User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive003

MAY 2007 - NOV 2007

Carnation Building

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!

Are you Wakeenah?

Welcome back to Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Frankyboy5 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

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)[reply]

Let's avoid a revert war. If you would like to discuss the merits of a topic (in this case the curse), then do so on the relevant article's talk page (here: Talk:Black Sox Scandal). Doing so on an individual user page makes it difficult for people to see. The curse does not belong in the article about the world series or the scandal. If you want it in there, create the topic and provide enough verifiable information. Otherwise, this information does not belong. While I appreciate your opinion regarding the "effect" of the scandal on the white sox fanchise, the scandal impacted the immediate future of the team. Not their 2005 world series...etc..etc.. I will copy this to the relevant talk page in case you want to discuss there. Please do not revert my edits again unless you provide a solid foundation for your edits. Take care // Tecmobowl 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's you that seems to have an issue with this, as you seem to be the only one that is unaware of this so-called "curse", and that's why I posted it on your page. You've also won the 3-revert rule for the day, so that's that for now. In effect, you want me to go back to the DVD and look for specific quotes about it. Fine. I'll do that when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are not reading my posts. I'm not affirming or denying the existence of the curse. I am saying that it a) does not belong on said page and b) has not been presented in a manner that satisfies wiki standards. I will be happy to point you to some of the supporting articles if you would like. In the meantime, I have copied your comments on my talk page here as it is an issue you have raised. I am watching this page, so if you feel the need to discuss, you can do so here. Please do not use my talk page. The article has a talk page and i will be glad to engage you in a conversation there.//Tecmobowl 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you to please read the comments and not attach yourself to the issue at hand. This is about the content of the articles, nothing more and nothing less. I do not appreciate your spamming of my talk page when I have mentioned full and well that I will discuss these matters on the appropriate talk pages. You have some issue with the stats listed on Ty Cobb's page. If there is something in there that needs to be corrected, then do it by addressing the issue. Do not do it by reverting and entire edit that may contain a single error. As for external links and such, here are some pages for you to review: WP:LINKS (where you will see that a non-commercial fan site with a unique perspective - ie...one that focuses on historical cards of a person) is more than acceptable. WP:NPOV for issues of neutrality and WP:REF for issues on citations and footnotes. // Tecmobowl 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: McDonald's

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)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Protection policy: Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts fewer than four days old. Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Copyright

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)[reply]

Well, the old cartoon serials, from Fleischer, have apparently fallen into public domain (there are a bunch of free images on Wiki Commons). The problem is that those images of Superman are really poor quality, and you can barely make them out in the banner. File:Fleishersuperman.jpg this is how it would appear on the banner. What do you think? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the Fliescher image would be better? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll through the "S" in WikiCommons, since I know that is public domain, and put the Fleischer image in the banner. LOL, Yoda...yeah, well I'm just copying the other banners. If I said "will" then if it doesn't happen someone will be like "you should change that to try, because no all articles will". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used your suggestion. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I removed the redundancy. Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Yankees

I'm glad you agreed with me on the section about the stadium! Andy4226uk 06:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ron liebman

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)[reply]

Actually, that will just slow him down. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Of course I want to slow him down; I'd rather stop him entirely. I'm just pointing out that there's no magic bullet; a determined troll/vandal is hard to stop because of the site's openness. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman revert

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)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Good luck and happy hunting. :-) Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Cap_Anson_WSP_19080422.JPG

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)[reply]

Cap Anson

I thought a 1908 photograph was assumed to be in the public domain. Baseball Bugs 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was published before 1923, it surely is public domain. Make sure to add verifiable source information so that we know it was published before 1923, like mentioning a pre-1292 edition of some book containing this image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-1292"??? Well, the uncropped photo itself has a border that states it was from opening day 1908, and it's obviously taken at West Side Park, which was demolished in 1920. Baseball Bugs 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The demolishing is a clue, but not an evidence of the PD status, because what really matters is when the image was firstly published, and not when it was taken. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this link work for you? That is, does it take you to the picture in question? [1] Baseball Bugs 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links works perfectly, and contains enough source information to backup the PD claim. Good work! --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bugs bunny

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)[reply]

Image:Ponce de Leon Park.JPG

Hi. Do you have any information on this picture's author and/or copyright holder? --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

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)[reply]

You are not alone. I've now run into similar problems with this editor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball--Epeefleche 15:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Tecmobowl appears to be an unemployed obsessive compulsive. They need to ban the guy for Wikistalking.

Reply to your message

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)[reply]

Chalmer's Award Controversy

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)[reply]

McDonald's talk

Well. Since you brought it up, I checked the guidelines here.

Things you can change on talk pages:

With the permission of who wrote it
Prohibited material(personal attacks, etc)
Personal attacks and incivility
Unsigned comments
Interruptions(splitting up another user's long message to insert your reply)
When a long comment has formatting errors
On your own user talk page

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)[reply]

Saddam Hussein is a heated political issue. The banner is not for "keeping things on topic", but for reminding people that Wikipedia is not a place for political debate and heated arguments over politics, as such pages tend to do. A secondary effect of this happens to keep it on topic. This is a thing where such authority needs to be enforced, and was most likely added there by a Wikipedia admin. When personal opinions and such are saturating a talk page, so you can't even make out what's relevant and what isn't, which would probably happen on Saddam Hussein, the rules will get bent a little bit. Someone bellyaching about their ketchup burger not being right, big deal, just ask them to stop and see where it goes from there. I highly doubt it's going to throw off people who come to the talk page ;) Cheers Wikidan829 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just added a comment to the talk page reminding them. Wikidan829 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I hope my talk page isn't a disputed topic!! :)

No, if you give them a polite warning and they insist on keeping it up, then at that point it will be considered vandalism on their part, and can be deleted. The real issue, I think, is that by just deleting their messages, it doesn't let them know that they did something frowned upon. It's not bad enough to issue them a vandalism warning, you know? It's like if you have a kid who, every morning, knocks over one of your garden gnomes. Every day you just pick it back up, but never say anything to the kid, the kid will probably not stop doing it. If you acknowledge it, however, two things can happen: a) they will stop and carry the advice throughout the rest of Wikipedia, not just on this talk page, and b) they will become increasingly disruptive, and we don't really want them here anyway. The choice is their's.

Plus not deleting talk of other people will keep us out of trouble for now :) Cheers Wikidan829 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me an example? Wikidan829 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically, it's on his user talk page, and from the guidelines I've pasted above, that's acceptable. It's still in his history though. Wikidan829 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morikami Park

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)[reply]

Baseball project page

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)[reply]

Agreed. There's no effort on his part to try to reach a consensus on any issue. Alansohn 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And thanks for your answer. I think a case is building against him, slowly. The sad part is that I think he has something to contribute. Ironically, he posted a "wikiquette" complaint against me, while refusing to observe any "wikiquette" himself. Baseball Bugs 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I took a look at the Talk:Jim Morrison, which had come up on his talk page, and the same pattern is happening there. Alansohn 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler (media)

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)[reply]

About Victor Pellot

Hi B.B. In response to your comment...I looked back in the history and the article has sort of always looked like that. Marine 69-71 certainly knows about his Puerto Ricans...but the prose needs copyediting and citing. I've given pause to deleting the quotes in the article as well...but I don't feel evil like that yet. As well, a lot of the article contains data plagiarised from an article on the Baseball Hall of Fame site that was added by an anonymous user.

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)[reply]

Ty Cobb

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)[reply]

Totally misread what you said; my bad :) Sr 13 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay or Nay

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)[reply]

Stop picking fights

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)[reply]

The way I see it...

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)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't want to state that other reason because I haven't looked anywhere for it. But since, I have searched and haven't seen it anywhere. It therefore wouldn't violate WP:CBALL, but it does violate WP:VERIFY; the date hasn't been verified. --Ksy92003 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, do you by any chance know who the user was who first posted that? --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

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)[reply]

Excellent. This ongoing problem needs administrator eyes to review it. Baseball Bugs 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

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)[reply]

A redactor is not quite a "remover", it's a "censor". [2] Baseball Bugs 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both Blacksoxfan and Tecmobowl (back when he was Wolverinegod) continually added the same link spam (cardpricer.com) to articles. Odd coincidence, no? IrishGuy ^talk 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmobowl even went so far as to remove references to Blacksoxfan spamming. Hmmm... IrishGuy ^talk 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do you have your email turned on? Drop me a line. IrishGuy ^talk 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You simply go into your preferences and add your email address. Then you can use the "E-mail this user" option on the toolbox to the left. IrishGuy ^talk 23:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you check that box and then fill in an email address. IrishGuy ^talk 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test sent. IrishGuy ^talk 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped you an email. IrishGuy ^talk 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following me?

Is there some reason why you followed each of my edits? El redactor

Age?

Yo tengo solamente tres y medio años. 0:) Baseball Bugs 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ferrell

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)[reply]

No problem, I was just kidding. Cheers! --Tom 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate matters, an IP address immediately starting blanking the page. I think he's been blocked by now. Meanwhile, the user trying to repair it missed part of the article, so I went back to your version. I hope I done good. :) Baseball Bugs 20:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure its fine. Its almost impossible to break things around here :) Cheers! --Tom 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of city nicknames in the United States

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)[reply]

When you say the "The city that never sweeps", is that an unkempt city, or one with both insomnia and a lisp? Alansohn 03:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Series Pages

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)

User:Tecmobowl

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)[reply]

BTW, while I finally voted on the straw poll at

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)[reply]

I am not sure

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)[reply]

Best baseball teams of all time?

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)[reply]

Drop the % to .667, and the list balloons to 40 teams. .700 it is. Vidor 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there it is. Tomorrow I'll recheck it for completeness and see if I can think of anything to say about these teams other than their records. Also maybe look and see if there's any Internet or print source out there. Vidor 07:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satchel Paige

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)[reply]

The SABR conference had Paige as its central theme; most presentations were about him. The presentation I did was the debunking of the "deliberately walking the bases loaded to fan Gibson" myth, from the 1942 Colored World Series.

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)[reply]

Paige v. Gibson

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)[reply]

Obscure records

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)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Pedro and Aconcagua.JPG

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)

Rob Liebman sockpuppet back again

He's back again as User:Sportsdude1955. He never gives up doesn't he? hehe Momusufan 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been doing this since, what, late April? So the answer is, sadly, no. :( -Ebyabe 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original user ID goes back to late January. Baseball Bugs 19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I heard back from him. He was the original user, and since then there have been some copycat vandals. At an admin's recommendation, I advised him to consult WP:RS (reliable sources) and WP:OR (no original research) before applying for reinstatement. Baseball Bugs 01:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab Case

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)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Again, I hope I will be able to help get this over with. Peace:)--†Sir James Paul† 09:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments could be taken as being rude. It is not a good thing to say anything that could be taken as rude in a dispute. If Tecmobowl's comments bother you, just ignore them. Thanks for your time.--†Sir James Paul† 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its your talk page and you can do whatever you want. Peace.--†Sir James Paul† 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no problem if you do that.--†Sir James Paul† 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame template

I'm going to start putting it back in articles. Some people are idiots. Vidor 06:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced 'em again. All of those people leading that deletion debate are mouthbreathing morons. Vidor 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal House

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability are the standards for what is a good citation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked you. The fact that you asked for a source indicates that you don't believe it's true. So, what would convince you that it is true? Baseball Bugs 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Truth and verifiability are two different things. The standard is not whether it is true or not. The standard is whether or not it is verifiable. It is true that I am presently wearing blue jeans, a green shirt, and black flip-flops. However, it is not verifiable by reliable sources. You will find no reliable sources verifying that information, and therefore it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Same goes here. While it may be true (I don't know), it presently needs verification by a third-party source. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're not. The word "verify" means "to make true". Baseball Bugs 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP FOLLOWING ME

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)[reply]

Please leave User:Tecmobowl alone

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)[reply]

I'm not quite ready to do a more thorough review; as I said above, I only noted when the edit was made, not what the edit was about. I think the next step for you and Tecmobowl is a few days of discussion at the Mediation Cabal. If you two can agree to try mediation, I will volunteer to act as the mediator. I'll leave a message to Tecmobowl offering mediation. Shalom ^Hello 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casey at the Bat

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)[reply]

That seems a little weasely as well as a little off. But you are correct - they need to provide a reliable source for that claim. If not, slap it with a {{fact}} tag and make sure it stays there until it is cited, or the passage is removed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted comments

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)[reply]

Don't push it, son. Tecmo has been a jerk towards me, more times than I can count, and no apologies have come from him. So the one is all he gets. Baseball Bugs 12:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I merely suggested that 'applying polly loggies' may seem less than sincere to some. As for 'son', it's more likely you have the ages reversed in that statement, but I'll let it slide. Lets go get this resolved, shall we? Peace in God. Lsi john 12:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was "appy polly loggies", not "applying polly loggies", an obscure reference I'm sure. And lose the hypocritical "peace in god" stuff. You stirred this up by putting back my comments. Baseball Bugs 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing hypocritical about it. And you stirred it up by posting the comments in the first place. Take responsibility for your choices. Peace.Lsi john 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose to post the comments, I chose to delete them, and you chose to repost them and throw more gasoline on the fire. Be advised that your pal Tecmobowl is about to start an RFC against the admin Irishguy, as a revenge move for having shown him to be a sockpuppet. That could well see the tables being turned on Mr. Tecmo, as he has made a lot of enemies himself here, beyond those he specifically lists on his page User:Tecmobowl/links#users harassing me. Thank you for your contributions to that effort. Baseball Bugs 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Temcobowl. (And don't really care to). And you're correct, an RfC could easily backfire. Peace.Lsi john 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I really am sorry you feel it was for gasoline. It's been obvious to me for a while now that this is a very personal issue for you, and you have strong feelings about it. And you may very well be right in your conclusions about his motives. But your attitude and disposition are not helping your cause.

I, too, am involved in a situation where I believe someone is behaving very inappropriately, and it has led me to take a wiki break. I'm not currently editing articles, and I'm trying to have minimal wiki-presense. But I'm also trying not to neglect on-going mediations in which I have been involved. I'm finding myself typing posts that are unproductive in the more personal discussions and I need to take some time away in order to regather myself.

I'll leave you with that thought. Again, I regret that you see me as an adversary in this, simply because I support the material that is contained in the EL. Peace.Lsi john 13:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tecmobowl

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)[reply]

He had a leg to stand on before we discussed the link issue. But given the overwhelming consensus in favor of including all of these links, it would seem completely unjustified. Alansohn 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And when I say that I sympathize.. I mean it. Peace.Lsi john 01:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop poking him. :( I know you don't want him back, and it seems obvious (to me) that you are trying to provoke a negative response. If that is not your intention, then please stop poking at him. You know it won't be well received. Peace.Lsi john 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pfhthththt. Hopefully you had a happy 4th. Cheers. Peace.Lsi john 21:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect games

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)[reply]

Wrigley storm

Ah, good eye! I'll remove the date taken information. Thanks --►ShadowJester07 02:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image

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)[reply]

Thanks for your note. That tells me more about what to do in the future. The main justifications of fair use seem to be (1) no free alternative easily available (i.e. when the subject of the photo no longer exists); and (2) that it is being used as a visual reference in the article, not just a "decoration". Baseball Bugs 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, precisely, I guess that's a good rule of thumb, especially the second part (which often gets forgotten). The full set of rules is of course at WP:FAIR; I think what you say about "visual reference" is essentially what's meant in point 8 there ("contributes significantly to the article"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Cyclopedia

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)[reply]

I didn't intend to imply that you had entered the verbatim text. I'm relatively new to WP. Are we supposed to tag the article or something? I don't really have enough interest in him to fix it. --Sanfranman59 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! The only suggestion I have is to more closely follow WP:CITE and use {{cite book}} to format the reference. Is Baseball Cyclopedia the only source for the info in the article? --Sanfranman59 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're able to put together a syntactically and grammatically correct sentence already puts you light-years ahead of a lot of the editors out here. Keep up the good work! --Sanfranman59 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, he's done it again

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)[reply]

"Some" critics?

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)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your last edit. That's better, thanks. Cheers. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you coming to me?

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)[reply]

Again, I'm not really the right person to discuss this with. My main concern is changing the Angels' colors to reflect the colors they wore when they were with the team. That's all. I'm not concerning myself with any other team's player's infoboxes. ––Ksy92003(talk) 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... I've said this on several talk pages, but all retired players shouldn't have infobox colors at all... If a player retires, then he doesn't have any affiliation with any team, correct? What about the players who retire, but aren't in the HoF? You can't use the colors for whichever team is on the plaque because some aren't in the HoF. Just scrap the infobox colors altogether. ––Ksy92003(talk) 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full agreement with that at this point. So, we could either wait for someone to decide, on the project page (where it seems to have drawn very little interest), or someone could just take it away from the retiree page and see who complains. What do you think? Baseball Bugs 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, since there are a lot of retired baseball players out there, that's a lot of infoboxes we'd have to change. It's not a job that just a couple of people can do without objections. People who notice the removal of colors might assume that edit to be vandalism. I don't think we should remove the colors from all of them, or even a large amount of them. But what I think we can do is take about 5-15 players and remove the color from their infoboxes. If any of them are reverted, which most likely they will be, then we can create a discussion at the players task force project page about if we should scrap the colors altogether. A discussion about this, I feel, is imminent because it's far too large an issue for just a couple people to do without any discussion. ––Ksy92003(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...

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)[reply]

~~By the way, here is a link to all those contributions I've made during that timespan: [4]. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yeah, I reported him/her to WP:ANI. It was weird, because it was past 2:00 AM, and I spent a lot of time earlier working on all those edits, and the reaction I got was inappropriate, nonetheless, but completely unexpected. But because of that comment, it makes me think of who that person really was and why they were paying attention to my edits. This makes me think that this user was a sockpuppet of somebody who I've been involved with a conflict before. But I don't have any way to back up that claim, but that was the suspicion that I had since s/he first left me that comment.

Anyway, I was able to finish all those re-directs; there are no more articles that link to Anaheim Angels. That means that in a combined total of about 4.5 hours (± 1 hour), I edited well over 400 links on ~360 articles that were linked to Anaheim Angels and linked it to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Here is the link to all my contributions in the time span from when I made my first re-direct fix to my last (excluding my recent one to Kenny Lofton): [5]. In case you are interested, later today, I will do the same thing with California Angels. ––Ksy92003(talk) 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's even more bizarre, as another user noticed, the user's name, Beneath the Bridge, suggests that the account was only created for trolling, anyway. Can't believe I didn't catch that first.

As far as the name change, the Yankees last changed their name from the Baltimore Orioles in the early-1900's, more than 100 years ago. Hopefully the Angels don't change their name within that time... after 100 years, if they change their name, I'll be in Heaven and it will be somebody else's problem. Not trying to sound selfish, but I don't want to do it again any time soon. But if they do, then hopefully it's a shorter name. I typed "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" every single time individually, by hand, with no Ctrl-V. I did use Ctrl-V for my edit summaries, but I had to do all those "Los Angeles..." by hand every single time. Hopefully, all that hard work stays for a long time... and I know Arte Moreno will be murdered if he changes the name again, believe me, Angels fans can be pretty harsh when it comes to things like that.

As I said, I'm gonna work on California Angels later tonight... but as for right now, I'm gonna take a break, play some video games, and get to it after America's Got Talent. ––Ksy92003(talk) 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re [6]

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)[reply]

Are you part of the Wikiproject Baseball?

Thought you might be interested Entirelybs 18:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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...

Do you approve-of or concur-with my suggestion to change the Boston Pilgrims to the Boston Americans (or something else) in both the body article and the page title... or do you recommend that I put it up for some discussion? If so, where? I see there are baseball talk pages, and found one on Unofficial Nicknames... but I could also simply add it to the discussion of the particular page in question (1903 Boston Pilgrims season". Thanks for your guidance. Entirelybs 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case

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)[reply]

Not just any admin can do this, they need checkuser privileges. Please see WP:CHECKUSER. Wikidan829 13:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're in communication with admins about this issue. Baseball Bugs 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Basar 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MisfittToys - a new Ron sock?

Speaking of which...

Edits are better at attempting sourcing, at least. The username fits the other Ron pattern of parodying other usernames, in this case User:MisfitToys.

Oh, he's just restored a Ron edit on Orlando Hernández; it's gotta be him. Look at his stuff and see if you think it's revert-worthy. I'll report him if you think apropos. :) -Ebyabe 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you got 'im. -Ebyabe 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Yankees GA/R

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)[reply]

User:Tecmobowl User:Long levi

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Projects, Photos, etc.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1993 were the Forbes Field wall and Honus Wagner statue outside of Three Rivers Stadium. Soxrock 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IT was presumably published in 2003 because it has history from 1901-2002 Soxrock 20:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey, I THINK I FOUND SOUTH END GROUNDS! FINALLY! THANK YOU! Soxrock 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, I definately see it now. Thank you for all your help on this. Soxrock 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh jeez, I'm busy I don't know at all Soxrock 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's displayed well on both of the ones I use. So I guess it is yours Soxrock 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual season articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"J.C."

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)[reply]

banned therefore irrelevant

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)

Actually, as a banned editor his opinions are irrelevant... it just opens a whole can of worms to go through and strike out a banned editors comments. By the way, if you suspect socks or block evasions by this banned editor (and I take it from your comments on the Shoeless Joe talkpage that he's still active here), let me know and I can investigate/deal with it. We don't need ban evaders mucking things up and making contentious issues moreso.--Isotope23 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just saw your note about from the 14th about the categories and answered it if you had not gotten an answer already. I must have lost that in the other comments I got over the weekend whilst I was off killing brain cells.--Isotope23 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Wrigley Field

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)[reply]

Henderson

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, very odd. I found that out only yesterday. Soxrock 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precaution

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)[reply]

Reply

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)[reply]

Yeah, any of his obvious unwashed socks can be reported for immediate blocking. If he continues to use a dynamic IP for socking, it might be a good idea to keep a list of the IPs on a usersubpage... Range blocking could be explored if he continues to sock.--Isotope23 14:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why a WP:DENY of his edits is warrented. Any VZ IP edits to the articles he's shown a past interest in or related to his baseball interests can be reverted with a clear comment that this is likely the work of a block evading sock of Tecmobowl, regardless of the merit of said edit. From the point of his block forward he isn't allowed to edit here and his edits to articles are subject to be boldly undone.--Isotope23 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Look familiar?

Special:Contributions/Ragefd look familiar? You've followed the drama more closely than I. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tecmo did claim to have collected baseball cards since he was five years old and therefore was an expert. IrishGuy ^talk 23:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and dispute

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)[reply]

REJOICE MY FRIEND

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yankee Doodle

Hi BB,

I added a parodic version of the Yankee Doodle song and you deleted it. I was wondering why. Thx, Weiande

Unsourced, uncited. Baseball Bugs 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Sorry, I removed the notice but will put back up if it is proven he is Tecmo. Soxrock 18:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Hernandez

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.

No colors on retired players. HoF - go by cap if anything. Baseball Bugs 19:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

Nice quote! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok. I did think they they were an improvement. That's why I ask. Soxrock 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who on third

just funnin'! LessHeard vanU 10:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. He's not chinless and spineless. The picture clearly shows he has a chin. Baseball Bugs 10:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP complaints

"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)[reply]

Seasonal articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hilltop Park

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)[reply]

There were two articles on July 1, 1908. The game summary and its headline say "Yankees" several times, with no other nickname used. Baseball Bugs 14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched and found the other article, which does seem to use "Yankees" and "Yanks" more generally. I did a search for June and July of 2008 and could find no reference to the use of "Highlanders" to refer to the team, and dozens of uses of "Yankees". I'd be curious to see a graph of uses of Yankees/Yanks vs. Highlanders over time, but I acknowledge that "Yankees" was prevalent at the time. Alansohn 14:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source I'm using requires a subscription through my library. I wish it was publicly available. Alansohn 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Half a barnstar is better than none. At this point, I'm half-overwhelmed. Baseball Bugs 14:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. Either way, it's not really a good one, I wouldn't accept it because Jaranda is just kissing up to someone who isn't afraid to say its copyvio. Either way, it's not copyvio at all and he needs to back off Soxrock 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should copy over the full ones I got on my former user page, both before and after it was permanently blocked. :) Baseball Bugs 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's not a bad idea. I like it. You've done great work here. I just wish my work (which isn't violating copyright) would be recognized in more than just 1 barnstar Soxrock 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is recognized. It seems all you've done wrong was spread yourself too thin. The ones that do have content have very good and well-written content. The ones that don't have content are the problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really into awards, although I did kind of like getting one posted on my old page some six weeks after it was blocked (at my own request, I should point out). Apparently I had been doing something right. :) Baseball Bugs 15:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is to be content. :) Baseball Bugs 15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. But remember, I will be building those articles. I just can't believe how this has blown up. Seriously, if you just work with me, we can get these up to great status. There is so much potential in those articles... I still just wish that I would be recognized barnstar-wise more than I am. I have worked so hard here since Mid-May (and I did edit before then, I've become more of a regular since February and have spent a lot of time here these past two months. Soxrock 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Wknight94 says, your work is good and is appreciated. Just do what I do, which is to write for myself and feel satisfaction when the article looks the way I want it to, while remaining open to improvements from others. Feeling good about an article is more rewarding than someone sticking a rusty-looking badge on your user page. :) Baseball Bugs 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, I want Jaranda Fired. He is going overboard now Soxrock 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's got at least 2 complaints on separate issues logged against him. Admins are not easily dismissed, though. They are given a fair amount of latitude in order to do their jobs. I recommend that you focus on the content (OMG, I'm channeling Tecmo/Levi!!!) and try to forget about the distractions. Baseball Bugs 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see. But it is still something I will heavily work on and don't want to have people making it harder. As for Tecmo, what's his newest alleged sock now? Soxrock 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Tecmo has been silent since his brief appearance as an IP address sometime last week. Baseball Bugs 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you had me thinking another sock had emerged. Soxrock 16:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just being funny. "Channeling" is the notion of someone's spirit temporarily taking over your body and speaking through you. And Tecmo was always telling people to focus on the content, rather than on what a jerk he was. Baseball Bugs 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see now. I don't get too many jokes, so I was a bit confused. And Tecmo was a jerk. I think that he just needed to do work instead of what he has done with the external links. He's good as long as he's calm Soxrock 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could be said for all of us. However, he was contentious from day one, clear back a year ago before any of us ever heard of him, so either he enjoyed fighting or didn't know any other way. Baseball Bugs 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. It was his style and he went way overboard. Soxrock 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of baseball team nicknames

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)[reply]

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.

Lame

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)[reply]

Windchills

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)[reply]

As noted on your page, the Twins played at the Dome on 4/4/07, and it was below 0 wind chill that day. Baseball Bugs 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've offered no real proof for the later assertion, other than a Farmer's Almanac Page that shows the high temperature was 42F. Moncrief 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've proven no such thing! You've given a day in April when the high temperature was 42F and offered a wind chill chart from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill that does not show the wind chill able to fall to below 0F at any point if the temperature is 42F. I suppose it is possible that the wind chill could be below zero in early April, or that it might have been at some point in Twin Cities history, but you haven't proven that it has been. Nice try at asking me to prove your assertions for you, though, and asking me to prove a negative (which I suppose would require me to look through every April Twins game date since the 60s to find out who's right). Whatever. Enjoy your hyperbole. Moncrief 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply gave you the first indication I found.

Right. One that didn't prove your point.

Look: you or someone put in an assertion. I should have just added a ^{[citation needed]} tag instead of taking it out outright, so that was my mistake. But adding ^{[citation needed]} tags is common practice in Wikipedia when one finds assertions that one thinks should be cited by evidence. It's not some kind of grand rudeness to ask that you provide evidence for an assertion before putting it in Wikipedia. So, yes, please find proof that the Twins play (even have played once) at the Metrodome on a day when the wind chill was below zero. I'll even let you fudge a bit on the temperature (we don't have to use the exact high-temp reading) and we can use the high end of the wind speed for the day. If you can't find this proof, you should rescind it. That's the way this website works. Moncrief 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fact tag added. And you're right about the other part too. So now if you want to change the fact tag, all you have to do is find evidence of a below-zero windchill day on a day that was during the Twins season of whatever year. Shouldn't be too tough. Moncrief 21:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Ott

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)[reply]

Marc Okkonen must have a love with baseball unis. I mean, until recently, he had a detailed history of team uniforms online (it had to be pulled recently), but I'd love to see that book. Hopefully it is still circulating. Soxrock 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome... thingy

I love your self-sockpuppet thing. I think I'll use it. Can I? Crowstar^caws 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Just letting you know. You're not involved specifically, but... Miss Mondegreen talk 14:28, July 30 2007 (UTC)

World Series

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)[reply]

Ah yes, you're right! My choices were pure opinion, because I know Babe Ruth in 1932 would be near the bottom of your list :(. And the Randy Johnson/Pete Alexander comparison are similar, only that Alexander's Redbirds led 3-2, whereas Johnson needed luck. 2001 was high on my list because everytime I see that video, I get chills, even though I've seen it a thousand times. As for 2004, oh don't remind me, spare me because I HATE the Red Sox. Soxrock 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I root for your southside rivals. I also am a big Yankee fan, in fact, I'm more of a Yankee fan than White Sox fan, but Soxrock sounds better than, say, Yankeesrock or something. My userpage shows all my favorite teams in sports, just for assistance

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)[reply]

Hitting Ruth quickly (no pun intended), the only sad thing if he played these days is that he himself would probably be suspected of doping, which is somewhat unfortunate (Oh I would've loved to see the Bambino play for the Yankees!). Don't forget that while Ruth was in Boston, 1914-1919 I think, the Sox won 3 World Series titles (1915 vs. Philly, 1916 vs. Brooklyn, and, sadly, 1918 vs. Chicago), so it wasn't like he emerged completely as a Yankee. And, yup, the Sox-Cubs rivalry was started in 1906 presumabely, when the Hitless Wonders upset the favored Cubs in 6 games. But, heck, the Sox didn't win again until 1917, whereas you won in 1907 and 1908 and in, well at least 99 years later.

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)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your last note, but, it was '03 the spite thing was put up. But I must say the Cubs did handle it properly. But getting to the A's, they're the only team in MLB history to have 3 periods of dominance like they did not named the Yankees. I mean, 1910-1914, 1929-1931, 1972-1974 (after they'd left Philly). When did Benjamin Shibe's children die? The last one? I'm wondering that. Mack should've stepped down though. I mean, managing into your late 60's, managing 30 years. Hey, just about no one alive rememebers seeing Mack manage, 30 years would be just as much heralded these days. And I'll be unavaliable for about 20 minutes or so, so don't be surprised to see me not message back to you. Thanks Soxrock 00:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm back and I love friendly banter as well. I mean, a lot of the time talk pages can get downright negative (like mine last Sunday, not yesterday, but 8 days ago) and, like I said, it keeps me going, whereas if I'm having a down day I can just sit back in my chair and talk baseball of yesteryear with you. It's relaxing, and, you're right, it leads to improvement knowing there are friendly guys out there to talk to. Anyway, I do remember reading about Finley's proposed 296 ft right field fence, until the commish (Ford Frick I believe) forced him to push it back to 325. But I can see he was trying to make something like a smaller Yankee Stadium dimension wise, due to the "death-valley" left field-center field fence. Now, and it helps that you are older than I am so you know a lot more than I know, but the baseball chronicle that I showed you online has helped me pick up a taste of old-time baseball (1906: Ed Ruelbach of the Chicago Cubs goes 19-4...)

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)

I read about Johnson in a brief summary in the Oakland A's page. Yeah, how funny that Johnson traded for Ralph Terry in 1957, then traded him back in 1959 for a washed-up Hank Bauer. From 1955-1960, the A's were the Yanks glorified Triple-A team. And thanks for the Ben Shibe death year. I wanted to get that so that I could really see why Mack did not step down in the 1930's but rather 1950. It helps to get that info 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, Old-Timers day is getting watered down. Scott Brosius? He is not a famous Yankee. He had his moments but he is not a legend, hell, he played four years there. Anyway, the Grand Old Man of baseball, I'd say keep it in the family (pun intended) and say Joe Torre. His calm demeanor just doesn't work anymore. The Yanks have little emotion when their not playing well, something they need Soxrock 01:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good morning (I left at 10:00 last night, so I didn't respond then) and I must say that in my mind, and it relates to Paul O'Neill, the missing thing is the emotion. Since O'Neill retired, the Yanks have not had that emotional freak who punches water-coolers or anything. In 1952 and 1953, when the beat the Dodgers (with out DiMaggio), they had a physcological advantage over Brooklyn, and, for that matter, New York. I mean, the Yanks knew how to beat teams with Gil Hodges, Pee Wee Reese, Duke Snider, Jackie Robinson, and Roy Campanella. The only time Brooklyn beat New York in the 1950s, they were lucky Sandy Amoros made that great catch that robbed Yogi Berra of a sure double. If Amoros does not catch that, then it's almost certain the Yanks would've taken the lead and won the '55 World Series. It's just a matter of emotion the Yanks had in the late 1990s, and in the 1950s, when they played New York and Brooklyn, they just knew how to beat them, how to come through with the big hit and the right time (case and point: 1951, Game 4, 5th inning I believe, 2-1 Yanks, Yogi Berra, I believe, is on base, and DiMaggio fights all the way through the count then launches one into the left field stands at the Polo Grounds. Yanks win and then crush the Giants in the final two games).

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)[reply]

Well, sorry I didn't see this earlier (you sent it while I was replying to your previous message...) but, first off, great job putting this together. Second, Ruth seems to go against the grain, whereas a lot of players prefer to stay back in the box to get extra time, whereas Ruth, as seen in the picture, is in the front. I read somewhere that he nearly stepped out of the box, but I don't remember whether it was in the Ruth article or in the 32 World Series article. As for Ruth's weight, you can say all you want, but, and you've hinted this, look at the 1917 image in his (Ruth's) article. He looks like a 185 pound guy. Ruth, sadly, bulked up by 1935, his final year in the majors. Either way, Ruth played well with the weight. He robbed Chick Hafey of a potential homerun in the 1933 All-Star game cross-town at Comiskey Park, and, in 1934, his final year with the Yanks, he still hit 22 HRS and drove in 84 RBI, production that would be considered ABOVE AVERAGE FOR 39 YEARS OLD BARRY BONDS! (sorry, just had to let that out). Anyway, one thing that kind of sucks for you is the fact that, if the Yanks and Cubs meet up in the Series this year or sometime in the future, you'll still be gunning for your first Series victory vs. New York. Can't be a pleasent thought. And, FYI, I saved the picture you gave me, so I'm not going to be losing it anytime soon. Soxrock 11:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good idea for Ruth. Anyway I thought that Chicago had Florida in 2003. It was shocking the curse plagued them again, somehow. It's amazing that the Cubs keep falling victim to the curse. You know, how does the "Curse of the Billy Goat" apply for the Cubs curse? I mean, I know 62 years not being in the Series is a long time, but how is the 1909-1944 period explained in that curse? And, hell, I'm happy the Yanks beat the Twins, but that had to be an incrediably stupid decision. And you were at the Twins final home game in 04? How was the Metrodome? Did it suck or what?. Soxrock 12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hitting the Ruth image quickly, I enlarged it because it did not conform well to the article on the computer I'm on. It forced the next section to be crowded to the right. As for the 2004 ALDS and all that, that's a great image. From what I've heard, the Metrodome is ugly, the sound-system is broken, and it's a poorly built facility. However, you're right, Minnesota is a cold state, and the new Twins ballpark should have a retractable roof. However, I don't like any domed stadium, retractable-roofs are good enough in my mind Soxrock 12:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I actually went into the 03 series not thinking this would be too good. Now, Merkle's mistake can be forgiven because, if I remember correctly, the fans flooded the field after the base hit that appeared to give the Giants the victory and the pennant. That one is the most unknown... 1918, well, when Frazee needed to get out of debt he broke up the Red Sox dynasty and the Yanks were willling to take the talent. 1945, well, that is a lame excuse, because, again, they had not won since 1908 to begin with, so any possible curse had to occur sometime in 1909 most likely. 2003, amazing how you can have 5 freaking fans reaching for the ball and being in the stands, yet, because Bartman got it (remember, there was no guarentee Alou would catch that) and then Gonzalez can't field the groundball, Bartman becomes a pariah around the northside of Chicago (I wouldn't know about the White Sox fans if they liked that). Come on, Bartman has had his entire live ruined simply because he touched the ball. What a joke, you actually have to fell sorry for him today. And have a good day at work, I look forward to the next time we talk Soxrock 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, assuming that your done at work for today. I'd like to continue this conversation, but what do you want to talk about specifically? I ask you because I am a bad conversation starter. Soxrock 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Piniella

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)[reply]

License tagging for Image:BabeRuth19321001.JPG

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)

Willie Mays

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)[reply]

Sorry for the late response (I am tired) but I only know about the Amoros catch because I was, once again, reading that chronicle and in December 2004 I did some research papers (1955 Yankees, '97 Indians) and found a picture of the Amoros catch. But, even if it was on the road, what about Sandy Koufax at Metropolitan Stadium in 1965? I was expecting that Amoros catch to be played on that World Series moments thing, but, then it could've been overkill seeing Mays/Amoros back-to-back. Eh, whatever, I myself, fanatic-wise, am better off not seeing it :) Soxrock 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with the Dodgers pitching. They gave up, what, 10 runs in the 1966 Series and got swept? As for the Bob Allison catch, I can't recall seeing that. I've seen Mays, Amoros, Swoboda, among others. I'll have to check out Bob Allison, who was a good hitter in those days. Soxrock 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. Mays and Amoros won games from their catches, Chavez and Allison ultimately didn't, and, really, Allison ended the series with his strikeout. Soxrock 13:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I ask quickly if the "I believe" was from the actual quote or if it was just the way you thought it was said.

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)[reply]

Being there, that had to be gut-wrenching as a Cubs fan to score 16 runs and lose. I mean, 16 runs should equal a blow-out, but when the wind is blowing out at Wrigley, 16 runs could still lose you the game. Similar thing at the Cell on the southside, the Sox lost a game 20-14 last month. And, that makes me remember this; July 2nd, 2006; Sox/Cubs at Wrigley, and the Cubs win 15-11. I watched that game on WGN, I was pissed. Soxrock 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, let's not forget, Schmidt wouldn't have been booed as much as he was in Philly. And, another thing, Schmidt may have played longer if he played for the Cubs because he wouldn't have had to deal with that rock-hard astroturf at Veterans Stadium. From 1970-2003, Philly was a tough place to play at because of the damn astroturf. Soxrock 17:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, that trend quote was quite funny. And your right about a historic stadium, but I don't know which. Do you mean historic Shibe Park, or the Phillies previous home, the Baker Bowl. I'll assume you mean Shibe Park, but I just want to make sure. Soxrock 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. Jeez, Jamie Moyer's old enough he could've pitched in that game (ah, just joking). It's amazing how Philadelphia in all sports seems to be among the worst sports towns team wise in the nation. The Eagles sucked for a while, the Flyers have been so-so lately, the 76ers so-so, the Phillies (10,000 losses, enough said) and formerly the A's (granted 4 World Series and 6 Pennants, but many more losing seasons). Kind of sad to see really. Soxrock 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez, I had to laugh at "It figures we got Vince, and not Joe or Dom. When brothers played in the majors, the Phillies usually wound up with the one who produced less. We had Harry Coveleski instead of Stan, Irish Meusel instead of Bob, Frank Torre instead of Joe, Ken Brett instead of George, Mike Maddux instead of Greg, Rick Surhoff instead of B.J. and Jeremy Giambi instead of Jason. If there had been a Zeppo Alou, the Phillies would have signed him." That's funny Soxrock 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, losing is definitely easy. Every night, you have to combine passion, willingness, and luck to win consistently. Losing just takes you not having passion and willingness. Bad luck can occur at anytime, you have to manage that. I think that Ozzie needs to step down, his style isn't working anymore. And this is really not a different team. The Sox are almost exactly the same team as they were in 05. Soxrock 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wouldn't make me their biggest fan, but perhaps they need to revert those uniforms from that era. But your right about the Cubs and the Sox. The Cubs from 1880-1885 and 1906-1910, the Red Sox from 1915-1918. Those were dominant teams Soxrock 17:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Phils are starting to load on 2005 White Sox players. Really, I wouldn't of traded Rowand, and if they can, the ChiSox should try to sign Rowand this off-season. Hopefully Soxrock 17:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so close...

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)[reply]

Oh, and you would know this very well, but, when the wind is blowing at Wrigley, the balls just fly. Those games would be entertaining for me, personally, because I'm an offensive person, I'm not much of a 1-0 pitchers duel type. Soxrock 13:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I forgot to mention blowing out. I'm sure you know what I meant though, right? As for Holtzman, wow; "(loud crack of the bat) Aaron swings, look out, that baby is hit... It is way back there... Billy Williams, back to the wall... back to the corner... HE GRABS IT!!!" (loud roar from the crowd)". That has to be the play your referring to. Soxrock 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmobowl/Long levi

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)[reply]

Thank you so much, I have started the excavation. You can see me in progress at here. NBAonNBC 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix that. And I've gotten to the Epeflechee dispute. Now I keep getting blankings by that idiot NBAonNBC 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. Either way, I'm really on the hardest part now. And that epic discussion with Sarah Goldberg, oh gosh NBAonNBC 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, this is taking much longer than I wanted. NBAonNBC 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just did her! Yes! NBAonNBC 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I've got to keep it consistent with others. Anyway, I'm done! An hour's worth of wading can be found on the archive pages [8] and [9]. If they get deleted, I have a copy saved in my e-mail NBAonNBC 00:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBAonNBC block

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)[reply]

E-mail?

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)[reply]

New York Yankees

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.

The above busybody comment was entered by 71.125.87.79 at 22:10, 2 August 2007

Soxrock

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)[reply]

Airplane 2 Gag List

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)[reply]

Warthog

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)[reply]

No personal attacks

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Personal attacks in edit summaries

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)[reply]

More personal attacks

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)[reply]

IPonU. Baseball Bugs 02:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. 17Drew 02:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mood wring

I'm on edge.

Block block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating the Don't Be a Jerk rule.

Agreed, 48 is even better. Baseball Bugs 02:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad ya' agree. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need a vacation, as if y'all couldn't tell. Just call me "Otis". Baseball Bugs 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for beating User talk:Wknight94 to the draw. :) Baseball Bugs 02:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got there before me, too :/ - Alison ☺ 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be spending the 48 hours whittling down my watch list, as watching too many articles is what got me so frustrated and into trouble the last time. Baseball Bugs 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under 600 now. That's some progress. Baseball Bugs 05:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prolly not a bad idea. Read up on the policies and stuff ... - Alison ☺ 04:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the policies. I just get tired of lazy editors who try to make others do their work for them, and of nobody-from-nowhere IP addresses saying famous nationally-syndicated cartoonists are "inconsequential". Baseball Bugs 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thing is, though, IP editors have the same standing as the rest of us; no more and no less. You don't need to register an account to edit "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" ... - Alison ☺ 05:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about editors that slap "fact" tags everywhere and then expect others to do the work for them and threaten to delete stuff after what they determine is "enough time" for someone else to have done the work? Baseball Bugs 05:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* - I know. However, lots of non-anon editors do that too and unsourced stuff (esp. BLP matters) tends to get excised eventually. There is the matter of going too wild with the {{fact}} tags, but it's a subjective matter to quantify "too wild". All we can do is try to provide sources. I can understand how it annoys you, though - Alison ☺ 05:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm talking about established editors. They say they "don't have time". However, the rest of us are supposed to make time for them, otherwise they'll find the time to chop stuff from the article. Like the bozo who said Boston needed a citation for "Beantown", like nobody ever heard of it. Or the guy who criticized the World Series article but "didn't have time" to specify the issues. Those are the things that really set me off. The warthog nonsense was more about somebody deleting something that's been there for like 2 years and suddenly somebody who doesn't even bother to be a registered user decides to impose his view on it. In my experience, most IP addresses are vandals. I'm not saying this one was. But it makes it easier for them to stay under the radar. They don't have a watch list, so they have to specifically look up articles... and the one in question here was specifically coming back to that article to defend his removal of that "inconsequential" item that happens to be referenced elsewhere on wikipedia (I'm not telling him where, he'll have to do that ferreting out for himself). Then he warns me about the 3-revert rule. Yeh, that's a good one. Baseball Bugs 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem. I can remember you joking around on my talk page some months back :) Hey - that Irishguy talking about me behind my back??? Just wait till I get my hands on him!! ;) - Alison ☺ 06:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that wsa the exact quote. It might have been "Watch out for Alison". :) Baseball Bugs 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have something akin to a watchlist; my contributions. I monitor that list primarily for replies to talk pages and to navigate my way to articles that take many sessions to improve, but it serves in other ways, such as catching thoughtless reverts. 24.6.65.83 08:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you can thoughtlessly revert them back to the way you want them. Yah. Baseball Bugs 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

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.

Halfway through my 48-hour block, and I get a warning advising me that I might get blocked. Reminds me of a scene from Love and Death. Diane Keaton is messing around with a pistol and it goes off. Woody Allen says, quoting a popular public-service advertisement of the time, "Be careful when handling that gun, as it may be loaded." Baseball Bugs 02:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In short, it's a content dispute. And your opinion on content obviously trumps mine, because you're more "consequential". Meanwhile, I'm guessing you don't know where I got the line "nobody from nowhere", specifically. Let's just say it seems natural. Baseball Bugs 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge: As my chief scout, Mr. Carson, I'm relying on your honor.

Scout: Judge, I'm doin' just what you asked me to do - Hobbs is a absolute joke, a nobody from nowhere.

Judge: Yes, yes, that's just what concerns me, Mr. Carson. It's about time we found out just who he is, where he's from.

Wow, that's disturbing. Not only do you gloss over the fact that there were several others who expressed the same opinion, but now you've injected the implication that you think my identity should be investigated. 24.6.65.83 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already know where you are, but I'm not telling. But I could tell you how I know, if you want. There's a publicly available website that tells what city an IP address is likely emanating from. Another thing I've observed about IP addresses, in addition to being easy to track down vs. registered users, is that they typically lack a sense of humor... except, ironically, the ones that are vandals, which you're clearly not. Baseball Bugs 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the links available at the bottom of IP talk pages? I am fully aware of them and occasionally use them to see if other IP editors may have a regional bias (very handy for sporting and school articles, amongst others). One of the reasons I feel IP editors are less anonymous than registered accounts is for that very reason. I could make up some fake name and register, but all that really does is give other editors an easy way to address me. Until Wikipedia decides to make all editors register (something I fully support, BTW), I'll decline the "extra benefits" in favor of more real transparency. 24.6.65.83 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Hardly a secret. You're apparently in California; and FYI, I'm in Minnesota, which you could have figured out from the context of many of my contributions. And note the irony... Roy Hobbs was not actually "nobody from nowhere", he was the parallel-universe equivalent of Babe Ruth, except he looked like Robert Redford. Baseball Bugs 18:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody who recognizes the source of the phrase the irony may be apparent, but for somebody without that specialized knowledge it comes off as a very personal insult. Thanks for putting it in perspective. (You really think I look like Redford? ;) 24.6.65.83 18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all I know, you might. Don't all Californians look like either Redford, Newman, or Pamela Anderson? Now, if you want to do something useful (which spending your time on this page probably isn't), could you revert the vandal who just messed up History of the Chicago Cubs? If you could do that, I would appreciate it very much. Baseball Bugs 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone took care of it. Baseball Bugs 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely without usefulness; I learned some trivia about a movie I've never seen. I'd be happy to revert any vandalism you point out. My goal here, after all, is to improve the Wiki while learning new and interesting things. 24.6.65.83 19:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like baseball, you might like The Natural. Or you could just go to the article and read all the plot giveaways. That's the subject that got me burned the last time. However, it's always better to watch the movie than to just read about it. Baseball Bugs 20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On August 9, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joe Hauser, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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)[reply]

Excellent timing. However, you might want to get the approval of the IP addresses first, as they are more consequential. Baseball Bugs 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to self

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Look for Ray Bolger editorial cartoon. Baseball Bugs 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how many times that wikipedia comment turns up in a Google search. One is tempted to slip something in there like, "I'm a Wiki-Copycat!", and check in a few days to see how many hits that gets in Google. Baseball Bugs 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry to butt in. Did you see that play with some outfielder - I think on the Phillies - from '06 or '05? He was running and kind of juggling the ball. He took one final swipe at catching it and knocked like 15 feet backwards over the wall for a home run! It was ridiculous. I'll try to attach a name to that... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Michaels I think (but my work computer sucks so I can't pull the video up to verify). It was voted 2004 Blooper of the Year. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. That's even better than the ball bouncing of Canseco's head and over the wall. It still doesn't quite match up to the guy in Portland, OR, about 18 years ago who went through the fence to catch the ball, like Bump Bailey in The Natural, except he lived to tell about it. Baseball Bugs 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that as well. He never made the majors, did he? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... now you've got me. I'll have to check on that. Baseball Bugs 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney McCray (baseball) in 1991. He played in the majors for awhile. Baseball Bugs 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I remember being amazed there was another Rodney McCray besides Rodney McCray (basketball). Were you able to watch that video? Now I'm 0-for-2 on computer's able to play that video. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've always thought Bump Bailey being killed by crashing through that wall is one of the hokiest parts of that movie. He went through too quickly to have been killed. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hokier than the ending? (Don't want to give it away to anyone who hasn't seen it.) Actually, I loved the ending, over-the-top as it was. But even the first time I saw it, when the guy ran through the fence, it did not ring true. Just as with the 1991 real-live event, it didn't look like a hard enough blow to be fatal (unless he got a splinter through his throat or some other equally cringe-worthy wound). As I recall, in the book he ran full-tilt into a brick or concrete wall, which could definitely be fatal if you hit it the wrong way. That could have been a vague reference to Pete Reiser, who was known for running into walls in the days before they had warning tracks. But in the movie it was a weak special effect, and then they treated his death like a joke. Definitely a low point in a movie with some great moments. Baseball Bugs 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "hokey" isn't the right word. Unrealistic is better. The ending was hokey but completely believable and has even come close to happening. I've never read the book so it's good to know the scene is more believable there. I'll pretend that's what happened in the movie. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unrealistic; did not have "the ring of truth"... like they couldn't find a stuntman to actually run into a brick wall, so they put up a balsa-wood fence and told the actor, "Here, run through this and pretend you're hurt." The ending was kind of hokey, but it was metaphorical as much as anything, and it worked beautifully. If you haven't read the book, and are thinking about it, be warned that it has a totally different ending. That's all I should say about it. Baseball Bugs 03:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisms

If anyone happens to see this... someone vandalized the Cy Young page this afternoon. Baseball Bugs 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Good Sir Wknight94: Cy's mother thanks you, Cy's father thanks you, Cy's sister thanks you, and Cy thanks you. Baseball Bugs 01:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody tried to remove some awkward wording in Fenway Park and left a periodless sentence. Baseball Bugs 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you meant? If so, I just reverted it in the newer edit. 24.6.65.83 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was it. The awkward phrasing is the line "as you face home plate". Wikipedia rules, as with any formal style of writing, prohibit direct pronouns such as "I" and "you" in the text (except when quoting someone, of course). Instead of wording it this way...

"The Triangle" is a region of center field where the walls form a triangle 420 feet (128 m) from home plate. That deep right-center point is conventionally given as the center field distance, although true center is actually 390 feet, to the right of the triangle as you face home plate.

...I would perhaps word it this way, although the whole thing is kind of over-analysis of a simple concept:

"The Triangle" is a region of center field where the walls form a triangle whose far corner is 420 feet (128 m) from home plate. That deep right-center point is conventionally given as the center field distance. True center is unmarked, 390 feet from home plate, to the left of "The Triangle" when viewed from home plate.

Baseball Bugs 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Copy and paste, easy easy. 24.6.65.83 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much obliged. In 22 hours I won't have to beg for this help. :) Baseball Bugs 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It fits in nicely with the other maintenance work I'm doing. And, I kinda feel an obligation to facilitate your good edits. ;) 24.6.65.83 05:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Somebody else had already gotten to it. Aside: Since you're a baseball fan, you came to mind when I ran across the article on Casey Stern. Anything you could do to improve it? 24.6.65.83 07:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a dumping ground for random vandalism. I'll work on it. Baseball Bugs 14:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done?

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)[reply]

LOL Glad I could add a little something special to your day. I guess you could look at it as my way of reestablishing good faith. Sure, go ahead and unblock him. 24.6.65.83 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I think Baseball Bugs will agree he can get a bit cranky now and then

(he even asked me to block him for this latest episode!) but he's a top-notch person here when you get to know him. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do what you want. I could wait until tonight as per the schedule. I look at the stupid stuff I said here and smack my forehead. To paraphrase a James Thurber cartoon, "I have the true Emily Dickinson spirit, except I occasionally get fed up." Baseball Bugs 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, too late - you're already unblocked - and hopefully unautoblocked as well) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind he was not the only one I clashed with the other day... just the only one who continued to dialogue in spite of my being a jerk. I would like to apologize to 24-something and I will try not to let it happen again. :) Baseball Bugs 14:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no 'try'. Do, or do not." -- Yoda, 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone who got in a minor scrap with you the other day over the Airplane 2 gag list, I've got to say your attitude is fantastic - you've admitted to being uncivil, requested time out to calm down, and have even been trading edits with your attackee (not me, obviously). Yeah, I've been reading your talk page after putting my own comment on it. Seemed interesting. So, yeah. Kudos on the civility Baseball Bugs! :)Addyboy 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that yada yada. I wasn't totally without fault, either. I get the feeling we just happened to cross paths when both of us were ill-prepared for it. You wouldn't happen to be an Aries or a Capricorn, would you? If you don't mind my asking? 24.6.65.83 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's File:Mgmlogob.jpg although I don't believe in Astrology. :) Baseball Bugs 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Series

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)[reply]

There are 5 references in total. For an article that big, reviewers would like to see at least 60 of them. To start with, the whole section of "International impact". Sentences like The World Series itself retains a US-oriented atmosphere. The title of the event is often presented on television as merely a "brand name" in the same sense as the "Super Bowl" need solid references backing them. Gnanapiti 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. The entire section looks somewhat out of place in the article and gives too much information, much more than what is actually needed in an encyclopedia. What happens is it becomes difficult to search for references for stories like that. It's better to nuke unverifiable content entirely IMHO, presenting exactly what is needed. May be an explanation for the title "World series" and that's all. Gnanapiti 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Jackson

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)[reply]

I'll go there, and you might not like my answer. Baseball Bugs 20:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who blocks themselves?

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)[reply]

Hmm... that's... interesting, I suppose. Ksy92003(talk) 19:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's

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)[reply]

Nolan Ryan

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)[reply]

User page

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)[reply]

Strange Harmonica Happy Vandal

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)[reply]

Ah, I see. :) I thought it was interesting since some of your recent contribs had to do with warthogs. :) And will do! -WarthogDemon 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the issue has finally been dealt with. -WarthogDemon 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I could be wrong I think he blocked the IP which accidentally blocked him, so it was an accidental block and he's unaware of HD's edits. -WarthogDemon 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the link to HDW's "contributions", so hopefully the admin will get the message. Baseball Bugs 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

149.4.108.84

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)[reply]

Banning vs Blocking

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)[reply]

Basically yes, although of course a block can be decided on by a group of admins, or by an admin listening to a group of people. Also, a banned user is usually blocked (though occasionally unblocked only to comment on their own case), while a blocked user is not usually banned. There is some debate as to what an indef block actually means (see this page or this one for instance). Often the main difference is who you have to appeal to to get your editing privileges back. CitiCat^♫ 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect game

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)[reply]

First, let me say that the "You have NO new messages" on your userpage still scares me haha :D Yeah, I need a good laugh at 2:15 in the morning. Anyway, fortunately it's still summer vacation, so my senior teacher doesn't need to know about this little "incident." I will read WP:MOS when I'm more aware... I was laying in bed for about 15 minutes before deciding to come back to check my watchlist. Ksy92003(talk) 09:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Hi-Yo Silver barnstar.PNG

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)

Your edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup

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)[reply]

Think what you want: but that doesn't give you the right vandalize the page with your personal view. RobJ1981 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminshipness Query

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)[reply]

Drop the attitude

I fixed the error myself look at the edit summaries. Learn some manners. Trevor GH5 07:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I raised a legitimate issue... a day and a half ago. Where you bin, boy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you a little lesson: There's a little tab on the top of each page titled "edit history". If you click that you can see edit summaries, such as the one where I corrected myself when I noticed my error. After someone corrects themself you don't repeat the same dumbass statement. As for thye rest, unlike you, I'm not here every day. That's where I "bin boy". Trevor GH5 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly started all this? Am I missing the reason for the section title above? Where is the "attitude" you're referring to? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date edits

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).

Vick edit

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)[reply]

Yeh, too much of a hurry. As long as it's covered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya, that article is getting hammered with stuff right now - just trying to keep a little bit of consistency. I'm really waiting until after the "controversy" boils over and then get it up to encyclopedic standards. Thanks for your understanding. Have a good day. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 19:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure there's a flurry of activity there, as with any other hot news item. At the time I added that item, I knew that was the wrong way to do it, but I didn't immediately see any other reference to it, and thought that, at worst, someone could weave that reference of mine into the story. Since it was already covered, but I just didn't see it, deleting it was the right thing to do. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries either way, be well. Just didn't want you thinking someone was trying to squash your edits. Take care Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tree

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)[reply]

Thank you, sir! Btw, if you've not noticed, Barry Bonds and Phil Rizzuto seem to be his latest manias. *sigh* --Ebyabe 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge

Sorry I have no idea, BaseballBugs. -Susanlesch 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no idea, sorry. I don't know much about it except that it is probably an Mn/DOT bridge. -Susanlesch 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at Fenway

The official attendance at Fenway park is 38,805 at night. redsox382007Redsox382007 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Island

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See comment on my talk page --User101010 11:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Replaceable fair use Image:T&T_Polo_Grounds_diagram_1951.JPG

Replaceable fair use

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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

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)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

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)[reply]

Sehr gut. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Grounds

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)[reply]

The key issue on that diagram is for verifying the 425 feet to the corner of the bleachers. That's the specific purpose for uploading that diagram. Consider this website [11] which has a to-scale drawing like the one I uploaded. However, it does not explicitly state the 425 feet. It can be inferred, but that would be "spinning" it. I need a source (the one I uploaded) where it says it explicitly. I have not seen that anywhere else in a "free" source, nor am I likely to find one. The diagram was made when the structure existed, by authors who apparently actually measured it. The stadium was demolished in 1964. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't upload non-free material for verifying things. We cite reliable sources for that. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not remove the replaceable tag from images. Read the tag for instructions on how to contest it. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior is not helpful. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would bother to actually read what the illustration's comments say instead of just blindly assigning those tags in your zeal to delete stuff, you would see that I ALREADY SAID I cannot find a free equivalent. Do you enjoy all of this constant hassle that you give and get? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe saying "It is unlikely I could find a free equivalent" is ~~not~~ enough for a irreplaceability justification. If you agree with me, go there and try to fix it (or tag the image as {{db-author}}). But if you disagree, just leave the decision for the closing admin. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three grammatical negatives in your answer, so I don't understand what you're actually trying to say.

Sorry. Fixed. Did I get it right now? --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what you're getting at. This is a diagram from a 56-year-old book of a structure demolished 43 years ago. How do you imagine I'm going to find a free equivalent somewhere? You are being very unfair. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to say that, if you believe my tagging was unjustified, just wait for the closing admin to take a look at that. You don't need to worry about my opinion being absurd, since the final decision is not up to me.

But in the case you don't think my opinion is absurd, and answering to your question about free alternatives... almost anyone could draw a diagram equivalent to this one. And we don't have to upload an original diagram from a 56-year-old book just to prove our information is correct. Just cite the book for that. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs

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)[reply]

180,000 words?

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)[reply]

Fenway Park

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)[reply]

I changed it to "hitter-friendly", although my guess is that the poster of the above knows nothing about the old Yankee Stadium. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball nicknames / History of baseball team nicknames

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)[reply]

Hello

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)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you came back. It would have been a shame for you to go. Acalamari 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) If things become a bit rough again, I'm sure a WikiBreak ranging from a day to a week will be helpful. :) Acalamari 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly Insane

Agreed. And...Wow.—DCGeist 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"professional" vs "free"

In a recent discussion on ANI, the following exchange took place (along with further misunderstandings based on it)

Wikipedia prefers free content to professional-looking content. If it was the other way around, we'd just rebrand ourselves as a licensed vendor of the Encylopaedia Britannica. Also, the same principles that apply to text apply to illustrations in the same way. We always post a new article and cite its info to the source; we don't just copy/paste the source. Same deal with this stadium diagram. nadav (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, you want wikipedia to look like it was done by rank amateurs (which it too often does already). So how does that enhance its credibility? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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)[reply]

I stand corrected. The standard is not "looking stupid and ugly". It's "looking cheap, stupid, and ugly." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD-because

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)[reply]

Jackie Robinson

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)[reply]

Robinson's last game

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)[reply]

Boston Red Sox

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)[reply]

Deletion of ALE-Uniform-BAL.PNG

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, we've gone to review. If this does not work, if things are as DCGeist says and the deletionists have taken over the deletion process, then we shall take this to arbitration. This outrage will not stand. --Silent Wind of Doom 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrigley Field

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)[reply]

You should stop taking it out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least explain why you think it's relevant? 136.152.181.234 20:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ron liebman a.k.a. User:Mike caragliano and countless others‎

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)[reply]

It doesn't matter now, he's been indefinitely blocked as another in the Liebman sockpuppet hit parade. Which just means he'll come along under another half-dozen pseudonyms and do the same thing. Unfortunately, reason does not work with the Liebster. Nor logic, nor common sense. *sigh* -Ebyabe 00:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but at least other users can assess the validity of his arguments (which live on despite the ban). I'd rather have a record of the solid argument against his position. MisfitToys 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's doing the same kind of stuff on other websites' pages. [12] I am now working with an admin to take some more concrete action against this guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User ID

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)[reply]

How do you like this?

[14] —Wknight94 (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No God

its a line from a song... dont take it too seriously. Connör ^(talk) 13:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and also, please dont try to start debates on my talk page. Connör ^(talk) 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. sorry. Connör ^(talk) 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10-4. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with an obstinate editor?

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)[reply]

Thanks

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)[reply]

Milo Hamilton

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)[reply]

Unverifiable, no dates given; random calls in random games; nothing uniquely connecting the calls with Milo; and besides all that, the team finished in 4th place in 1990. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stand

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)[reply]

Baseball Field

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)[reply]

Ron's sockpuppets return

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)[reply]

And this one and maybe this one too. -Ebyabe 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked (except the shared IPs) and reverted. FYI, with the community ban now official, all edits need to be reverted on sight per WP:BAN. It's the only chance we have to rid ourselves of the nuisance. And you can report the accounts to me for immediate blocking. If I don't appear to be around, try WP:AIV and/or WP:ANI. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can maybe tell by my comments on his talk page, I am very angry with that guy, for insulting the memory of actual persecution victims throughout history. Once I get back online for longer periods, next week or so, I'll be assisting in the reversions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson

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)[reply]

I'm going to move past this

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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

I have been saying from the beginning that we need to present as many facts as we have. Those huge numbers are based on nothing except some comment in a website, but they're fair game for citing as in "these sources say..." such and such. Then you present the Negro League numbers, and explain the huge discrepancy by pointing out that many of the numbers came from barnstorming, which played a much larger role in the Negro Leagues than in the majors, in that many more games in the Negro Leagues were barnstorm games. The majors also barnstormed, but to a rather lesser extent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: John Wayne

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)[reply]

No, this edit edited by Baseball Bugs (Talk | contribs) at 21:39, 19 September 2007 shows that you put those two lines IN. WikiDon 04:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both gone now, User talk:Monkeyzpop pulled it. I just thought it was odd from you. It helps in knowing users that you can count on to make sound edits (one way of detecting the flakes), so when you did that I thought you ate a carrot that had turned. Carry on. WikiDon 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your question about The Shining

Some of these ideas are stated more clearly in the book than the film.

In his conversation with Danny early in the film he talks about "shining" as being able to see the images of things that have happened ('like the smell of burnt toast' is how he puts it) not things that are going to occur.
Halloran's ability to "shine" is not as stong as Danny's.
As Danny sees things going very badly wrong at the hotel he telepathically sends Halloran the scary images that he is seeing and that is what gets Dick to stop looking at those pics of the naked ladies (jokes - I know that he is actually watching TV but I had to mention it as I love the way that The Simpsons spoof of this film has Willie with a pic of a Scottish lass above his TV) and on his way to Colorado.

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)[reply]

You only saw it once and yet you feel that you can make an edit to an encyclopedia. This the very definition of fancruft. Be aware that I am as big a proponent of fancruft as anyone in its proper place. My experience of fantasy, horror, sci fi in film TV and books goes back over 45 years and I will talk about it with anyone at (almost) anytime. As to this film, once again, there is never any mention that having the ability to shine means that you can tell anything about what is going to occur at any point in your life. It is not an omniscient gift. It is simply a story telling device. You might take your concern up with Stephen King or at various blogs etc., but hashing it over at an encyclopedia is always going to be dodgy because you are taking a fictional moment and trying to fit it into your own personal reality and that is both original research and POV here at wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he does not. Neither the book or film ever intimates that the shine gives this ability. My apologies for being so long winded in the last post. It has been a long day away from wikipedia and I may have taken some of those frustrations out on you so again many apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1918 World Series

Thank you for finding a source for that. And so fast, too ! -- No Guru 01:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cask of Amontillado

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)[reply]

Thanks for the response! True enough, it certainly seems to be a Poe reference (I can't argue with that appearance, based on the info you provided). But a random person with internet access posting on an IMDB message board isn't a reliable source. It's definitely WP:OR or at least a violation of WP:RS. If you're insistent on it, maybe it's worth adding to Edgar Allan Poe in television and film? --Midnightdreary 04:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Ha, I'd love to read that full Mad version of "The Bells"! It's such an obnoxious poem, even I can admit that! --Midnightdreary 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that rabbits like cake more than carrots?

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)[reply]

That sounds right, Matt Douglas. Man, that guy died before the movie even came out, I hope Wayne didn't hit him to hard. WikiDon

You're right, if I remember correctly: Jones (Leo Gordon) is the bigot with the gun and wants to kill the Native Americans, this pisses George Washington McLintock (Wayne) off. McLinktock grabs his gun away from him, and then goes into the speech. Matt Douglas (Gordon Jones), was wooing Katherine Gilhooley McLintock (Maureen O'Hara), thinking GW was dead and wanting to run for congress, well, he gets in the fight too, GW punches him down the mud slide, and then they all go down the mud slide. WikiDon

Warning

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)[reply]

This is the first hint anyone has given of what the alleged issue is, albeit with no discussion and in defiance of my fair use claim. Your threats are offensive. I've been on wikipedia as long as you have. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask fair questions, he implies "screw you" and deletes the discussion. Apparently, User:Tecmobowl has been reincarnated as an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

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)[reply]

Huntington Avenue Grounds

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)[reply]

Yeah, good point. Having their logo on it is just a cheap way, I assume, to give credit back to the site whenever the pic is used. If you see this pic of Nig Clarke, you see a pic taken between 1905 and 1911, and therefore being in the public domain. Why should some image taken between a similar time period (1901-1911, the final year the Sox played at Huntington Grounds) be considered "fair use?" Again, if your 1903 WS pic is on Commons, I see no objection to that pic being on Commons. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, hitting Nig Clarke, do you know much about this guy? I originally started this article in May (to my vast surprise, this guy is a Texas League legend) to describe his 8 homer game from 06/15/1902. Since then, I have found out a lot about this fellow Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That needs clarification. I'm a Buccaneers fan, and as such, I decided to follow my friend Ksy92003's lead and made my comment box red. I'd love to do Yankee colors, but that just won't work. Can't read black on navy blue, right? (Just for the record, I am actually rooting for Boston over Anaheim, creates a better chance for NY when they make the ALCS, yes, I did say when). And thanks for removing that bogus tag, just look at this and you'll see the crap I get from that friggin bot. Honestly, I don't care about images anymore because of that bot, since, if fair use can be contested, it'll be up for deletion. Things are getting pathetic here when it comes to fair use, sadly Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (yes, I keep tweaking my sig)[reply]

I like your images, personally. I find no harm in them. I just wish the fair use editors (for lack of better term) would stop trying to find any little problem with a pic and try to dispose of it. It's annoying and it only serves to distance ourselves from providing good images. Why spend hours downloading and uploading pics so some bot can try to delete them? Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember a discussion a few months back regarding "team of destiny", which is what the 2003 Marlins were, the team that beat my beloved Yankees. Now, I personally don't mind the "thank Jesus" stuff, but it can be a bit nonsensical. But I'm a regular church-goer, I am not about to say negative things about Jesus.

The 2007 Cubs, everything goes back to the beginning of June. Your right, how must Michael Barrett feel? Not only did he get dumped and portrayed as an A-hole, he is not going to the playoffs when, in the 13th inning of the tiebreaker game, the Pad squad had an 8-6 lead. He's not gonna sleep well tonight, for sure. And, hey, I told Ksy before the 13th that this game wasn't over, with Matsui, Tulowitzki, Holliday, and Helton coming up. However, I stayed up very late to see this, and I am glad I did. What a game (much better than that MNF game, right?) Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 05:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it! When I saw this pic] the other day, I remembered that you must have seen that game. Heck, you sent me a combined image a few months back, it's somewhere in my archives. I'll try and find it. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I definitely see your point now on the Jesus take. Kinda like something I read out of Richard Ben Craemer's book on Joe DiMaggio regarding the 1951 Giants ("God must be a Giants fan!"). Also, Chris is not an admin. However, I have talked with Chris and Ksy offline numerous times (especially Ksy, we're good friends, and I'll be glad to add you as a friend on my userpage). Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, getting back to my image note a few minutes ago, that's proof I am at Commons. See who made the Commons upload? I did have my run there, but I'm inactive there right now. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 05:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, that's a good one. If you think about it, using the logic of the Paper it was in (I forget which NY paper it was, but that's what it said... I think) God must've stuck around for Game 1, when Dave Koslo threw a gem vs. the Yanks in a 5-1 win. He must've stayed thru game 3, when the Giants beat the Yanks 6-2. However, there was a rain postponement on the originally scheduled date of Game 4, and that's when God must've crossed the river and taken residence at the Stadium.

Yeah, I've also heard the stealing signs rumor, with a person from the Polo Grounds clubhouse stealing signs from the 483 foot away wall in Centerfield. The Giants, allegedly, must've lived by the "If your not cheating, your not trying" slogan back then. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 06:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced either. Even with a telescope, reading signs, usually in daylight, from nearly 500 feet away is not easy. I believe the Giants were clean. Also, the better team at the time, if I'm interpreting right, means that the Giants had a better chance of victory. They won 37 of 44 to force the playoff with Brooklyn, and 39 of 47 to get to the Series vs the Bombers Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 06:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisjnelson scenario

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)[reply]

I don't believe I made any blatant, offensive name calling, and if I did, then I revoke those statements. I am a very devoted Christian, and it isn't in my belief to degrade other people like that unless there is proof, factual evidence, to support any of my actions. The comment where I said that he appears to me to be an untrustworthy liar was formed on the basis that in the past, he has lied. If I ever do make comments like those, I will always back it up with proof.

The proof behind why I called him a liar goes back to before the Jmfangio/Tecmobowl sockpuppetry case. Chris was in the RfC, and had said that he was gonna follow a topic ban, preventing him from editing all but two articles. Shortly after making that pledge, he violated it, and this was pointed out by Durova, after which Chris said that he completely intended on following it, and that he wouldn't break it again. Durova pointed out that Chris lied about his intent to keep his pledge by violating it shortly after making it.

But you do make some good points. It is best to keep a cooler head as much as possible. I haven't ever used vulgarity, and the only times any of my edits have contained vulgar language was when I was quoting somebody else's vulgar language. Ksy92003(talk) 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to send you an email

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)[reply]

Punkin

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)[reply]

Rosanna

Okay, okay. :) Have you heard about the recent incident with that song between Paich and Steve Lukather? --Bloodzombie 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Too recent. I'm stuck in the 80s. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMI

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration

Dear Baseball Bugs/Archive003, you have been listed as a party in an arbitration request. Please click here for the request. Regards, nat^tang 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10-Roger. Thanks. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLP

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wrigley1950composite.JPG)

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)[reply]

email

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)

Shea Stadium logo

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)[reply]

Looks good to me, but the deletionists will have the last word. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago White Stockings

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)[reply]

Not the same team, technically. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't the 'year established' be changed on the top on the infobox? Huphelmeyer 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It once said 1876, and I'm going to re-set it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Rivera

Ouch. Not a big Rivera fan, eh? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

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)[reply]

Re diegesis

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)[reply]

Ol' Dionysus instantly weighed in with an impressive rant. As for the article, to hell with it. So you laid claim to Bugs. Hmmm. I'd like to be Porky (keeping his head while all around him go nuts: "I'm s-s-sorry, but you're just not Robin Hood.") but I may be closer to Daffy Duck. [sigh]. Jim Stinson 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five minutes later: Big D has checked in to say I'm deth-picable. I'm retired, but what excuse has he for having so little to do that's productive? I'm still outta there. Hope to see you again around the Wiki. Jim Stinson 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Barrymore "soul searching"

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)[reply]

Transferring discussion to the article page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep it on the article talk page where it belongs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

the "S-word"

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)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you for investigating. I didn't really think they were literal sockpuppets, but it would be interesting to find out whether they have some "special" relationship, or if it's just that they happen to agree on everything. However, the ArbCom will run its course either way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pics I done took

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)[reply]

World Series revision

Recently, you reverted my revision to the "World Series" article, referring to my revision as an "attempt to belittle MLB":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)[reply]

Metropolis, Illinois

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

Ask an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Chief Wahoo

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)[reply]

And the citations you added were reverted back because they weren't cited appropriately. Also, considering how fast you changed them back, I have to question whether or not those facts are indeed contained within that book. If you are going to cite sources, please do it according to Wikipedia:Cite_sources. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the fact tag on the origin of "Wahoo!" isn't a consideration of whether or not that has ever been a cheer, but if in fact that's where the name originated from. Since many would consider "Wahoo" to be a derogatory remark about Native Americans, that sentence will absolutely need a source (if not many others). Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 03:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If that's the case, I'll format those citations correctly and replace the fact tags. I apologize for the confusion. Cumulus Clouds 04:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Chief Wahoo

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)[reply]

In re: comments on my talk page

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)[reply]

Church of baseball

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)[reply]

I'm in favor of the DH. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh horror! Say it ain't so... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More?

Sorry for cross-threading. What do you think of these?

Baseball History (talk · contribs)
Negro League Committee (talk · contribs)
Robin Hawkins (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]

All blocked and all reverted. What a mess. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help pricing

I need help pricing a baseballcard. Can you help me? -Tobi4242 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plead the Sergeant Schultz defense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???-Tobi4242 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of baseball card prices, "I know nothing! Nothing!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

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)[reply]

BTW, if you're game, I've done some work on a baseball-related article that could use some major help, the 1989 World Series. The description of what happened in the game is very poor, just a series of random bullet points that doesn't tell the story. I would, but I don't know enough about baseball. Plus another series of bullet points about the earthquake. Wikidemo 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it could very well be public domain if it was produced as a public service for the United States government during World War II, which seems to be the case. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was just pestered about this a few days ago. Click on the image - it's on Commons! With a nice description of why. Odd that two people have made the same oversight in one week. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and my bad for not checking the image file link. I'm dubious that this is a free image because the character is obviously copyrighted. Failing to obtain a copyright for the film does not release into the public domain previously copyrighted elements within the film (i.e. the characters). There's some case law on this, I think. This very issue has been discussed at some length over at WP:NONFREE. I don't know if we reached any resolution. But at least he has a claim that it's non-free, and I'm in no mood to pursue this. Wikidemo 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you did, you'd have to go to Commons. I'd be surprised if no discussion has taken place there since they are quite strict about being 100% free and this undoubtedly raised some eyebrows. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted it strictly based on the information at Commons claiming it's public domain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cinemaniac

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)[reply]

That was awhile ago. Refresh my memory. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soitenly! Go to Talk:Daffy Duck and look under About the lisp and Happy Birthday, Daffy!. Here's the reason that debate started: You jokingly discarded Daffy's middle name as Dumas, and I later came out and apologized for editing that into the The Scarlet Pumpernickel page; during that apology, I also raised questions over whether or not Leon Schlesinger was the true inspiration for Daffy Duck's lisp. You then quickly apologized for calling me an ignoramus and then elaborated on your thoughts about Daffy's nonexistent middle name and the Chuck Jones/Bob Clampett feud. In a series of ongoing postings we both offered up vindication for both of our arguments and points...until User:BrianSmithson dropped by and argued for both stories about Daffy Duck's lisp origins to be included. USER:WAVY 10 also passed by and commented positively on my short mini-essay about Daffy Duck's resurgence. With the dispute about who originated Daffy Duck's lisp all but over, we all parted ways. Shortly afterward, however, you yourself responded to one of my postings on the talkpage over the cut the cards gag in the Marx Brothers film Horse Feathers. More recently (last month, in fact, you and I and another user had a discussion on Talk:Bugs Bunny over some vandalism concerning Bugs Bunny's "death". Any of that ring a bell? :D --- Cinemaniac 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Now it's coming back to me. For the record, the term I used was "ignoranimous", which is Bugsy's ironically ignorant way of calling someone else ignorant. :) And I also recall the alleged "death" of Bugs Bunny, which is a funny concept in that you can't kill something that's not actually alive. Alrighty then, may your cinemania continue. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Cinemaniac 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's one loose end of our old Daffy Duck discussion that needs to be tied up. In that old debate, you brought up the possibility that Leon Schlesinger had only a slight lisp that was wildly exxaggerated by the animatorss for use by Daffy Duck. Well, I just recently re-watched Friz Freleng's 1940 animation/live-action hybrid short, You Ought To Be in Pictures---and it appears that you are right. Schlesinger doesn't have much of a lisp, if any at all, when he talks to Porky. I've also seen some old Christmas gag reels from the Termite Terrace crew that feature the boss, and there still doesn't seem tobe much of a speech impediment in his voice. Just thought I'd let ya know. -- Cinemaniac 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading somewhere that Blanc had overdubbed Schlesinger's voice in You Ought to be in Pictures, but after seeing it, I wasn't convinced. And if it's not much in evidence in the gag reels, where presumably it was actually him (though maybe not), then they probably just exaggerated it. Something else to keep in mind, that if I'm recalling correctly, might be the missing piece of that puzzle: In Daffy's debut in Daffy Duck and Egghead, Daffy only has a slight lisp, if I'm remembering right, and if so, then perhaps his original voice was not so far from Schlesinger's, and it just grew in exaggeration over time. In fact, in thinking more about it, that's probably the case. I don't think Daffy's slobbering was as strong in My Favorite Duck, for example, as it was in his later work. The WB cartoonists also caricatured Friz Freleng as their inspiration for Yosemite Sam, but Friz was not nearly (1) that short or (2) possessing that much facial hair. Don't know about the voice, but I expect that was a wild exaggeration also. Ya see, what artists do is take an "inspiration piece" and run with it, making it something separate and unique. As an out-of-left-field example, the Buddy Holly song "Peggy Sue" was inspired by a girl that a band member was dating, but from the artistic standpoint the song isn't really about that Peggy Sue, it's about anyone who can relate to the situation in the song. One clue to that is the subtlety of the line "You recall a girl that's been in nearly every song". "That girl" is anyone that anyone who hears the song might relate to. And that "universality" is what makes it art. (Shazam, my high school training is coming back to me.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Beck, a recognized authority in animation history, has confirmed in print and in an audio commentary for the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 2, that Leon Schlesinger's real voice was, in fact, utilized for the aforementioned cartoon. -- Cinemaniac 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out the cartoon when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lisp is only in evidence during his "The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down" song. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh--do you mean The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down song from Daffy Duck and Egghead? Yes, that's one of the only times I hear Daffy (I assume we're talking about Daffy!) lisp in his first few years. -- Cinemaniac 13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. And it's obviously drawn in a different style and presumably recorded at a different time than the soundtrack for the rest of the cartoon. Either way, it's a zany cartoon - Daffy is a total anarchist in that one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lehrer

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)[reply]

I don't believe you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Further discussion was on that talk page, and it's a no-win, so it's over-and-out now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Baseball names

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

Good idea. St. Louis, St. Paul, etc. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked your title "Church of Baseball", considering that the premier book on ballparks and their histories is titled Green Cathedrals. It all just works for me. -- Couillaud 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Josh Gibson discussion

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)[reply]

Aftermath?

Please Explain what a "wikibreak" is. Does this simply mean that YSG is going into lurking mode and that he will return in his full glory to wreak further havoc in another month or two? All we gain is a brief break from his actions is that's true. I want some teeth put into this. Do you think there will be real action on this one, or has YSG simply made a stategic retreat? I'm not sure I believe him anyway, as many untruths as he told in a short time during this fight.

I used to deal with a murderer (who killed my eldest goddaughter) over the last few years (before and just after his trial and conviction), and one of the things I've noticed about him is his shifting rationales for why things happened, and how he is really an misunderstood altruistic guy, and how he has been the victim of the most amazing coincidences and most evil conspiracies. Nothing is ever his fault. Everything happens to him, and despite his best efforts to be good. I'm beginning to see parallels with other people I have to deal with (no names here).

The original troll who started the war on "King's Daughters" came back tonight, and I put in a note to WKnight94 to remind him of his original threat to block the entire range if the guy started trolling again, but it may have gotten lost in the other excitement, so I reminded him.

You want to know the funniest thing about YSG's accusation that my use of cojones was meant to reflect badly on his hispanic heritage? The name "Couillaud" (a surname of one of my Québecois ancestors) literally translates as "one with large testicles". Coincidence? I think not :-).

I will be out of town tomorrow (believe it or not, I'm going to tour a maximum security prison tomorrow, by sheer coincidence the one where my goddaughter's killer resides) and will not be able to do much editing until next week, but I'd really like to completely revise the Gibson article, with one of the first major changes being the incorporation of BRMo's table of Gibson's career stats. We can talk about the fact that the numbers do not reflect the true achievements of the man, but they are the most accurate and the best record of what he did against major-league quality competition. It can be pointed out that he is anecdotally credited with x number of home runs in 19-whatever, with the obvious caveat that it is unknowable what level of competition he faced in those games, though it is known that he did face a large number of amateur and semi-pro pitching. It MIGHT be something to be proud of.

-- Couillaud 04:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made bail after my trip. :-) It is a seriously sobering experience to see the inside of a prison like that and realize that the men inside are spending the rest of their lives there (I was told the average stay was 30 years). The visit was educational but otherwise (thankfully) uneventful, and I'll be working most of the next week or two on a couple personal programming projects, and my actual job is nearing year-end work, so my time for Wikipedia may be more limited anyway for the remainder of 2007.

My remarks about comparing a cold-blooded killer to an internet troll was not meant to be in the way of actions or motivation, but in the way that both (and many others) can rationalize any actions they take, and can mentally shift blame to anyone but themselves. I have seen more people than I care to count do rude, dishonest, and/or deliberately hurtful things, and then flatly deny that they did so, simply rationalizing that we either misunderstood their actions or their intentions. My experience with seeing it in real life in such an extreme manner simply makes me unfortunately much less tolerant of such rationalizations.

I will work on the info box on Gibson, and try to treat it as a template for Negro Leaguers in general. There is a lot of information we don't have on most Negro Leaguers, so we may have to work out a consensus on what information should be commonly presented, such as full name, birth/death data, seasons range and teams played for, rookie and final seasons, lifetime BA and HR (or W-L) as best known, HoF election year (if applicable); and anything else that seems appropriate.

One of the caveats that should specifically apply to Gibson's statistics is that Negro League players of the mid '30s through the end of segregated leagues played fewer official games per season than did their counterparts in the 20s and early 30s, and that a higher percentage of those games never made it into box scores. According to Larry Lester, co-chair of SABR-NLC, Gibson may have lost as many as 40 Negro League HR in games that were reported but never produced a box score. While we are pretty sure there were an additional 40 HR, we don't know how many at bats it took, how many total hits (not to mention other extra-base hits) were there as well. His lifetime BA might raise a couple of points, or drop that many. With the current state of research, we don't know. What we DO know is that the number will never be as high as "nearly 800"; we're just not missing THAT may games.

All the same, we should find a way to mention that Gibson suffers unfairly in comparison to Oscar Charleston and Turkey Stearnes in terms of lifetime stats for those two reasons.

-- Couillaud 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shenanigans?

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)[reply]

No, not Liebman. Just general lies. But I thought maybe you'd have sources that could prove one way or the other. Only one of the edits has been reverted so far but I think the rest need to be as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gibson

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)[reply]

Riley gets his numbers from a variety of different sources, but almost never lists the source. His book is known to contain conflicting data, as if gathered from conflicting sources without reconciling the differences. He is more an author than a researcher in this regard, as he has not done as much original research as his book might seem to reflect.

-- Couillaud 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brown

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed

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)[reply]

Hallelujah. Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Tag "Rule" Reply

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)[reply]

True, but as I had said, the user had taken off a trivia tag, so that was the real main issue. Whammies Were Here 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the guy's past history (and what just recently happened), it wasnt no one time thing. I see he hit another page taking off the tag, and an admin got him. I am not a fan of the trivia tag that they put in trivia sections, but I just go along with what has been the way things have gone. And thanks. I have been meaning to get to fixing that trivia section up anyway to incorporate the info into the article. but got either sidetracked, or just completly forgot about it. Whammies Were Here 11:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clearing help

Thanks. Did not know how to do that. Whammies Were Here 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Hopefully that clears it up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pledge

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)[reply]

Marx redux

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)[reply]

The Onion

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)[reply]

We can't do OR on Wikipedia, but on Wikinews OR is encouraged; it's meant to be a news and research website. The OR policy can often be misconstrued because many of us--myself included--tend to look at everything through a Wikipedia lens. So, if Wikipedia was the source of the interview, it would be a problem. Where would we put it? We couldn't create an article around one interview, which would fail WP:N. Wikinews has an accreditation system and its reporters can conduct OR, which can often help to flesh out some areas on pages--e.g. the history of The Onion's name--where there are problems by talking directly to the people involved with the subject of the article. But it's a Wikinews function as a sister project, to compliment Wikipedia. You should consider doing some work over at Wikinews. --David Shankbone 16:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably just a campus rumor that spread. I should have the interview published in the next few hours. I'll post a link to it here. --David Shankbone 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory, but not pertinent to the page since we go by WP:V:

Sean: People always ask questions about where the name The Onion came from, and when I recently asked Tim Keck, who was one of the founders, he told me the name—I’ve never heard this story about ‘see you at the un-yun’—he said it was literally that his Uncle said he should call it The Onion when he saw him and Chris Johnson eating an onion sandwich. They had literally just cut up the onion and put it on bread.

Chet: Yeah, their food budget when they started this publication was so low they were down to white bread and onions.

--David Shankbone 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take their word over someone else's musing. --David Shankbone 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our role to question them, they have no reason to lie, and they have more veracity than some uncited source who thinks it has something to do with a student union (as if that makes sense, but again, there's no reason to lie). Regardless, all this discussion about whether they tell the truth is irrelevant to our policies and guidelines. --David Shankbone 18:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Vandalism

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)[reply]

The project talk page [16] says cartoon animals ARE included. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wrigley

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)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Popeye and Betty.JPG

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)[reply]

Re: Fair use

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)[reply]

"And" means both. If it said "Identification or critical commentary", then you would be right that using it simply for identification is acceptable. But that is not what it says. --Deskana (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand what the word "critical" means in this context. Critic gives some explanation as to what critical means in this context. Either way, commentary on the film in question would not be appropriate in that article, as it is outside the scope of the article. This essentially means that the use of that image in that article is not allowed, but not its use in articles that actually contain commentary on the film itself. --Deskana (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is being used for identification (which it would be, if it's in the article on the cartoon) and critical commentary, then yes, that is acceptable fair use. There also need to be as few images as is required to convey the point, but given the article only has one image, this would seem to be acceptable, yes. --Deskana (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline before reverting like you did here. Saying that the image is for illustration and "educational" (aren't they all?) is not at all sufficient. Dmcdevit·t 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase. Please read and follow Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

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)[reply]

The West Side Park pic

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)[reply]

Image troubles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]