk 14:28, July 30 2007 (UTC)
Hey, check this out ( [7]). Even though it hasn't been updated since '03, it's very interesting and very entertaining. A few of the ones I liked
1) Reggie Jackson - 77 World Series 2) Ralph Terry - 62 World Series 3) November series - well, you already know 4) Jack Morris - 91 World Series 5) Jim Leyritz - 96 World Series
I'll tell you, even though I've seen it countless times, the 2001 World Series always gives me chills. That was an epic series. Soxrock 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, I understand that 50 years of managing is an impressive and will never be matched feat, but Connie Mack had a losing record during his career (Yeah yeah 3731 wins and what, 3800 losses? Oh 6 pennants, 4 World Series titles, but something like 10 or so last place finishes). Mack also decided to build that "spite fence" at Shibe Park in 1932. Whereas your Cubs could negotiate a deal regarding roof-top seats, Mack decided to screw the fans and screw Philly. In my mind, Mack was a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overrated manager who managed 20 years longer than he should've.
As for Babe Ruth, imagine if he played these days. Combining the livelier balls and the bandbox stadiums (he did have the Yankee Stadium porch, but he still played 77 games on the road...) and he still hit homeruns WITHOUT CHEATING in his late 30s. Greatest hitter, bar none. Soxrock 00:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I will tell you, you are one of the people I really enjoy talking to here. I don't mean to take away from anyone else, but, whereas for most people I talk about the encyclopedia, I can do both with you; talk about improvement and stuff like that, but I also talk out our nations pastime even if the NFL has passed it in popularity. You and Ksy92003 are the two people that keep me going here, otherwise I would've burned out weeks ago. Thank you for all of your kindness, you deserve a full barnstar for your ability to be nice and all. And you do a lot of research that really helps us out. Thanks for all your help
Anyway, getting back to baseball itself, I do remember the 104 homeruns book, and that just goes to show how good Ruth was. I noted Yankee Stadium earlier, well, in 1927, when he hit 60 official homeruns, 32 were on the road. All those detractors who say that Yankee Stadium was made for Ruth are total idiots (I don't mean to offend you if you are, but I'm just stating my own mind). Soxrock 00:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And good comparison on Gehrig, he is, unfortunately best remembered for falling victim of ALS. He hit 29 HRS and 114 RBI in 1938 while he was starting to get the disease. Remember, he was only what, 35 in 1939? He could've played into his 40s. And I know DiMaggio won 4 titles anyway, but imagine Gehrig in 1940, 1942, even 1944? He had it in him, until the disease took it from him. Such a sad story. 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I do like Joe Torre, but it's time for a change in the Bronx. The Yanks need someone who will light a fire under your ass if you don't do something right. Soxrock 11:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks for calling me charitable....that's a wikifirst for me. i am an inclusionist, so i rarely delete, but often use fact tags. that alone has gotten me some harsh feedback, but anytime i see a statement starting with "many believe" i add the fact tag. btw....the self-sockpuppet thing is HILARIOUS. LurkingInChicago 02:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BabeRuth19321001.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was a little late for me when I got the message (Computer off, watching The Bronx is Burning) but I would like to say that Willie Mays was determined, he would've found a way to catch that ball. But staying in the same general area and same platform, why is it that Mays' Game 1 catch is incredibly famous when there was the Game 7 catch by Brooklyn outfielder Sandy Amoros, who'd just came into left field replacing Jim Gilliam. I mean, that ball, if it gets down, doesn't win game 1 for the Yanks, it wins the series in all likelihood. Willie Mays had an unbelievable catch, one that likely saved Game 1 for the Giants, but Amoros saved Game 7 and the Brooklyn Dodgers only World Series title. I just think that, and a lot of people will probably agree, that the Amoros catch is among the most underrated World Series plays of all-time. Soxrock 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, changing subjects, I just want to mention that the baseball chronicle I frequently mention has helped my figure out history, but I like the fact that you upload so many pictures from the early 1900s. I've figured out that both of us have a deep passion for baseball history, which makes it easier to talk with each other. Soxrock 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, two topics are going to start, I guess, but when I heard that the Bombers won 16-3 last night over my equally beloved ChiSox (I was hoping the Yanks would win, the Sox have sold and are done for the year) and heard that they hit 8 HRS (that was my I addressed them as the Bombers), I immediately guessed what who their opponent was, and the score of the game. My guess, on the spot, was a 22-2 beating of the Philadelphia Athletics. Well, I checked the 1939 Philadelphia A's game log here, and it turns out that, on June 28th game 1 of a doubleheader at Shibe Park, the Yankees won 23-2. Damn, I can't believe I was that close. And, for the record, in the 2nd game of the doubleheader, they again shallacked the A's 10-0. Have you ever had any stories like that, where you saw some team tie a team record and tried to pull out information from when they previously set that record? Thanks for reading this story. Soxrock 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am undertaking a project to cleanse out all his blanks of his talk page. By the end of the night, you might be able to see all of his talk page notes. For every 100 subjects, I will start a new archive. Thanks for your concern. NBAonNBC 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Any clue what happened with NBAonNBC ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? What did I miss? — Wknight94 ( talk) 01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I wanted to contact you off-wiki about a sensitive Wikipedia-related subject. E-mail me if there's a way to contact you (temporary hotmail account if you want). — Wknight94 ( talk) 05:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as
Talk:New York Yankees are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
FYI, Soxrock is responding to your WP:ANI comments on his own talk page (the only place he can edit right now). I didn't know if you noticed that... — Wknight94 ( talk) 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so you've put the gag list back in - I've removed it again. I've justified this action with reference to Wiki guidelines, and I will continue to stand by them. Please justify yourself before readding the gag list - no other film has it and I don't know why it should be there. WP:ILIKEIT etc is another reason for it's removal - it applies here as well, along with the violations of WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT If you wish to take this matter to Arbitration then go right ahead - I'll win. Reply on my talk page please. Addyboy 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a
consensus among editors.
24.4.253.249
03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --> 24.4.253.249 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
IP editors are people too. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you. 24.4.253.249 03:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your comments on List of city nicknames in the United States: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- ZimZalaBim talk 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
On the talk page of World Series [10] you have once again insulted another editor. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --> 24.6.65.83 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, 48 is even better. Baseball Bugs 02:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for dialoguing a bit. User:Irishguy told me you were one of the best. And I already knew that. :) Baseball Bugs 06:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Again with the personal attacks!!! Whether or not you like it, there is a person behind this IP address. You also twist what was written. Context, my boy, context. The full line was, "Anybody else care to comment on whether or not two inconsequential comic strip references are encyclopedia-worthy?" The subject of that phrasing is references, with inconsequential and comic strip being descriptors. At no time did I say the cartoonists are inconsequential, nor was the notability of the strips themselves in question. The issue was their appropriateness for the Warthog article. 24.6.65.83 04:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there and well done on the article which waskindly nominated by Wizardman. Do feel free to self-nom in future and hope you have a more enjoyable time. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Clarify matters for the debate on Talk:Atlanta Braves. The core of the Cincinnati Red Stockings regrouped in Boston. The Braves can lay claim on the Red Stockings as their ancestor... but it was not an actual franchise shift in 1871, the way it was in 1953 and 1966. Baseball Bugs 12:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Point out in World Series, and to the user, that citations and references are not possible because the user is not giving us enough to work with. Maybe ask him to provide his "Top 5 Most Questionable Statements" in the article, to at least get started with some improvements. Meanwhile, list some good WS references. Baseball Bugs 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Look for Ray Bolger editorial cartoon. Baseball Bugs 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Old comedians: Pete Barbutti IMDB entry
Someone again messing with Cobb in Major League Baseball titles leaders. Baseball Bugs 14:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Clarify point in Home run about "breaking the plane". An outfielder can catch it past the fence. It can also hit him on the glover or the shoulder or the head, and if it bounces over, it's a home run... kind of a carryover from the old off-the-field-into-the-stands-home-run rule. Baseball Bugs 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If anyone happens to see this... someone vandalized the Cy Young page this afternoon. Baseball Bugs 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Somebody tried to remove some awkward wording in Fenway Park and left a periodless sentence. Baseball Bugs 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Idiotic vandalism on I-35W Mississippi River bridge, if anyone is still watching this page at this hour. Baseball Bugs 07:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
24.6.65.83, since things have calmed down between you and Bugs, can I just unblock him? Having an "attackee" now making edits for an "attacker" is a downright surreal situation. — Wknight94 ( talk) 11:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It's File:Mgmlogob.jpg although I don't believe in Astrology. :) Baseball Bugs 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I wasn't talking about questionable statements. There aren't any questionable or contestable statements as far as I have read the article. But the whole article is written without any references or citations. In order to qualify for a Good article or Featured article, the article must cite ample references. See similar article Cricket World Cup for example. I'll try to add references as and when I find them but my knowledge about baseball is very limited. Gnanapiti 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
can you please go to Reggie Jacksons talk page and vote for the A's or Yankees colors in infobox-- Yankees10 20:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, you did this? I was reading User talk:Wknight94, and I was under the impression that you did this... were you serious? Ksy92003 (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Funny behavior; Revert because you dont understand? I dont understand so you revert but you dont talk? ... Funny but for you to understand what and whatfor Commons was created several years before you may read Wikipedia:Commons .... Sicherlich Post 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The 12-11 was probably not vandalism, just bad math. Of Ryan's 27 seasons, two were partial. His average record for a 162-game season (counting the partial seasons pro rata) was 13-12, but if you just divide his lifetime record by 27, you'll get closer to 12-11.-- Wehwalt 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I like your user page. I've just pinched some ideas. I hope you don't mind! Regards SilkTork 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If he leaves another weird comment at Irishguy's talk page, I'll report him to WP:AIV. What's preventing me from blocking him is mostly due to the fact I'm not an admin. :) Oh, and just curious: how did you find my userpage? :) - WarthogDemon 03:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Who is this guy? He seems to put up quasi-contributions that are essentially badly written POVs. You seem to know his prior history, and I'm just curious. TashTish 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The technical difference is that a ban is a decision made by the community (or certain other entities, such as Jimbo Wales) while a block is imposed by an admin, and can be removed by an admin. For a better answer, check out Wikipedia:Banning policy. CitiCat ♫ 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about my mistake... gosh, my 11th grade English teacher is gonna be pissed :) Haha seriously, I didn't know there was a difference for that rule for quotation marks in quotes and quotation marks in quoting specific terms. I guess the grammar error was on my part, eh? I'm sorry, but at the same time, thank you for kinda preparing me for senior year. If I get an A in English, then it'd all be thanks to you, amigo. Ksy92003 (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Hi-Yo Silver barnstar.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I consider what you did to the page: vandalism. Just because you apparently don't agree with the project, doesn't give you the right to vandalize the page by injecting your personal opinion on it. The project isn't a matter of people liking to delete things: it's a matter of cleaning up trivia clutter on Wikipedia. If that includes deleting: so be it. Wikipedia isn't the place for every little note. RobJ1981 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and wouldn't be too helpfull . . . might want to ask one of the admins. User:Gogo Dodo, User:Evula might be able to give you advice. :) - WarthogDemon 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the error myself look at the edit summaries. Learn some manners. Trevor GH5 07:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The rest of the edits seem sound. (Even the Mr Blobby one.) I assume this is a Monday/Thursday thing. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59 20 August 2007 (GMT).
I saw you put in a referenced comment on the Michael Vick article. I removed it for a few reasons and just wanted you to know why. It was already added in the previous edit, there was no context given, and it's hard to justify that being the first thing mentioned about him in the entire article when nothing other than his identity as an NFL player has been mentioned. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you undo this pointless edit by Ron under another name? I'm trying to spread the love. And yes, with that and his former obsession with Escitalopram, one wonders... :) -- Ebyabe 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I have no idea, BaseballBugs. - Susanlesch 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The official attendance at Fenway park is 38,805 at night. redsox382007 Redsox382007 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping Luna Island get started! LOL, you had said it was doubtful that one could write such an article. -- User101010 04:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not want a userpage and I said so on my talk page. You should have asked before creating it for me. I actually wanted to remain a "red-linked" user. Being bold is not always necessary. -- User101010 22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope that one of the things you learned today is that you don't edit another person's user page. -- User101010 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
See comment on my talk page -- User101010 11:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:T&T_Polo_Grounds_diagram_1951.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ( talk) 05:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:McBillions2.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:McBillions.JPG. The copy called Image:McBillions.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 07:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
How do you imagine I'm going to find a "free equivalent" of a diagram of a structure that was torn down in 1964? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I still have not gotten around to reading this book (as you suggested earlier), but I have read some extracts, and it came up during a discussion in SABR's online forum, and I'm wondering how consistent the author has been in his research. There was one definite unresearched error, and one misrepresented fact that came up.
The unresearched error: the author cites a talk from Buck O'Neil stating that he saw Ruth hit a homer off of Satchel Paige about 1938; Buck joined the Monarchs in 1938, but that was the year that Paige's arm went sore (and remained so for three years), and he barnstormed with a semi-pro team. Buck did not meet Paige until Paige joined the Monarchs in 1941, and he definitely would not have had opportunity to see Paige pitch against Ruth in '38. Also, Paige was asked on a number of occasions whether he faced Ruth. Paige was given to hyperbole and embellishing his own reputation (and he had no concept that people might look up his claims decades later to document them), and therefore felt free to tell a tall tale or seven, but he passed on the opportunity to make claims about Ruth. He was consistent with reporters and with his own children when they asked, and he said he would have liked to have taken Babe Ruth on, but they never found the opportunity. After a great deal of research into the Negro Leagues, no researcher has ever found a report of Ruth facing Paige, and believe me, we've looked hard for such things. Buck told his story only a while before his own death, but never thought to mention it before. The conclusion is that Jenkinson used Buck's story without bothering to research the possibility that it was just another one of Buck's tall tales.
The misrepresented fact: Ruth really did hit three home runs off of "Cannonball" Dick Redding in 1927, but Redding had lost his effectiveness after 1921, and by 1927 was about a third-rung man who mainly pitched exhibitions against amateur teams, banking mainly on his name recognition. Also, the story had already been told awhile before Jenkinson's book in a collection of baseball stories, except that it was pointed out that Redding was told by the promoter that the crowd had come to see Ruth put on an exhibition and he obliged by grooving pitches. It is a tribute to Ruth's abilities that he actually hit the three home runs (it's not a given, even with a batting practice pitcher), but it wasn't the accomplishment it was made out to be.
Some sections of the book seem to have been well-researched, but with these two glaring errors, I now wonder how well-researched it was.
Overall, I still think Ruth was the greatest power hitter of his day, and that the book has merit in pointing that out, but had the leagues been integrated in Ruth's day, my guess is that he would have hit fewer home runs (probably around 650), and someone (Turkey Stearnes or Mule Suttles) might have hit 550-600, making his numbers just a bit less fantastic.
Just thought I'd get back to you on that one. -- Couillaud 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooooh, I saw that (after the fact). And I shivered... Anyway, as you say, the end result looks great. I appreciate you weighing in on those film images a few days ago, by the way. I'm amazed anyone in their right mind finds their way over to the realm of IfD (er...did that come out OK?). Best, Dan— DCGeist 09:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at
Fenway Park. Please always observe our
core policies. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here:
link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.
Alexf(
t/
c)
23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I saw the discussion about a diagram a little bit up. The same guy is trying to get the Baltimore Orioles uniform image deleted under similar reasoning. This, of course, would set a precedent that would doom all the uniform images. The discussion is taking place here if you'd like to join into the discussion.
Anyway, with the nicknames, I really appreciate what you're doing with the nicknames. There definitely has to be some link to that page, as it is currently fairly hidden away. However, maybe a little later. I can't really help you too much, as I am deep into a whole mess of projects right now. I just saw the mess that the team nicknames were in, and so I organized them and added rationales to all that I could to make things a bit better. However, I do have a few suggestions about the nicknames page. Stadium nicknames should be included. I can take care of that when I get a chance. Team nicknames should get top billing, above the player nicknames. Also, perhaps the best way to organize things is to turn the player nicknames into different pages, which would be linked to from the nicknames page. One for the players in alphabetical order, one by team, one by category like there is now, and perhaps one by nickname alphabetical order.
One last thing. I didn't realize until recently when I really payed attention to your signature's links to talk and contributions that your name refers to the old cartoon by the same name. I'd assumed it was just bugs as in the insect. Heh, things can really go over my head sometimes, I suppose. -- Silent Wind of Doom 04:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for the congratulations. :) I became an administrator on July 4; it was my second RfA. With coming across user IDs, I've seen you post a few times on Alison's talk page. Acalamari 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And...Wow.— DCGeist 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
In a recent discussion on ANI, the following exchange took place (along with further misunderstandings based on it)
I think what you don't quite understand (and no-one bothered to correct you on this) is that there is not any inherent contradiction between looking professional and being free, but being free is simply seen as much more important than looking professional. If you want it to look more professional, make (or request to have made) more professional looking free images. -- Random832 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not active in the area of image copyright tags beyond tagging obvious cases of {{ Wrong-license}} and {{ Imagewatermark}}, but PD-because seems to fit until somebody comes along and finds a more specific tag. It might be considered a form of 2D art, but I don't know. -- Geniac 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it really true that Jackie retired rather than play for the rival Giants?
Not that I've ever heard. After reading your note, I took Roger Kahn's The Boys of Summer (one of the two greatest baseball-themed books, Ball Four being the other) to supper with me to read his first hand account of Robinson's retirement. Robinson had not gotten along with Walt Alston, his manager for those last three years, and had decided to retire after the '56 season. He had contacted Look Magazine before the trade had been made to work on an exclusive story, and had to keep to a "no comment" immediately after the trade was announced, until he was fully ready to announce the retirement. He was asked directly at a press conference whether the trade had anything to do with his decision, and he directly answered that it did not.
The Giants made a bona fide and quite attractive offer to Robinson, ($40K for one year, and $20K each for two more) and sweetened it ($50K) after the announcement, and Robinson wavered; Dodgers GM Buzzy Bavasi then went on record that he believed Robinson would take Look's money and then sign with the Giants anyway, because he (Robinson) loved money; Kuhn wrote that Robinson knew he had to retire after that, or his career would end in cries of fraud. He stuck to his original statement and did not return.
In short, the claim is wholly and provably incorrect.
BTW, if you haven't read Boys of Summer, do so. It should be available at the nearest library. -- Couillaud 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your note on final game. WWW.Baseball-Reference.com lists Robinson's final game as 30 Sept. 1956. That's what I'd go with, simply because the encyclopedias only consider regular season games; records of World Series (and aall other post-season) games are kept separately. While it is a fact that Robinson last played a major league level game on 10 Oct. of that year, it was still basically an exhibition game in its relation to the regular season. You can make the point that his true last game was actually in the World Series (he went 0 for 3 with a strikeout in his last AB, BTW), while noting that the accepted last regular season game was 30 September when he hit a homer in the Dodgers' pennant clincher. -- Couillaud 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha! Yes, maybe I did do that. I've recently joined the project's task force for standardization, and, having standardized most of the logos, am moving on to the leads. I was considering replacing the variable information with a few hyphens after this one, and now I'm definitely going to do it. Hehe.-- Silent Wind of Doom 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This image, which we fought for, and which we proved belonged, was quickly deleted under false premises by an deletionist ally of those who fought for deletion. I'm beginning discussion for action at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Uniform_Images. It would be appreciated if you would join the cause.-- Silent Wind of Doom 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
PS, nice job tricking me with that "no message" thing.
Oh, also, where is the Grand Riverside Cathedral of the Babe on your Church of baseball page? :)-- Silent Wind of Doom 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You should stop putting your paragraph about Wrigley Field being a hitter's ballpark back into the Chicago Cubs article. It's true that Wrigley is friendly to right handed hitters, but that helps the Cubs exactly as much as it hurts them, so it has no effect on how many wins they get. All it does is hurt the pitchers' stats, which is why Ferguson Jenkins hated it so much. You could put it somewhere else on the page, but the section it's in is supposed to be about why the Cubs have traditionally been a losing team. 136.152.181.234 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a comment to his talk page regarding the fact that The Sporting News referred to the six 1953 HoF figures (including Bill Klem) as having been elected. MisfitToys 23:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note-- I didn't know my contributions were that explosive! (But I did once provoke quite a response by an edit to Big Bang; see [13]) Maybe I'll go back to quieter subjects lest I get a reputation. Kablammo 00:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[14] — Wknight94 ( talk) 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
its a line from a song... dont take it too seriously. Connör ( talk) 13:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I received a RFC from User 64.131.205.111 (whose previous ID , YoSoyGuapo, was banned) about Josh Gibson's lifetime HR totals. You probably know my opinion, that the numbers need to reflect what is known from best and most recent research; he is of the opinion that the "nearly 800" that has been claimed from anecdotal evidence for 50 years is the most accurate. He's spent some time attacking me personally (suggesting that I have a deliberate agenda to "downplay" Negro League numbers (such as not giving Gibson "full" credit for games played against semi-pro competition), and I'm getting very tired of him.
Is there a procedure to follow here? And could you or a few other baseball editors step in and let him know that I'm not the only one who thinks he's wrong? I'd appreciate it.
-- Couillaud 18:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I took your advice and dropped him a line. And while it probably won't matter to our hostile editor, thanks for letting him know that he's a minority in his battle to maintain ignorance. -- Couillaud 23:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
They aren't "original research." I've got the tapes. They were aired on KPRC 950AM in Houston. How do I prove that to you? Those were big games. Please don't delete things on a whim without consulting people. Youngberry 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I know Silent Gust o' Doom told you that he'd taken the Orioles uniform image deletion to review, but I don't believe he provided you a link. Here it is: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_6#Image:ALE-Uniform-BAL.PNG. Your participation at this juncture might actually be crucial. I don't know your broader ideas about image policy, but here are two reviews--one initiated by SWOD, one by me--that address closely related violations of deletion policy: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_6#Image:Carellcolbert_ds.jpg and Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:KinseyTIME.jpg. Participation in these specific reviews might have a beneficial effect generally. Best, Dan— DCGeist 07:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Bugs! I didn't put the umpire's box in the article. The article states that there is sometimes an umpire's box drawn, and while I can't say I've seen such a thing, I didn't feel the need to remove the statement. Please do so yourself if you're convinced the article is better without it.
Thanks for your comments and your appreciation!
Tlaresch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlaresch ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think he was laying low whilst the debate on the community ban was going on. Now that it looks to not be in his favor, he's starting up again. Some are requests by the sockpuppets to be reinstated (see this one and this one). Plus this new ID, that I tagged, and this IP, which is up to the usual tricks. Oh joy... - Ebyabe 00:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I your answered on my own talk page. I removed a previous edit from Caribbean H.Q.in the process, and you will want to read it as well. I just didn't want the argument about trolling suddenly fill my page with a dozen edits from 5-6 people. I did, however, leave a message for Caribbean H.Q. on his own talk page.
Our troll is complaining about my having reverted his edits on Talk:King's Daughters. He wrote to Wknight94 and asked him to "speak to me" before he leaves a "commentary on the Administrator Noticeboard". -- Couillaud 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I know we all haven't gotten along for one reason or another, but I have made a notice on the Admin Noticeboard that we are at a statemate. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=159022978 . I have also attempted to make an infobox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Baseball_Career I am going to at this point agree to disagree and move on. We have all been rather harsh to each other and in that manner haven't made wikipedia a better place for knowledge. I honestly thought things were done since no one was replying on the talk page but it seems to have gotten heated up once again and that is counter productive. Lets work together somehow, ok? YoSoyGuapo 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
BB, why did you put these two lines in:
"In that same interview he voiced his contempt for the Native Americans."
&
"*] http://rio-bravo.vip-blog.com]"
And put "Spam." in the edit summary? To many carrots? WikiDon 03:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of these ideas are stated more clearly in the book than the film.
Now some of this is just my interpretation and you or other viewers or readers might feel differently but that is where it gets a bit fancrufty and becomes the problem with the edit. It would be perfectly acceptable to question this in a blog or a chat site but it isn't an encyclopedic edit. My apologies if this seems rude but these are just my thoughts on this. Of course, the simplest answer to your question is the one that applys to virtually anything that happens in a film that doesn't make sense and that is "Because the director says that is the way that things are going to happen!" Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for finding a source for that. And so fast, too ! -- No Guru 01:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey there! I don't mean to give you a hard time or bite your head off but I'm not sure your addition to The Cask of Amontillado article works. Unless you have a reference that clearly shows that the story was being referenced or used as an influence, it shouldn't be added. See WP:RS or WP:V. If you're just observing a similar scene of someone getting bricked up behind a wall, well, that's a recurring motif in all kinds of media - that doesn't necessarily mean it's Poe-related. If you're just making a guess, that's original research. I'm going to revert it until you find a source. Make sense? (By the way, you should make sure to include edit summaries!) -- Midnightdreary 04:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
RE: "He belts him"
For those of us who have not seen the movie (one of my mom's favorites), please put this in better context. He belts WHO? WikiDon 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not re-upload the image Image:Wrigley1945composite.JPG. It is a copyright violation.
Also, your patterns of editing and insistence on re-uploading this specific image make me think that you are the same individual as indef blocked user Wahkeenah... but perhaps thats just a coincidence. Nevermind, I just saw the above. In any event, stop violating our image use policies or you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. --
Jeffrey O. Gustafson -
Shazaam! -
<*>
04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if you interpreted my comments as rude. WP:AN/I is not the right place to discuss specific deletion disputes (although you are welcome to raise other concerns there). Please take the issue over the image deletion to Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You know? If the 1903 World Series image is on Commons, why isn't the image I uploaded not there? I mean, I could upload it there (I have a Commons account, but rarely use it), but I disagree with Betacommand's "invalid fair use" argument. Soxrock Talk/ Edits 12:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT) 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, since it looks like you know some about this, I'd like to know your take on this. You can get back to me on either my talk page, or here. Ksy92003 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
About something I wanted discuss off-Wiki, but you ain't got none. Not terribly important. But if you want to e-mail me, I can respond that way. Or not, no big. :) -- Ebyabe 23:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for clarifying. I thought it was perhaps a typo, but I'm ok with it now. Soxrock Talk/ Edits 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay. :) Have you heard about the recent incident with that song between Paich and Steve Lukather? -- Bloodzombie 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... TMI is usually used when people discover "gross" details. Anyway, how would Matsui's alias be "insignificant" ? Since he did use this alias when checking into a hotel (even though Matsui is not a criminal), I say that it should be mentioned in the article. WhisperToMe 22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Baseball Bugs/Archive003, you have been listed as a party in an arbitration request. Please click here for the request. Regards, nat t a n g 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs: Wikipedia:BLP does not allow "non-verifiable" information AND does not allow some info about private individuals. Matsui is a celebrity, and the said alias info is verifiable.
If you wish to debate this further, please use the talk page. I still insist on putting the alias in the page. If there is a consensus to not place the alias, then I won't do it. Besides, I don't think the publication of this alias will hurt Matsui, because he knows about the article and probably made a new alias. The reason why Matsui used the alias was perfectly reasonable, and it is likely that Matsui has at least three other aliases, if not more. Because of the reasonable use of the alias, we are not doing any harm to Matsui. WhisperToMe 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The information was not originally from The Smoking Gun. The Village Voice posted this article [15] stating: "If you want a sense of the zeal with which Yankees front-office employees were shoveling as many receipts at taxpayers as possible in 2005 (as reported in this week's Voice), look no further than this: Accidentally included in a stack of paperwork from a road trip the Yanks took to Seattle the last week of August 2005 was a crib sheet explaining which player and coach names went with which hotel-room pseudonyms, presumably so that bookkeeping could know who was running up the room service bills." WhisperToMe 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So this is the point you are trying to make, right?
"News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[4] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews."
So, the "Village Voice News" doesn't seem to be a "tabloid" in the sense of a gossip magazine (the magazine mostly focuses on art and culture), and the paper is owned by New Times Media (which also publishes works like Houston Press) - So it appears to be a reliable source.
Matsui is an encyclopedic person, one.
Two, Wikipedia's definition of gossip is "Gossip consists of casual or idle talk between friends. While ostensibly value neutral, the term often specifically refers to talk of scandal, slander, or schadenfreude relating to known associates of the participants, and discussed in an underhand or clandestine manner. Compare backbiting." - Even though the headline states that the aliases are "Super Secret" as if it is the most forbidden thing in the world, the act of using an alias to avoid fan attention is perfectly reasonable, and I do not see how this information is scandalous or slanderous. The main point is that Matsui has used aliases while traveling in order to avoid unwanted fan attention, and his action of doing so is reasonable.
The part about "why" the names were chosen IS speculation, so that is omitted. WhisperToMe 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:Wrigley1950composite.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you a question by email. Mine is enabled--and, by the way, there is no privacy risk in enabling your own. You can always use a special account to keep it separate. 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about the logo. I forgot to put something about fair use. Do you think it's better now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymfan9 ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the National Association Championship that the Cubs won as the White Stockings citing "false information." This team did win the title in that league in 1870, as a professional team. Please see the book "The National Association of Base Ball Players, 1857-1870" by Marshall D Wright. Let me know what you think about putting that fact back up in the infobox, or why you believe that it doesn't belong. Huphelmeyer 22:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ouch. Not a big Rivera fan, eh? — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Man, you fast. I was still touching up my entry when you checked in. Thanks for the support. Jim Stinson 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
you and the other poster Monkeyzpop have an obvious problem with the term "soul searching". The response and editing seem to come from a religious stance on the term on your parts. I was not referring to anything religious. The use of "soul searching" here is as a matter-of-fact to Barrymore's trip to India. The other poster Monkeyzpop didn't even believe he made the trip to India which shows he has not researched the information he promptly deleted. Nobody can prove if somebody soul searches or not. A person can soul search every day of their lives and nobody can know about it. I referenced this because it is 'implied' in "Damned in Paradise" c.1977 by John Kobler. This is a biography of John Barrymore and I agree with Kobler's implication. For anybody who knows Barrymore history, he and his brother & sister had been told about India as a child by their father Maurice who had been born and bred there(ref: "Great Times Good Times: The Odyssey of Maurice Barrymore" by J. Kotsilibas-Davis c.1977). Furthermore Barrymore himself referenced the adventures told to him, Lionel & Ethel by their dad Maurice. Thank you for helping to build the John Barrymore page by keeping the trip to India text intact. Please Talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 ( talk) 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
why are you being elusive. Why can't you talk right here. This is what it's for. I don't want to follow all over Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 ( talk) 13:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
the article page is locked for now. I never accused you or Monkey of religious fanaticism. I said... if you had a problem with religion or religious stance. Two different things. And Im not Liebman or whoever the hell you were referring to. If you're having a dispute/disagreement with somebody else do not confuse him/her with me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 ( talk) 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I saw this comment and decided to check into it. I made a graphical representation of both user's edit times and overlaid them. I quickly becomes clear they are not the same person. One of the users edits mostly in later part of the 24 hours day, while the other edits mostly in the earlier part of the 24 hour day. Everyone has to sleep.
Also evident are the overlapping edits that can be expected when comparing two different people. Not evident was the tell-tale back and forth motion that sockpuppets demonstrate between their account. I did not see any correlation between the edit times of the users. I don't think these two users are sockpuppets. 1 != 2 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You can find a list of the latest here. And the rest can be found thru my WikiCommons page. :) - Ebyabe 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Recently, you reverted my revision to the "World Series" article, referring to my revision as an "attempt to belittle MLB":
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=World_Series&diff=165826567&oldid=165801116
Please try to assume that others' edits are made in good faith. I have no agenda and was not trying to belittle anything. Rather, I had noticed that some similar articles had provided geographical specificity in their introductory paragraphs and was attempting to do the same for the World Series article. For example, Superbowl discusses that it is an event in the U.S., AFL Grand Final mentions that it is an Australian league with the final always being held in Melbourne, and FIFA World Cup mentions that the event is an international one.
Given that the second paragraph makes reference to U.S. and Canadian cities, I do not think it is worth reverting back to having the geographical specification mentioned in the first paragraph, so am simply leaving it as-is. However, I was disappointed by your unwarranted personal attack. -- DavidGC 02:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Bugs. I don't know a thing about removing picture files from this "commons" place (I've had very little practice with Wiki editing), but you could either tell me how, or remove it or label it yourself, if either of those is alright. User talk:Brady_Kj
Please do not revert edits requesting further sources. Chief Wahoo is a highly controversial subject and virtually every sentence in that article needs a citation so that neither side can claim the other is engaging in speculation. Some of the previous revisions had added a great deal of unciteable conjecture, which I have removed, all other requests for citation should remain or be replaced with inline citations. Cumulus Clouds 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would have concerns about using that book as a citation since I can't independently verify that the material is contained within it. Since it is a print citation, it is very difficult to confirm such information and makes a somewhat poor reference in this context. Further, since you simply copy and pasted that link into the space where the fact tags had been, I have concerns about whether you can verify that information independently, either. If you can find a better source online (and cite it correctly) that would be preferable over a print source. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Print sources are a valid source, my only concern was that since that reference was listed under "references" without a citation, that it would be difficult to ascertain which part of the article the original editor wanted to use that reference for. Therefore, it would be difficult for us to presume that the material you want to reference it with is actually contained in the book. If you have a copy and can confirm this is the case, I would have no problem replacing that reference. Cumulus Clouds 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on this article. I look forward to working with you on expanding it. Cumulus Clouds 04:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you make an interesting point, and when I have time in the next few days I'll try to find some sources from Native American leaders with their opinions on the issue. Also, I never suspected you had a bias, it became clear to me later that you were mainly concerned about the state of that article, and that's something I respect. For what it's worth, I do agree with many of your points about using Native American imagery and I have some reservations about the Indians' continued usuage of Chief Wahoo on their jerseys. Anyway, I do appreciate your help on this. Cumulus Clouds 05:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So am I correct in guessing that you believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and that there should be a constitutional amendment outlawing astroturf and the designated hitter? Durova Charge! 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for cross-threading. What do you think of these?
I see 149.4.108.66 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 207.159.196.253 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) - usual Liebman IPs - mixed in with their edits. I was about to blast all three and soft-block the two IPs but wanted a second pair of eyes. At the very least, they're socks of each other. — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I need help pricing a baseballcard. Can you help me? - Tobi4242 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just noticed you have a picture of bugs bunny on your user page. It's a fine picture, but it's certainly copyrighted and as such seems to violate WP:NFCC#8, which restricts non-free images to the main space. Definitely not user space. Sorry to bring this up but you're party to an arbcom case where people are muckraking, mudslinging, and bringing up things to use against people - you don't want anyone to accuse you of violating image policy. Maybe a nice free image of a rabbit? Wikidemo 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What's up, Baseball Bugs!! You might not remember me, but at the beginning of the year I took part in a short-lived yet relevatory discussion with you, User:Brian, and User:WAVY 10, over Daffy Duck; that discussion, still available on that article's talk page, involved his voice origins and his recent resurgence. Towards the end of that discussion Brian advised that I sign up for an actual account, and I promised both of you that, if it ever came to be, I would let you know about it. Well---that day finally came. You can now refer to me officially as, not JS, but as User:Cinemaniac. --- Cinemaniac 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
My beliefs on the matter are irrelevant. The content you keep putting into the article on Tom Lehrer are not relevant to the article and adds nothing, which is why I keep undoing your edits. TechBear 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add Saint to the beggining to some of the names on your Church of Baseball section.-- Tascha96 09:25 (UTC), 29 October 2007
Apologies in advance, but I just don't have the stomach to waste my time with YoSoyGuapo on this particular topic, as it's just not worth the time. I filed a complaint against him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and you can add a comment if you'd like. If it turns out that Wikipedia doesn't have the cojones to deal forcefully with this kind of trolling, I don't think I'll stick around.
I've been adding statistical lines to Negro Leaguers on Baseball Reference Bullpen ({ http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Dobie_Moore } for example), using the template that BRMo originally provided for Josh Gibson, and will eventually put in all the current Hall of Famers (based on Hogan's book) and the nominees (from SABR's and the Hall's information provided to the press during the voting). I've put in Gibson, Moore, Newt Allen, Cristobal Torriente, and Buck O'Neil so far. You might want to take a look. The best thing is that YoSoyGuapo can't mess with that, as his efforts at editing Gibson (same time of the edit war here) on that site was not well-received, and he's viewed there as less than one step up from Liebman.
-- Couillaud 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd be more familiar with these than I... are any of the edits by 70.113.73.42 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) factual? My gut says no... — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no source that really accounts for Gibson's non-league record. James Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues is a source for many of the numbers that one sees, but he doesn't tell us where he obtained his numbers. And there is no source that provides data for non-league games in any systematic manner. BRMo 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. The song was written by Lieber and Stoller in 1959, well before Peanuts reached its zenith of popularity and cultural spread. As you say, the characters don't really match up. "Charley Brown" in the song is an urban high-school cut-up, more in the tradition of "Yakkity-Yak". The connection to the comic strip is probably entirely coincidental, unless L&S lifted the name from there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The above arbitration case has closed. "For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions", Alkivar is desysopped. He may apply to the committee to have his adminship reinstated, but may not apply at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Burntsauce is banned as a meat-puppet of banned user JB196. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Throught all of Wikipedia, just about any and every article that has a trivia section has a tag that says trivia is discouraged ( WP:TRIV explains about Trivia). I mentioned to the user that took off a tag that had been placed since June that I didnt want to see him take off tags that are supposed to be there, for fear if the user is caught by someone with a little power, he could get in more trouble. Whammies Were Here 12:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Did not know how to do that. Whammies Were Here 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you can answer my question on Talk:Pledge of Allegiance, since I see you have been active on the national anthem page. — Scouter Sig 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the quote box on your userpage and one of my favorite Groucho quotes sprung to mind: "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."-- Father Goose ( talk) 07:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong about the interviews we do over at Wikinews, and if you look around on a multitude of pages you will see that our interviews are, indeed, cited. Sorry that the people have never heard that story about the student union, and that it's not true. But the interview will be up on Wikinews tomorrow. It's with the same folks whose photos you see I took on The Onion page: The President and the Editorial Manager. --David Shankbone 05:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting theory, but not pertinent to the page since we go by
WP:V:
--David Shankbone 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know why you keep deleting my edits to Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny. While they may be cartoon animals, they are NOT within the scope of Wikiproject Furry, which is why their template does not belong on the talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.109.237.60 ( talk) 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The photo was taken on October 29. I walk by the window just about every day on my way to the Red Line. I think the field is done, as of Monday. Today I walked by and they even had the bases installed. I'll take another pic on a sunny day when I get a chance. There's not much room on the article page to post one though, and I don't know how strictly encyclopedic one would be. Next season I'll take a pic of a game in progress and that should be a heck of a lot better. RMelon ( talk) 21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Popeye and Betty.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 17:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, your fair use on that article is not valid. Please read the fair use tag the image has on it...
"for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents
There is no critical commentary on the film and its contents, nor should there be, since the article is not about the film. It isn't fair of us to use some company's intellectual property to illustrate a human body part that they so happened to have in a cartoon. -- Deskana (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, rash words aren't helping anyone. You and Dmc seem to have a misunderstanding, that's all. It's not that your pictures aren't nice, or that they look bad in the articles, or that people don't like your articles or that people don't like you. It's just that the legal status of the images makes them potentially unsuitable for use in Wikipedia, and it's a rather important thing for the project.
"Fair use" is a complex subject on Wikipedia, and it doesn't mean the same thing as in the "real world". The ideal of the project is to have no non-free images at all (like the German and many other Wikipedias), but it has been decided years ago that there are circumstances in which "fair use" of non-free images is acceptable. The goal is to have a freely distributable encyclopedia, so that you or me can print out and distribute the articles or sell the CDs without having to worry about companies suing us for copyright infraction.
So, while we allow some non-free pictures, we're still trying to limit them only to those that are strictly necessary, and to provide lawyer-proof justification for each use of such images. That's mostly described in those policies, and it's a good idea to read them thoroughly before uploading multiple pictures.
I would respectfully ask you to take a deep breath and count to ten. Read the policy pages again, especially the part where it says that it's not enough for a non-free picture to illustrate the article or a part of the article, but rather that it needs to be actually discussed in the article. That's needed for the lawyer-proof part. I appreciate that you're trying to help, and please continue to do so, but bear in mind that pictures are only helpful if they're inline with the rules and the goals of the project.
Regards, Zocky | picture popups 10:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you again. That picture sure looks like it's from 1885, and I think the PD tag is appropriate. It would be very helpful though if you could find the name of the book so that the picture can be accurately attributed to the author/publisher. A somewhat larger version of the picture would also be nice, to make the text readable. Thanks. Zocky | picture popups 11:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, sorry to see your image troubles lately. If it helps at all, one of your great personal baseball pictures was re-added to the Nolan Ryan article! Do you have any more of those you can add? That one is fantastic! — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
The Star-Spangled Banner, did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- - (
User) WolfKeeper (
Talk)
19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)