User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] More personal attacks

On the talk page of World Series[1] 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)

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

[edit] Mood wring

I'm on edge.

[edit] 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)

Glad ya' agree. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I need a vacation, as if y'all couldn't tell. Just call me "Otis". Baseball Bugs 02:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for beating User talk:Wknight94 to the draw. :) Baseball Bugs 02:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Got there before me, too :/ - Alison ☺ 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Under 600 now. That's some progress. Baseball Bugs 05:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Prolly not a bad idea. Read up on the policies and stuff ... - Alison ☺ 04:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
*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)
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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

Point out in World Series, and to the user, that citations and references are not possible because the user is not giving us enough to work with. Maybe ask him to provide his "Top 5 Most Questionable Statements" in the article, to at least get started with some improvements. Meanwhile, list some good WS references. Baseball Bugs 17:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

Old comedians: Pete Barbutti IMDB entry

Someone again messing with Cobb in Major League Baseball titles leaders. Baseball Bugs 14:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarify point in Home run about "breaking the plane". An outfielder can catch it past the fence. It can also hit him on the glover or the shoulder or the head, and if it bounces over, it's a home run... kind of a carryover from the old off-the-field-into-the-stands-home-run rule. Baseball Bugs 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
Yes, I saw that as well. He never made the majors, did he? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... now you've got me. I'll have to check on that. Baseball Bugs 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Rodney McCray (baseball) in 1991. He played in the majors for awhile. Baseball Bugs 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Vandalisms

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

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)

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

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)
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)

Done. Copy and paste, easy easy. 24.6.65.83 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Much obliged. In 22 hours I won't have to beg for this help. :) Baseball Bugs 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
Seems the issue has finally been dealt with. -WarthogDemon 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
I posted the link to HDW's "contributions", so hopefully the admin will get the message. Baseball Bugs 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Drop the attitude

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

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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Bridge

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

  • 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)

[edit] Attendance at Fenway

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

[edit] 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)

I did not want a userpage and I said so on my talk page. You should have asked before creating it for me. I actually wanted to remain a "red-linked" user. Being bold is not always necessary. --User101010 22:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that one of the things you learned today is that you don't edit another person's user page. --User101010 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. 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)

[edit] 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)

Sehr gut. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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 [2] 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)
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)
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)
This behavior is not helpful. --Abu badali (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Perfectly Insane

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

[edit] "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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

You should stop taking it out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you at least explain why you think it's relevant? 136.152.181.234 20:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's explained. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
He's doing the same kind of stuff on other websites' pages. [3] 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)

[edit] 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 [4]) Maybe I'll go back to quieter subjects lest I get a reputation. Kablammo 00:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you like this?

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

[edit] No God

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

and also, please dont try to start debates on my talk page. Connör (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. sorry. Connör (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
10-4. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] Re: your question about The Shining

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

  1. 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.
  2. Halloran's ability to "shine" is not as stong as Danny's.
  3. 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 1918 World Series

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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. SoxrockTalk/Edits 12:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT) 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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. SoxrockTalk/Edits 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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 SoxrockTalk/Edits 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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 SoxrockTalk/Edits 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (yes, I keep tweaking my sig)
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? SoxrockTalk/Edits 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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?) SoxrockTalk/Edits 05:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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. SoxrockTalk/Edits 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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). SoxrockTalk/Edits 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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. SoxrockTalk/Edits 05:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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. SoxrockTalk/Edits 06:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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 SoxrockTalk/Edits 06:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Punkin

Well, thanks for clarifying. I thought it was perhaps a typo, but I'm ok with it now. SoxrockTalk/Edits 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration

Dear Baseball Bugs/Archive004, you have been listed as a party in an arbitration request. Please click here for the request. Regards, nattang 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

10-Roger. Thanks. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

The information was not originally from The Smoking Gun. The Village Voice posted this article [6] stating: "If you want a sense of the zeal with which Yankees front-office employees were shoveling as many receipts at taxpayers as possible in 2005 (as reported in this week's Voice), look no further than this: Accidentally included in a stack of paperwork from a road trip the Yanks took to Seattle the last week of August 2005 was a crib sheet explaining which player and coach names went with which hotel-room pseudonyms, presumably so that bookkeeping could know who was running up the room service bills." WhisperToMe 01:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So this is the point you are trying to make, right?

"News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[4] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews."

So, the "Village Voice News" doesn't seem to be a "tabloid" in the sense of a gossip magazine (the magazine mostly focuses on art and culture), and the paper is owned by New Times Media (which also publishes works like Houston Press) - So it appears to be a reliable source.

Matsui is an encyclopedic person, one.

Two, Wikipedia's definition of gossip is "Gossip consists of casual or idle talk between friends. While ostensibly value neutral, the term often specifically refers to talk of scandal, slander, or schadenfreude relating to known associates of the participants, and discussed in an underhand or clandestine manner. Compare backbiting." - Even though the headline states that the aliases are "Super Secret" as if it is the most forbidden thing in the world, the act of using an alias to avoid fan attention is perfectly reasonable, and I do not see how this information is scandalous or slanderous. The main point is that Matsui has used aliases while traveling in order to avoid unwanted fan attention, and his action of doing so is reasonable.

The part about "why" the names were chosen IS speculation, so that is omitted. WhisperToMe 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

Not the same team, technically. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Then shouldn't the 'year established' be changed on the top on the infobox? Huphelmeyer 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Mariano Rivera

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

why are you being elusive. Why can't you talk right here. This is what it's for. I don't want to follow all over Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

the article page is locked for now. I never accused you or Monkey of religious fanaticism. I said... if you had a problem with religion or religious stance. Two different things. And Im not Liebman or whoever the hell you were referring to. If you're having a dispute/disagreement with somebody else do not confuse him/her with me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)
  • 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)

Well, I would have concerns about using that book as a citation since I can't independently verify that the material is contained within it. Since it is a print citation, it is very difficult to confirm such information and makes a somewhat poor reference in this context. Further, since you simply copy and pasted that link into the space where the fact tags had been, I have concerns about whether you can verify that information independently, either. If you can find a better source online (and cite it correctly) that would be preferable over a print source. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Print sources are a valid source, my only concern was that since that reference was listed under "references" without a citation, that it would be difficult to ascertain which part of the article the original editor wanted to use that reference for. Therefore, it would be difficult for us to presume that the material you want to reference it with is actually contained in the book. If you have a copy and can confirm this is the case, I would have no problem replacing that reference. Cumulus Clouds 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? DurovaCharge! 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the DH. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh horror! Say it ain't so... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More?

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

I see 149.4.108.66 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), 207.159.196.253 (talk • contribs • info • 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)

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

[edit] Help pricing

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

I plead the Sergeant Schultz defense. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
???-Tobi4242 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of baseball card prices, "I know nothing! Nothing!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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. DurovaCharge! 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

That was awhile ago. Refresh my memory. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks. --Cinemaniac 18:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I'll check out the cartoon when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] Shenanigans?

You'd be more familiar with these than I... are any of the edits by 70.113.73.42 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) factual? My gut says no... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] In Remembrance...

Remembrance Day


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Hallelujah. Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] clearing help

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

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

[edit] 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. —ScouterSig 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

The project talk page [7] says cartoon animals ARE included. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] The Star-Spangled Banner

See that article's talk page for the reason that I used a super-scripted "C" on "McHenry". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely missing the point. The reason I put it in superscript was to make it clear to those who insisted on trying to put an apostrophe there. Now, you're going to start that cycle all over again. Thanks for nothing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you are missing the point, unless you have a reference, you are engaged in WP:OR. Anybody that puts an apostrophe there would also be engaged in OR unless they have a reference. Either way, their/your edits will be reverted.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A reference? It's in the document. Some folks with less-than-keen eyesight were switching it to an apostrophe, in fact the image name itself has it that way, which is incorrect, but that can't easily be helped. You're basically creating unnecessary extra work down the road. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
When or if someone starts putting the apostrophes back in again, I'll let you handle it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Good, I enjoy banning people.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Banning them over whether a tiny character in an 1814 document is a superscript "C" or an apostrophe? Tell me another one. I need some more laughs today. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The decline and fall of practicall everybody

Haven't we been through this before? I reverted you addition to Thutmosis II. I didn't find it funny or relevant, sorry. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And now I reverted you own addition. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you very much! I'm glad I could help. Bláthnaid 13:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added rationales to about 1,000 images by this stage, so I've had a lot of practise :) Bláthnaid 14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There are examples of some fair use rationale templates here, which you might find helpful. Bláthnaid 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I fixed a few of them. I don't want to do too many, as I fear the deletionists will still clobber them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you go through the images you have uploaded in the past and make sure that each one has a copyright tag, a source, and a fair use rationale, the images won't be tagged for speedy deletion. I realise that it is tedious, but it is important that Wikipedia's images comply with the non free content criteria. If you need help with doing that, feel free to leave me a message and I'll help as best I can. All the best, Bláthnaid 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball players article

There was no way that article could have passed WP:NOT#IINFO. Tell me how it can and I won't next time. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, it wouldn't last long before it hits CFD. See WP:OVERCAT as well. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Adding information to individual player articles instead, if not already there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have now passed the line with your disruptive editing techniques and habits towards other Wikipedians, which is made up of a list headed by: personal attacks; incivility; relentless and abusive comments directed at a small group of users.

Your contributions have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to edit constructively and work alongside other editors, rather than against them. Further to this, I have blocked you for 5 days. During the block, you should reconsider your editing habits here, and I strongly advise you to drastically amend them.

Anthøny 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I need the time off. Thank you for granting my wish request. [8] :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see ya blocked. Oh, well, it's only a temporary one that will last for a few more days. . . . The proposed "Looney Tunes on TV" article discussion will continue unimpeded, and, I hope, by the time your back, we'll soon have reached consensus on what to do. — Cinemaniac (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind. There was a fairly intense response, but agreement has been reached: there will be no individual article concerning the Looney Tunes television broadcast history. . . . Oh well—at least we tried. — Cinemaniac (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wizard of Oz

In the article on this film, you added The Wicked Witch of the East to the parts played by Margaret Hamilton. Actually, only the legs of the WWOTE are shown in the film and she has no speaking lines, so I don't think this addition would be correct.Thomprod (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That was Hamilton on the broomstick flying outside the window. Dorothy's song indicates that was the witch she saw out her window, the witch of the east, upon whom the house fell. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point--I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. Thomprod (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind note on my talkpage. I don't think I could retire even if I wanted to! I was a bit stressed about things unrelated to Wikipedia that day, and consequentially overreacted and blanked my userpage when {{db-spam}} was put on an article I had just created. I'm not usually so melodramatic (at least I hope I'm not!). Merry Christmas, Bláthnaid 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop vandalizing

Please stop vandalizing the Gopher football board. Your change has been reverted multiple times and you keep changing it back. Teams "compete" in conferences. Saying that a team "competes" in the Big Ten is an accurate description and is not a POV issue. You want to make a joke about a team having a bad year which is putting your POV into the article, an obvious violation of NPOV which has no place in Wikipedia. Gopherguy | Talk 19:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I call it like I see it. You came to the Gopher football page and changed the word "compete" to "play" and left a comment of "Let's not overstate the situation" as your reason for the change. You decided to make a joke at the expense of the Minnesota football program due to their bad season this year. That is the very DEFINITION of an NPOV issue. Then, after it was changed back, you changed it again with the comment (and I left your misspelling in) "The do play in the Big 10. Saying they 'compete' is POV-pushing, especially for a team that finished 1-11" showing that yet again, you were making the change in order to demean the program.
Your statement that I am a POV-pusher because of my name is ridiculous. Yes, I am a fan of the Gopher football team. If Wikipedia barred anyone who had an interest in a subject from editing a page on that subject, the pages would be pretty small and uninteresting. My name is irrelevant - the issue is you trying to force in your "hilarious" joke that a team that has a single bad season doesn't "compete".
Finally, your statement that you're using "neutral terms as used in other articles" is wrong. Sure, some articles use the word "play" instead of compete. However, use of "compete" is just as common. See Michigan Wolverines football, Iowa Hawkeyes football, Michigan State Spartans football, Indiana Hoosiers football, Purdue Boilermakers football, and Illinois Fighting Illini football as examples of this. Are you going to go to all of those pages and change "compete" to "play" too? Or do you only do it to teams you want to insult?
Leave the Gopher football page alone. Your sarcasm has no place on that page or in Wikipedia.Gopherguy | Talk 09:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have as much right to edit that page as you do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to the other pages. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
And I reiterate that while "compete" is generally a valid English word, in the case of college football its usage amounts to sales-and-marketing hype. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
And stop calling me a vandal just because you don't agree with my viewpoint. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You obviously have not paid attention to how sporting teams describe themselves. Saying that a team "competes" in a division, conference or league is the standard way of referring to the team. It is much more accurate than saying that they "play" in the league. The English word "play" doesn't necessarily imply that there is any kind of win/loss competition going on, but "compete" does.
If you're not a vandal, why don't you explain to me the comments you accompanied your edits with? Please try to make a case that you weren't violating NPOV. Until you can do that, you have no basis to keep making these edits.Gopherguy | Talk 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
My comments are a mixture of satire and fact. I've been on here almost 3 years, so enough already with the "vandalism" garbage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Your comments confirm the reason why you made the change in the first place. Wikipedia is not a comedy showcase, it is an online encyclopedia. If you keep editing that page, then it is time to start a discussion on the talk board so we can put this to an end with a consensus. Gopherguy | Talk 15:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Gopher it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also undone your edit of Iowa Hawkeyes football. Competing is different than playing. Just to let you know, your persistant vandalism has been brought up at WikiProject College football. Now would be a good time to let go of your little joke. Users with the power to suspend/ban your account will get involved. Iowa13 (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do just that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look familiar?

Jose cartagena... Even includes SABR edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image removal

I see you removed the Chris Young photo from Wrigley Field. Do you believe it is malplaced in the article or malplaced within the article? Note it demonstrates both the playable foul territory bullpen and the scoreboard. I realize it is an opposing player. However, the image was from a very memorable day if you recall the Young-Derek Lee brawl. Get back to me and let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many WP:FPs are included in the article, but this was a good opportunity to add at least one. The point of the picture is not merely to illustrate the bleachers, but also, the scoreboard, and the unusual bullpen location. I believe that this picture will be on the main page on Opening Day, so it is a decent picture for a baseball article. Do you think there is a section where it would be appropriately placed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you throw out a caption that you think would be appropriate to demonstrate that this is a relevant photo despite being of an opposition player and tell me what section you feel it would be best placed in. I would appreciate the feedback on both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
At 1024x768 the images aren't overstacked to the point that they flow out of the section. This is the most common resolution from what I am told. I prefer to veiw at a much higher resolution where it is a minor problem, but I think the images should be reduced to 150px anyways. I have captioned the image. Let me know your thoughts. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I am becoming an exposure hog, but I am going to add the picture to scoreboard which could use an old hand operated board.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Since I took the picture it is free. You can see looking at the image page it is already on a lot of pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Soup

As you can tell by viewing the current revision of this article, I've made quite a bit of progress with it. I think I've sourced everything that really needed to be sourced. D'you think I should remove the "refimprove" tag now? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And the same goes for Zeppo Marx's page. What should I do there? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say most—if not all—of the sources I referenced on both pages are all quite reputable, so I'll go ahead and remove the tags. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, could you review the following pages: Duck Soup, A Night at the Opera, Monkey Business, and Zeppo Marx? I think I expanded the articles fairly well, although I'm sure there are other—and, I have no doubt, better—ways to present the information they contain. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now submitted Duck Soup for peer review in order to find out some better ways to improve the article's (and other Marx Brothers articles) quality. If you're interested in leaving feedback, you can go to the article's talk page and follow the link. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
So far, there's only been one response to my submission of Duck Soup for critiques. However, the editor supplied some good observations, and even stated that "this article has good potential for Featured Article Status". Well, there's my New Year's resolution: Improve Duck Soup to FA quality and get it nominated. It would be nice to have the Marx Brother's magnum opus as a featured article, eh? I'll need your help, though, in that regard, as well as assistance from others. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrigley Field

I rearranged the stacked pictures using {{double image}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop!

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Minnesota Golden Gophers football, you will be blocked from editing. Consensus has been reached that "compete" is the correct term - it's time for you to accept that and move on.

The above warning also applies to your vandalism of Iowa Hawkeyes football. Iowa13 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
And Michigan Wolverines football. michfan2123 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would, indeed, welcome the chance for a wider audience to have the chance to weigh in on this semantics issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compete vs. Member

I no longer care what you have to say about the matter. Stop vandalizing or I will have you banned. The fact that you are a Wikipedia veteran does not give you the right to persistently vandalize. Iowa13 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would, indeed, welcome the chance for a wider audience to have the chance to weigh in on this semantics issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It is your responsibility to accumulate a wider audience. The WikiProject College football talk page is open to everyone. No restrictions were made on who could weigh in on the issue. Anyone could speak up, and, of the seven who did, seven spoke for "compete". This has been going for a week now, and there is a complete consensus against you. If you bring someone else to the table who agrees with you, we may reopen the discussion. Until then, it is considered closed and any further changes you make to the discussed articles are considered vandalism. Iowa13 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

Note to self: Customize own version to take away the "anti" part. Not anti-administrator. Just don't want to be one. Power in the wrong hands... >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contact the authorities?

Per this pleasantry, you might want to contact the authorities. They're more than happy to pay a visit to people who make threats like that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me bugs, I would like to applogize the guy that said to that on his behlaf, He is my idoit friend that has been being idoit. I just had a "stern" talking right now for saying that. He hacked my name and pw. Okay, he was using my ip address. I said to him you better not do that again okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado91 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, I am appogizing on behalf of my idoic drunken friend that is stupid enought to say that. He was drunk listing to the Doors- The End song; you might know has the f word, and says kill okay. He was being stupid to listen to it on Itunes okay. He was not going to hurt , he cant fight okay. So he is an idoit. Okay , he was drinking to early for new years eve okay. So on behlaf of my friend I am sorry for this incident. He was the one that keeps editing that Bhutto page also. He knew my pw some how, he found it somewhere. I'm applogzing on behalf he is the one that posted that bullcrap. Okay. So wknight94 , I appolgize for the dammage my friend did . Okay , I just talked to him right now, told him to get out of my house , he is not welcome there for a while. He is was just drinking too much. Okay.Eldorado91 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me , Baseball Bugs. I asked you to give this "user" that made those "threats" on your user page a second chance. This might sound a little unorthodox , but this person said on your talk pages , and on Wknight94 talk page they were sorry. Baseball Bugs, if this person didnt have a heart or didnt show a emotion to what they did why did they say they were sorry on your talk page. They must have a heart. People in the world they make mistakes , but deserve second chaneces. And also this person if was this "big bad tough" pyscho they would gone and done this again. Also, I think the person should be given a second chance I dont think they would do it again. Iron Valley (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IM sorry

Bugs, I'm appoligzing on behalf of my idoitic friend who thought it was stupid enought to listen to The Doors song THE END and drinl some beers while on my computer . I didnt he was on there , I was away from my pc. He was just an idoit having the end on his i tunes playlist for 5 times. If you know the song it says the f word , and kill in the end. He was just being an idoitic moron typing that pretending he was Jim Morrison okay. So on behalf of him I am sorry for this okay. Also Baseball Bugs, he was spaming the Behnzhair Buhtto page, on this name. He seem to know my passwords I never give them out. I dont know who Bhutto is until I herd on Saturday who she was okay. Okay, I didnt spam the talk page of that okay. My friend was the one that messes around with that stuff I dont do that okay. He is just a moron that doesnt have a girlfriend and spends his afternoons at my house to get on the pc while wathc movies on the other room. I told him everyday dont mess with my pc , or its settings he doesnt respect my rules. I told him reeateldy "ddue quit your crap". Okay So in behalf of my moron friend I'm for "those threats". Anyway , he wouldnt do it. He is just to stupid to say it okay.Eldorado91 (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No worries.

Always a pleasure to get rid of crap like that :-) - It's my personal opinion (on the above), that one should always press these matters to the authorities. People have to learn that making threats is a serious business. But that's just my view. Tell me what you decide to do! Good luck, take care and Happy New Year! ScarianCall me Pat 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be incredibly ironic if that was where I got it from... But dang, sorry. "What's up Doc?" reminds me of... that blade of grass that I picked last summer... it doesn't really, but I thought I'd be original somehow, rather than killing the obvious :-) Take care, friend! ScarianCall me Pat 01:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppet?

What are you talking about I am not a sockpuppet okay. I am just asking for forgiveness. If I get a pardon. I am going to make a promise to make sure this never happens again. It was my friend that this. And also I dont know what a sockpupper is. What are guys talking about "sockpuppets". I never herd of it. Okay. I am sorry this to happend. If that knight94 blocks me right now, tell him I'm sorry for this happend.75.13.16.43 (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Peaceful Solution..

Baseball Bugs, I am asking for a peaceful solution to this matter. Can we have a mediation please. We can solve this calmly okay. Just calm down okay.75.13.16.43 (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to the above stuff: [9] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Sox Scandal

The reversion of Black Sox Scandal I made restored a good deal of content which had been removed by an unknown vandal long ago. Any particular reason you removed it all again? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Palace01.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Palace01.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)