User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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!

[edit] Are you Wakeenah?

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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] re: McDonald's

My reply is at User_talk:Flyguy649#McDonald.27s. Let me know if you have any more questions. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Protection policy: Semi-protection disables editing from anonymous users and registered accounts fewer than four days old. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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. this is how it would appear on the banner. What do you think?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So you think the Fliescher image would be better?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
I used your suggestion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Re:Yankees

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Cap Anson

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

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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
PS I just added a comment to the talk page reminding them. Wikidan829 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Could you give me an example? Wikidan829 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Agreed. There's no effort on his part to try to reach a consensus on any issue. Alansohn 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Sr13 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally misread what you said; my bad :) Sr13 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

In this link, Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 admitted to being Tecmobowl. Odd, no? It looks more like Tecmobowl is Blacksoxfan than that he simply knows Blacksoxfan. IrishGuy talk 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia. Could be coincidence...but I think not. IrishGuy talk 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have your email turned on? Drop me a line. IrishGuy talk 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Yeah, you check that box and then fill in an email address. IrishGuy talk 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Test sent. IrishGuy talk 23:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Following me?

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

[edit] Age?

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


[edit] 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)

No problem, I was just kidding. Cheers! --Tom 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
I'm sure its fine. Its almost impossible to break things around here :) Cheers! --Tom 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Drop the % to .667, and the list balloons to 40 teams. .700 it is. Vidor 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)


[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

He's been doing this since, what, late April? So the answer is, sadly, no. :( -Ebyabe 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The original user ID goes back to late January. Baseball Bugs 19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see another Rob Liebman sock came back before, User:Hotrodharry. I hope he gives up someday, but I doubt that. I still wonder what the real Rob Liebman will say about all this... Momusufan 03:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
Its your talk page and you can do whatever you want. Peace.--†Sir James Paul† 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I also have no problem if you do that.--†Sir James Paul† 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability are the standards for what is a good citation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Actually, they're not. The word "verify" means "to make true". Baseball Bugs 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)