User talk:Dewelar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Phillies all-time roster

Thanks for this. Making my job easier. — KV5 • Talk • 00:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		Because I feel that even edits like the above should be recognized. Cheers! — KV5 • Talk • 00:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers again. — KV5 • Talk • 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipe Edit Tip

Thanks for that info! Arnabdas (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: James Lemon

If you ever do find anything about him also being the GWU coach, please let me know (more out of personal interest than anything). This is one of those cases where it is a probably, most likely, can't-be-anybody-else scenario, but since there's nothing to verify it we have to assume they're different.

Also, I really like the "can't retire" bar at the top of your page. I may or may not steal that at some point, because I've tried to retire a few times over the years but keep finding myself saying, "Oh! I can write about *that* too!" etc. WikiAddiction. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Rich McKinney

I'm not even slightly interested in getting into an edit war with you, however, the way you changed the infobox on Rich McKinney was completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.22.197 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanneraol pointed out to me that years and team names are to be linked each time in an infobox. Believe me, you are wrong about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.22.197 (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny, because I've had people tell me the opposite, or just remove the links altogehter (Wizardman being one such person). I've restored them for now, because I just don't care enough. That still doesn't give you the excuse to remove content, or screw up links, as you have been doing. -Dewelar (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've not screwed up content. Please... I happen to agree with you to a degree on the linking in the infoboxes, by the way. I'm of the opinion it should only be linked once. That said, you didn't link them at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.22.197 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont much care about the years but the teams in the list of teams should all be linked as has been the common practice... thats all I said.. It just looks bad if some of the teams arent linked... The first played and last played team sections dont need to be linked. Spanneraol (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, you're right, I didn't link the years. That's because that's what I was told to do, as I mentioned above. Since Spanneraol jumped in here, I will edit my comment to agree with him. I have no issue with team linking, but I've been told by Wizardman not to link years. In any case, I've disagreed with both editors before, but have found them both to be excellent and level-headed contributors.

That said, perhaps you aren't aware, but when you reverted my change the last two times, you removed content that I'd added to the article at the same time. I presumed you knew that, but if you didn't, I apologize for getting upset, and you may disregard the warnings I placed on your talk page. -Dewelar (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of years, i would agree that not linking the first and last year sections would be preferable... I have no preference on the team years, I tend to not do it when I add an info box mostly because it takes more time.. but I'm fine with it either way. Spanneraol (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reasoning, I believe, for not linking years is that proper MOS formatting of a year range is to drop the century from the second year (e.g., 1973-75 is correct, not 1973-1975). That means you can't use the "by" template for ranges. I only fixed it because originally the infobox listed McKinney's time with Oakland as 1973-1977, but he didn't play with them in '76, so I had to fix that anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just thought i'd give you a heads up that the IP address is User:Johnny Spasm, who was blocked numerous times, with the most recent being for 3 months for removal of content. Seems to me like he didn't learn and has coninued to unnecessarily remove things.--Yankees10 23:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you care.--Yankees10 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not like there's anything I can do about it if it's true. I know Johnny has had some issues with a number of other editors, but he and I never really clashed that I recall, although his ban appeared to be warranted. Do you have some evidence that this is him? -Dewelar (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for coming out so harsh. I realize there is nothing you can do, I just thought I would let you be aware and when I saw no response I just thought maybe you ignored it. My apologies. Regarding any evidence, its pretty obvious if you look at the edits. The editing styles are exaclty the same.--Yankees10 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looking at his talk page, I also note that one of Johnny's suspected socks also used a 71.3.x.x IP address in the past. Something to keep in mind, thanks. -Dewelar (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Loughlin

I saw that you created Bill Loughlin stub. FYI: I think the "William Loughlin" noted here and here might be the same guy. Cheers! Location (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bundesliga (baseball)

The discussion was here. My take away: if in doubt, leave it out. There's some doubt as to whether the Bundesliga is fully-professional or just semi-pro, so we decided to remove it from the template, as it's for fully-professional leagues, not all top flight leagues. (Semi-pro in this context, as I understand it, means players aren't full-time baseball players, but have other jobs and are only paid as part time work.) If anything, the template should be removed from the article. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor leagues are fully professional in that, during the season, the players are full-time ball players; they have no other job that they perform during the week, while only playing on weekends or such. (The off season may be a different story, but during the season they are full-time, that's what makes them fully professional.)

A combination of paid and unpaid players is the other definition of "semi-pro". That may also be relevant here, as I no one has been able to show that all Bundesliga players are paid. So there's still a matter of doubt.

As for 19th century baseball, while to some extent true that they may be more like modern semi-pro (in the first, part-time players sense), but it's irrelevant, as the template only lists current leagues (note in the page history the removal of leagues that have disbanded, especially in the independent minor leagues). oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point of the template, as I've always understood it, and as the discussion seems to back up, is to list the full-time leagues, that is the ones with full-time players. So excluding part-time semi-pro leagues seems a logical development. oknazevad (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On the matter if the template, I think that it is called "professional baseball" and not "organized baseball" (a broader term that includes formalized semi-pro and amateur leagues) should be sufficient to make clear it's scope.

As for the lists, I actually think we should merge them. The professional baseball article should be merged into the list of organized baseball leagues article, which should then be reorganized not on a geographic basis, but into sections called "professional", "semiprofessional" and "amateur", with the leagues then grouped by geography.

As it stands, the articles are redundant (professional baseball is almost entirely a list; the shirt introduction text can serve as a section introduction to list of organized baseball leagues), and very poorly differentiates between the three classes. The geographic grouping also is deficient at displaying the scope of some of these leagues. Little League may be based in Williamsport, PA, but it has member teams around the world, so listing it solely under North America doesn't cut it. If it were under a "youth" subheading to the "Amateur" section, with a note mentioning its wordwide presence, I think it would be better.

I think I'll draft something in my sandbox and drop a note here when I'm done. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the level of competition. By separating the semi-pro leagues, a reader at a glance can see what sort of quality of play is involved. It also shows the reader the presence of the sport in a country. Countries with fully professional leagues have a greater participation internationally (such as participation in the World Baseball Classic) and typically a stronger "mind share" (for lack of a better term) in the public consciousness. It also aids in determining the notability if an individual player. Generally, it's telling if a country's top league is only semi-pro. We serve the reader best when we make the distinction clear. oknazevad (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Baseball pages

Nice contributions for the Mel Queen and Jim Riley pages. It is always nice to know someone who wants to be part of any baseball project. Keep up the good work and have you a happy day. MusiCitizen (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

MLB

Hi! I'm from Latvian Wikipedia. I really want to write some articles about tha most known MLB players in Latvian, but I don't know about whom should I write in Latvian Wiki. So could you tell me please who are the most known and greatest players (current and all-time) — some 5-10.--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 10:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Big thanks ;) --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 07:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Billy Williams

The disambiguation would remain simply Billy Williams, which contains both ballplayers as it always has. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by what you mean; any hatnote would just go to the Billy Williams page. If you mean that a second disambiguation page should be created for just the baseball player, then that doesn't make any sense. I should note though, that after doing the move I found a third Billy Williams, an umpire, so now I'm not so sure that my moving it was right. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to not only baseball articles, but to the Ray Shearer article in particular. This thank you is also on behalf of Ray's son, Randy Shearer, who is thrilled editors like ourselves take the time to write and maintain these articles. PSUSTATS (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hello Dewelar! I hope you accept this brownie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Top players

Hi again! I just wanted to ask to you: is this list (and this), how to say, "correct" and are they the top players?--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 08:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Height and weight in infobox

Hi ... I seem to have re-started a discussion that you took part in, on a different noticeboard, six months back on the possibility of adding height and weight to the baseball player infobox. Another editor helpfully pointed me to the old discussion. FYI, the current discussion is here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

John Gochnaur

I change John Gochnaur's article because you added a couple of inaccuracies. Every game Gochnaur ever appeared in, it was at shortstop. Therefore, he wasn't primarily a shortstop, he was a shortstop. Also, he played for the Cleveland Bronchos and Naps. He never played for the Indians. I'm also not sure why you chose to remove his career stats. I regularly include career stats in every article I do, and this is the first time anyone has ever removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.42.42 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno if this counts as a question or a comment. The 2 "Citation needed" you added to the article are references made in his "bullpen" entry. I list the fact that pieces of this article come from the bullpen in my sources. FYI: I would LOVE to find more sources on the guy and give him his appropriate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.42.42 (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:A-Z multipage list 2

Template:A-Z multipage list 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

AGF

Hey there. Please remember to always assume good faith. Calling a good faith nomination a joke is not assuming good faith, as it is not a joke, but a mistake. We need to assume good faith if we want to keep this a good environment for collaboration. Thanks.

I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of tolerance for someone who can't be bothered to check the notability guidelines related to a subject before nominating an article related to that subject for deletion. That tolerance is eliminated when that same person also can't be bothered to look at the sources provided in said article to check whether they even have their facts right. AFD'ing an article without doing that kind of basic research means that you're forcing others to do that work for you. That, to me, is not a good faith nomination. YMMV. -Dewelar (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dewelar/Archive 4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

George Barclay (baseball)

I saw your revert on my article name change for George Barclay (baseball). It seems that he's rather notable for his football playing, coaching, and innovation in addition to baseball. So perhaps "baseball" is not the best parenthetical qualifier. Thoughts? Whatever the case, Template:Lafayette Leopards football coach navbox and George Barclay should be kept in line with the primary display name for Barclay. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)