Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page


Contents

[edit] Mediation

Hello all,

It appears that there is still an editing conflict on this page, but no mediation has occurred at the Cabal for some time. The case has been reopened by a Coordinator; if you would like to continue please indicate a desire to do so on the case page at [1]. Thanks,

The Rhymesmith 23:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Series Games

Not really sure about the actual facts, but in the article it claims that in the /five games/ the Sox lost, he didn't have an RBI. You can't lose 5 games in a World Series. Perhaps the author means four, or maybe the five games of the World Series, of which the Sox lost four... etc. Perhaps it's technically correct, but the wording is a little ambiguous.

They used to play nine games. RickK | Talk 06:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That is correct. For the year of the Black Sox scandal, the Series went to the "best of nine" format which had been used in 1903 and 1905. The Sox lost five games to three.

I am not sure why the format changed, but in any event, it went back to the best of 7 in 1920 and has remained that way since. 209.149.235.254 16:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In 1919 the World Series was best of 9 games.

excerpt from World Series article:

except in 1903, 1919, 1920 and 1921 when the winner was determined through a best-of-nine playoff
1903 was a special case, arranged between the clubs rather than the leagues. 1919-20-21 were blatant revenue-grabbing. The 1919 season was only 140 games long, also. I think they went back to 154 in 1920, but retained the 5-of-9 Series for two more years. They also went to the 2-3-2 format in 1924. Hard to tell what they would have done with a 5-of-9 pattern under the newer format (the older format more or less alternated between cities). Baseball Bugs 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citations requested

There are about 5 citations requested [citation needed] in here and somebody thought they were pretty picky and removed them. I'll defend anybody's right to ask for a citation. Here, I'd guess the "facts" are more or less true, but we have to be able to document this from some reliable source. See WP:RS Smallbones 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem with "defending anyone's right for a citation", although I admit that one of the ones I removed was probably a bit hasty (the "eyewitness reports" sentence). The vast majority of people who look at this article are going to see this followed by "cite needed": James C. Hamilton—the official scorer of the 1919 World Series—testified under oath in a later civil trial between Jackson and Charles Comiskey that the throw was honest and that Cicotte jumped up and knocked it down for an error.
The primary source for this statement is clear in the sentence; James C. Hamilton, under oath in a civil trial. This is easily verifiable, from court transcripts. That Jackson threw a ball from the outfield to home and it was knocked down by Cicotte is easily verifiable fact from any report on the game, including a simple box score recording Cicotte's error.
I'm quite certain that whoever put that "fact" tag there had one concern; the claim that Jackson's throw was honest. However, the sentence doesn't assert that the throw was honest; it asserts that Hamilton testified it was honest, which is part of his verifiable court transcript. To the casual reader, though, the "fact" tag makes it look like the testimony is in question, which I don't think anyone is asserting.
By the same token, a "citation needed" on the sentence Chick Gandil, another leader of the fix, admitted to yelling at Cicotte to intercept the throw in his autobiography, is just silly. The source is his autobiography, which is a primary source. Including his autobiography in the bibliography is necessary, but is anyone really questioning whether Gandil said this at all? If they're questioning anything, it's whether he's telling the truth; figuring out whether he is or isn't is not the job of Wiki editors.
Anyone with even a passing interest in baseball history knows that the scorer believed Jackson's throw legit, or that Gandil admitted to yelling at Cicotte to interfere with it; there is nothing remotely controversial about these statements. A single editor, who may know nothing about either the article or the correct policies, slams a couple tags in there and now regular readers looking to get the skinny on Shoeless Joe get confused about the facts. These people who run around peppering confusing "fact needed" tags through articles should spend their bloody time looking up such a fact and verifying it if they're so concerned instead of trying to pad their edit count by adding useless tags to articles.
What's more is that this adherence to them is superficial at best; if I just put a simple footnoted link to one of the many books in the bibliography, without a page number even, nobody would question it. I just thought I might try to make the point by not providing a completely unnecssary link to one of the books already listed as a source anyway. dharmabum 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that including the citation (even if you think that it's obvious where it came from) would improve the article. Just to give you an idea "Anyone with even a passing interest in baseball history knows that the scorer believed Jackson's throw legit, or that Gandil admitted to yelling at Cicotte to interfere with it; there is nothing remotely controversial about these statements." I have more than a passing interest in baseball history - have read "Eight Men Out" and seen the movie and checked out several of the sources given here - I don't claim that the statements are untrue - nevertheless, I'd like to know where the statement come from, and if somebody else asks for a citation, I think it's only polite to give it to him.
example 2 "A jury, however, acquitted him of criminal charges related to the scandal, although the trial itself has been the subject of controversy, with key evidence purportedly having gone missing from the prosecutor's office shortly before the trial.[citation needed] Jackson was found guilty of not reporting the scandal." It's very confusing - who purportedly said this? Where could I check it out? Smallbones 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

As of this writing, here are the links that have been included:

They are alphabetized by site url. It appears that all of these are appropriately included and either cover a unique aspect of the article or related subject matter. It appears that there is some contention over this, so I would like to see what people have to say about said items and what, if anything should be done. // Tecmobowl 04:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a distinct problem with [2], perhaps you would rather replace it with [3]. Regardless, I do not see anywhere that the site violets WP:EL. // Tecmobowl 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edit war - please stop now. Let others decide!

To users Techmobol and Baseball Bugs, The back and forth reverts were amusing for a while. As I understand the problems they are: 1. Whether {citation needed}s should be allowed. As I've said above, I think they must be just for Wikipedia to keep it's credibility.

2. Whether the following link should be included. It is a commercial site, and could be considered spam. It is NOT the worst spam I've ever seen on Wikipedia, it might have some interest to readers of this article - in fact for a minority it probably will. Nevertheless, it is NOT needed, just a commercial "extra." - * blacksoxfan.com - A collection of Shoeless Joe Jackson & other Black Sox related baseball cards.

I think this "splits the difference" in the 2 sides, but I will withdraw from editing in this matter and will suggest that both of you do too.

Let other editors decide!

Smallbones 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no such citation for the very same comment in Black Sox Scandal. And with good reason: It's a well-known fact. As for the spam link, it just shows the hypocrisy of User Tecno, who is very eager to challenge possibly-spam links that others post. Baseball Bugs 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is controversy over it--it needs a citation. If it's a well-known fact, it shouldn't be hard to find one. If the citation is inappropriate in the article because it is, in fact a well known fact and whoever was reverting it was trying to rewrite history, providing a citation on the talk page is perfectly adequate.
  • About the blacksoxfan site. That's a wholly inappropriate site--as far as I can tell. It isn't finished--clearly someone intends to put up biographical information but in the meantime there's a LOREM IPSUM placeholder? Are you kidding? However, the gallery of cards is really nice and does fite WP:EL under two different requirements. One, I presume that those images are still copyrighted? Those images can't be included, and the whole list is too much information to be included--like a stat list, therefore it's a good link on these grounds. However it is selling goods and has Lorem Ipsum placeholders. That's bad. Is there any other site that does what this does, provides this information which is UNIQUE (would never be in the article were it a feature) and these images (unique and copyrighted) and is either a better site (no lorem ipsums) or less focused on selling? If not, I'd ok keeping it. The link isn't DIRECTLY to a page that's selling goods, so that's a plus.
  • You also might want to consider mentioning something about his cards (if there's anything noteworthy (the first this, how many this, etc) in the article and having the link as a reference. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:36, June 2 2007 (UTC)

I believe the citation question has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Baseball Bugs 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no it hasn't. Not to my satisfaction. You think that it's solved to everyone's satisfaction because I said that if there were no alternatives and the information was deemed to be important etc., etc., I'd say it was an ok EL. I've seen no evidence of you trying any of the alternatives or the necessary discussion. That link is ok if those two things are agreed upon--that the info is unique in that it will never be contained in the article and that people think that the info is important/necessary--like other baseball stats. If there is consensus on those issues and you really try and look for other websites and just can't find any, then it's ok to have an EL of this type--if no other one is available then this one will do.
But no, nothing is resolved and I'm annoyed that you ignored everything except "I'd ok keeping it". There were steps that preceeded that and exceptions to that--I gave you an inch and you didn't just take a mile, you took the rest of the distance. That's not ok. You want that link there, take the steps necessary to get it there. Start a discussion about the two issues that are the underpinings for a link that contains that type of info, and then if you get consensus that falls in your favour, show me and everyone else that nothing else really exists and that you've actually looked and tried. I personally doubt that the only place that has these stats and images is a buying site thats mass made and doesn't have all of its Lorem Ipsum placeholders filled in. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:36, June 4 2007 (UTC)
I was talking specifically about the citation issue about the missing confessions. It was "resolved" by Tecmobowl removing all reference to it in this article, while letting stand my citation in the Black Sox Scandal article. That's all I was referring to. And at present, I am done editing the article. As for the other citation issues, I think he either addressed them or removed all text connected with them. And there still seems to be an open question about his baseball card spam link. So you may be right that other issues are not resolved yet. Baseball Bugs 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yah, sorry about that--strike that comment. With the immense amount of crap--and I do mean that getting thrown at me by the two of you about each other on multiple pages, I'm bound to get confused at various points. I'm going to revert my own edit to the article, but I expect that the steps I suggested be taken. I'm also going to suggest one section for each individual issue, no matter how small, and all commenting about those sections take place there. If you need to alert people to the discussion, ping them on their talk pages. Don't have a discussion on one thing in five places and a discussion about five things in one place. Especially since you're asking for and desperately need outside intervention. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:26, June 4 2007 (UTC)
I went to revert myself and found that Tecmobowl has already reverted me with a comment that says that he's clearly ignored my comments here. I was willing to let the EL stand while the process was going through to see if it was acceptable, instead of no EL until that had happened, but ignoring the discussion and blind reverting is not ok. The EL is not going back until Tecmobowl pays attention to the discussion and starts answering the points I've mentioned. And by that I don't mean respond to the comment and revert me at the same time. I mean talk and come to consensus before it goes back in. This is not ok. If you can't discuss, I'm weighing against the EL. I said all along that the EL was only ok if x, y, and z and they haven't been met. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:30, June 4 2007 (UTC)
Well, there ya are. I'm staying away from this guy if possible. Now that the User:Ron liebman sockpuppet seems to be returning, with the protections expiring from the pages he was vandalizing, that should keep me busy. d:) Baseball Bugs 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This whole catastrophe started with a few users who decided to engage me in conversations in multiple places, back their arguments with poorly founded criteria (if any at all), and continue their behavior regardless of discourse. I apologize if I have not properly address some of your concerns; as you can tell, I am trying to follow this tornado of comments and it is difficult to keep my thoughts straight. I am sorry for reverting your edit, I simply took offense to the the comments because it made it seem as if I had tried to sneak the link into the EL section during my work on the article. I felt like that I was being attacked when a great deal of effort went into improving the quality of the argument while I didn't even consider touching the EL's further because of my work here. That aside, I opened this conversation for discussion above and it has not been responded to their.
  • With respect to this EL, here are my general thoughts: The site does not exist simply to sell items. From what I can tell, there is a sales page on the site that offers a few items from time to time. That does not prevent the site from being included as a EL. In reviewing the specific page with the place holder text (which appears to have been replaced), I found the "placeholder" text unimportant because the sites value is not in that biographical information (which is available in numerous places) but is in the presentation of the cards. Maybe that's not the way most wikipedians view that text, but that is how i see it. Furthermore, the unique presentation of baseball card images and information does not belong in the article and seems appropriate for an external link as it is of interest to see photographs/images of Jackson as he progressed through his career. In viewing the site, the card content seems to be updated regularly (the lastest additions section on the homepage has definitely changed since this discussion began). Also, speaking specifically to research information - the [4] link provides a better repository of information on Joe Jackson and the scandal than i have found anywhere else. Jackson's cards also appear on [www.blacksoxfan.com/blacksox.php] which is really a neat page because it shows cards from all 8 of the players bannded. If it goes back in there, you are going to be the one to do it. // Tecmobowl 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know that the commenting on a gazillion pages is problematic--it's confused me and I've only been following a few issues for a limited amount of time. I wanted to let you know that I've seen your comment and I'll reply to the points you raised (I've also looked at the sites and have a few questions), but I'm a little behind in re wiki and can't give this my full attention tonight. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:07, June 6 2007 (UTC)


[edit] attn Baseball Bugs:

As the editor who removed the link, I'm going to weigh in. I was perfectly willing to leave the EL in the article while discussion commenced and only removed it when I percieved Tecmo to be pushing and not responding to comments. Tecmo responded right away and has been willing to discuss whether or not the link meets grounds and didn't revert the link back in until someone else re-added it and I'm perfectly willing to believe that he didn't see my comments right away, because I've been more than confused by the commenting on multiple pages.

For an editor who has yet to comment on the content and its standing in re the EL guidelines, you're remarkably adept at finding consensus that I just couldn't see. The link was mentioned, but hardly discussed and consensus was miles away (consensus of what sort?) on the WikiProject talk page. I would like some answers to my earlier questions from multiple editors on this page, and I'm going to take the time to look at the additional links Tecmo provided more closely. However, you've yet to participate in the discussion that got started because of your claims and revert warring. I'm therefore going back to my original decision--I have no problem with the link remaining while discussion is ongoing.

Let's make this simple. We'll take each issue in the EL guidelines one step at a time. I'm adding a straw poll that'll deal with step one. If actually reading a question in the middle of a paragraph and reply is too hard, maybe this will be easier. Miss Mondegreen talk  12:26, June 9 2007 (UTC)

  • I think I'm going to sit this one out. I have gone through an extensive education on the EL link policy from my time here on wikipedia. I think this link is pretty darn good and considering all the supplemental information available at the File Center, I consider it very useful. Beyond that, I'm gonna keep quiet on this one. // Tecmobowl 12:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but I think it's safe for you to comment in the current straw poll, and I would very much like your opinion on certain things down the line. I have no experience with this article other than moderating this, and so I'd appreciate input from all contributers, and I'll take some of them with a grain of salt. Right now, I'm just asking a fairly simple question. I have my own answer, from my reading of the applicable guidelines and policies, but if there's anything I don't know, now's the time for anyone to get something in. If you'd like though, you can wait to comment until after Baseball Bugs or at least someone else has. I can definitely see not wanting to go first. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:48, June 9 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it, but when comments like the ones made below exist, there is no reason for me to comment further. You asked a fairly simple question and instead got a response about statistics on the back of baseball cards. Nuff said from me. //Tecmobowl 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] straw poll time

Is the content that's contained in the link something that would ever be contained in the article were it to become a featured article?

Answer the questions below in the format assigned and only those questions. There will be a time and a place for you to answer additional questions and express other opinions. This is not it.

  1. Would the article contain the complete baseball card list if it were to become a featured article?
  2. Would it contain a gallery of the baseball card images? Are these images copyrighted? If the article wouldn't contain a gallery of images, how many images, if any would the article contain?


[edit] baseball bugs in re straw poll

These are the original straw poll comments by Baseball Bugs, and the discussion that resulted. Almost all of the comments are not pertinent to the poll, and Baseball Bugs has yet to provide direct answers to the poll questions, so for the sake of readability, I'm moving these sections. Now that Baseball Bugs has had ample clarification, he should feel free to provide answers to the questions above, or not. Please refrain from off-topic discussion in the straw-poll area. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:05, June 10 2007 (UTC)


BB's reply to question 1:

  • Cards of that era typically did not contain stats as later bubble gum cards did, although they often had other ads on the backs of them, as that website's illustrations illustrate. They were primarily novelties in cigaratte packages, their purpose being to intice viewers to buy cigarettes. In turn, the purpose of the website in question is to intice readers to buy vintage baseball cards. In fact, I'm not seeing any stats at all on that site. All I'm seeing is info geared towards selling cards. Baseball Bugs 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In case you haven't looked at the site ever, the page in question has a list of all Jackson cars. Sorry if I was unclear, I've changed the question to read list. Please re-answer and manage to do so without talking about the site. If you didn't notice, these questions were geared toward yes/no answers that could be explained simply and didn't involve commentary on the site. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:24, June 9 2007 (UTC)
      • Now that you reworded the question, it doesn't make sense. In any case, I looked at the site. Its purpose is to sell baseball cards. If that's appropriate for a wikipedia link, so be it. Baseball Bugs 23:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • BB, the link in question contains a full list of every baseball card that Shoeless Joe has appeared on, the year it was published and some additional info. Call it a list, call it his baseball card statistics, call it whatever. The question is as follows: Would that list be contained in the article were it to become a featured article? Yes or no. That is ALL that you are answering. You can comment on other aspects about the page and whether or not it is an appropriate EL for other reasons when I ask those questions later, or open a new section on this talk page. You've been warned about this type of behavior before--consider this ANOTHER warning. If you don't want to participate in the straw poll, you don't have to, but the straw poll is not here for you to talk about whatever you want to. And, if you don't participate in this process, you're going to have little cause for complaint if you don't like my decision. All I'm trying to do right now is figure out if the information is unique. Not if the site should be included, not if it's spammy, nothing else. If you honestly believe that all of the information on the link would be contained in the article were it to become a featured article, then say so, and explain your answer. If you don't, then say so and explain your answer. I've divided the poll into a section that asks about the list and one that asks about the images so that you can answer based on the two main content parts seperately. If you don't have an answer or don't want to answer, get out of the straw poll. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:54, June 10 2007 (UTC)
          • How am I supposed to know whether it would appear in a featured article? That would be up to the consensus of those writing it. I'm giving you the best answers I can. If you don't like them, delete them. I have other things to work on. Baseball Bugs 07:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not asking you to be a fortune teller, I'm asking your opinion. Would that list be content that would belong in a featured article? Or any article? Or is that type of content something that should be relegated to an EL, like other statistics? This is not that difficult. Just provide an answer and an explanation for it. Or don't. But don't not answer and go on and on about your not answering. Just make up your mind. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:50, June 10 2007 (UTC)
              • The main page could be in an article about baseball cards, if it's sufficiently unique from other websites about baseball cards. As noted elsewhere, if this is the specific article, then the link should be to its specific subject rather than to the main page of the baseball card site. Baseball Bugs 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BB's reply to question 2:

  • The Black Sox were all banned before 1923, so theoretically the images could be in the public domain. I don't know if there are any special rules pertaining to pre-1923 baseball cards. I'm guessing not, since vintage baseball cards are being used increasingly in wikipedia to illustrate dead-ball era players. And since the site is being used to sell items, the copyright rules might not apply. For example, amazon.com has illustrations of what they are selling, regardless of when they were published. Given that they are out of copyright, a more appropriate use of the images would be to post them on the individual players' pages, as is being done with other old-time players, as noted, or perhaps on a page specifically about baseball cards. That would illustrate the articles nicely and would help get wikipedia out of the business of selling stuff. Baseball Bugs 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment They have to be public domain for us to use them. Fair use law and Wikipedia fair use practice differ greatly, and even international images like the euro, or the international symbol of access (the wheelchair on blue background) where the copyright specifically allows anyone to use the image as long as they are using the image on topic as it were (it's slightly more complicated but there's the simplified version), Wikipedia treats as All Rights Restricted and those images can only be used as Fair Use (wikipedia style), meaning the image can be used once in the main article that discusses the topic. Many images of flags and money and lots of other things are currently on wikipedia under copyright, or under commons as public domain (because it's a photo someone took), and according to the rules, all of those images have to be removed. I'm just trying to determine whether the page has unique content. In terms of photos the two questions are: Are they public domain?, and does WikiProject Baseball allow galleries?. Again, just answer the questions as best you can without going on about the site. They'll be time for that latter, this is only step 1. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:24, June 9 2007 (UTC)
      • I answered the specific question you asked. Baseball Bugs 23:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I am asking if this article would contain a gallery of the images contained in the EL. There are currently six, that number might increase. Containing one or two of these images, while important to know, does not answer the gallery question. If one or two of the images was in the article, it would still possibly be an appropriate EL. You answered one of the two questions I asked. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:54, June 10 2007 (UTC)
          • Again, that would be up to the consensus of the article editors. Your questions really don't make sense to me, so you may as well strike my answers. Baseball Bugs 07:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
            • You're one of the article editors. What do you think about galleries? Good idea, bad idea? Appropriate or not? Has there been a wikiproject discussion or trend toward or against them? Just provide an answer (your opinion) and tell me why you're answering that way. It's not that hard. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:50, June 10 2007 (UTC)
                • I like galleries. The arguments I've seen against them are when they are repetitive, i.e. that each picture is pretty much the same thing. Obviously, a gallery of baseball cards of Joe Jackson would be the same subject, but each one could be unique. Baseball Bugs 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] refactoring, take 2

OK, I'll try again. Feel free to delete any or all of my comments that you think are not important to the discussion. Second question first: The images are probably out of copyright, since they would pre-date 1923. I like galleries. Include as many as you want. First question second: A complete baseball card list could be interesting to collectors. Baseball Bugs 09:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think so to. But is a list that is that long appropriate to be included in article or would it be something that would be linked (pretend it's not a link that you don't like)? We link to statistics because it's too much for an article. Look at the list--that's a REALLY long list to have in an article. Would you add it now? Miss Mondegreen talk  19:45, June 10 2007 (UTC)
You are under the mistaken impression that I don't like that website. I don't have any problem at all with that website in general, except that its purpose is to sell stuff, which is supposed to be against wikipedia policy. Even forgetting that, I think its appropriate place, if anywhere, is in an article that's about baseball cards as a broader topic. Then a lengthy list would be justifiable, as there are obviously gazillions of baseball cards and you don't really want to directly list them in an article on baseball cards. In the Shoeless Joe article, if the poster could find a way to link from the Shoeless Joe page to just the section about Shoeless Joe, that would be better. Baseball Bugs 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody cares who likes the site and who doesn't the only question here is the content. Additionally, your repeated claims that the site exists primarily to sell merchandise are not well supported. By my count, there are at least 109 pages on that site and only 1 of them has any mention of selling items. Please just answer the question. Again, there is also the file center that is a huge repository of information related to the Jackson and other Black Sox Scandal related information. As I suggested previously, if you think that a link there instead of to Jackson's page is more appropriate, you can assert your opinion on that. Please JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. //Tecmobowl 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think he finally did. BB--this is the link we are talking about and it IS a direct link to the shoeless joe stuff. There isn't anything on the page that isn't shoeless joe. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:22, June 10 2007 (UTC)
The current link in this article connects to the main page of that website rather than to Shoeless Joe specifically.[5]
He fixed it. That's better. Baseball Bugs 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm about to stop engaging anyone in conversation cuz it's pointless and childlike. The original debate broke out when the site pointed to the specific page. A totally independent editor read this discussion and then added the page back in. Although the format left something to be desired, the link was direct. You removed it and they reinstalled it some time later under the assumption that they had screwed up the format and target. This long drawn out discussion can be summarized very easily: just adjust the link to include the jackson.php section and stop complaining! //Tecmobowl 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
A completely unreferenced fan site? Are you seriously discussing this? Clearly it doesn't belong. It isn't a reliable source. How does a fan site make the article better? IrishGuy talk 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, this is absolutely the straw that broke the camels back. I will no longer engage you or baseball bugs in a discussion UNTIL you provide well thought out, well articulated arguments that clearly assert the opinion of the community. Are you kidding me with regards to reliability - go look at the information available on the site! Most of it is documentation related to the scandal. And ...just to clear the air, according to WP:RS,

    Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

And to further explain some things: the site displays images of cards that the site operator owns (as stated on the sites homepage). That doesn't need to be sourced! The statistics are easily checked and the bio information is fairly run of the mill, albeit accurate too! The site owner is an authority in the baseball card world and specifically, one of the countries leading researchers with regards to the scandal and the surrounding events. Please ... PLEASE... I MEAN PLEASE -> STICK TO MAKING THE CONTENT BETTER. //Tecmobowl 22:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The more you brag about not caring about seeking consensus, the less likely people will overlook your boldness. A gallery of baseball cards from a fansite is irrelevant to this article. As for the unreferenced information I was speaking of, I was refering to the bio on the page. If you admit the information on that site is run-of-the-mill and already appears on other sites...what exactly is the argument for keeping this one? IrishGuy talk 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Really--You just had to follow the link at ANI and cause trouble here? Either answer the straw poll or shut up. This is very simple. Since there was a disagreement and the people editing were unable to look at the EL guidelines and pick out which ELs applied and ask step by step whether or not it was appropriate without chaos breaking out, I decided to ask people. I'm not asking you if you think it's a reliable source or if you think it's spam or if you think the apocalypse is coming. The questions are VERY VERY VERY simple. Once you, baseball bugs, tecmo and whoever else would like to answer them can do so, above, in the nice little format I laid out so that people don't cry foul latter and say I'm quoting them out of context....once y'all do that, we'll move on to part 2 and you can have an equally hard time figuring out how to answer that question. No more personal comments or attacks (that means if someone fails to understand a yes no question or answers it by saying "I hate pie!" no going after them either), and no more answering "I hate pie". Just answer the stinking straw poll and be done with it!!! Miss Mondegreen talk  00:07, June 11 2007 (UTC)
First, read WP:CIV. Second, as this is a content dispute and I am an admin it is logical for me to be here. I am hardly "causing trouble". You don't own this talk page so please refrain from telling me what I can or cannot add to this discussion. The link doesn't belong here. Period. IrishGuy talk 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on straw poll

I have tried to answer your questions as best I can. I don't know what else to say about it. Baseball Bugs 00:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been amply demonstrated that the baseball card site is being pushed by its poster for personal reasons. Therefore, it's out. Baseball Bugs 13:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That would make it a no-go under spam. But I reinsinerted it. I'm copying my comment from ANI:
Actually, Tecmo stopped pushing the link and said that he would let it go because discussion was ongoing and he'd trust talk page consensus. All he has done is revert people who have since removed it, and I have said that I'm comfortable with the site on while discussion is ongoing. IMO, it's an ok EL.
  • It's unique
    • the list will never be included in an article as it's too long
    • also, IMO, a gallery is unlikely to be included in the article
  • While the website does sell product, it doesn't on that page and it's not overt--it took me a couple clicks to figure out how to get to the selling people were talking about. It's also not the SOLE purpose of the website, or even necessarily the MAIN purpose--the website has a lot of unique content included a lot of documents that they host online in PDF format--in additional to trying to make money (or maybe just pay for hosting), a resource is clearly being provided
Maybe Tecmo has a COI, and maybe his adding it was a spam link but I think that it's a good EL. I also don't want it off of the article while waiting for discussion to go anywhere because most of the editors who care about this link are avoiding the discussion--they'll come to the article to revert three times in a day but not to talk content or answer straw poll questions. I personally think it's a good link, and I think that the editors who don't want the link included also have a COI, though a personal on-wiki. They all have the opportunity to voice their opinions--they haven't. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:06, June 11 2007 (UTC)

It list is unique content, and likely the images as well, and I don't think that it fits exclusion criteria under the selling point. And I'm not going to have it off page while discussion is ongoing because there has been no evidence that you or the other reverting parties are ever going to discuss the actual issues civilly. You won't discuss answer the question of unique without arguing spam and other things (including personal attacks), and I'm not going to wait for you to grow up. I'm reinserting the link. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:04, June 11 2007 (UTC)

It's a spam site. It's got to go. Baseball Bugs 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I've seen complaints that Baseball Almanac has ads. So do CNN or USAToday.com. So what? This site is an ad. Its purpose is to sell baseball cards and to enrich either Tecmo or a buddy of his, or both. That is technically known as "a conflict of interest". So it's gone. I'm just being "bold", to coin a phrase. Baseball Bugs 22:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What? Someone put something online in order to make money? You're kidding! I can't imagine it! The horrors! We perfer to use content that isn't attempting to make money. There's no reason to use Amazon.com when an ISBN will do. But TONS of webcontent is out there in order to make money, or the webcontent is supported by the money making aspect. Anyway, this site isn't about making money--and I doubt that whoever runs the site (stop with the pointing) really is making money off of it.
Also, there's only a tiny link at the bottom of the page to "sale page" which means it's not at all a problem. I had to LOOK for the link in order to find it...honestly, that's a ridiculous claim.
There's no issue with "Links mainly intended to promote a website.", because I'm the one who added it back not Tecmo and I don't care about promoting the website. That may have been his purpose, but it's not mine and that's not why the link was there so you can stop screaming spam now.
There's one issue, and that's that it is someone's personal website and not "official" in any regard. That should generally be avoided.
But, it does provide unique info that I haven't found elsewhere and that no one else has either (or presumably they would have replaced the link), and it's reliable--the material is easily checked. It's also an incredible source--I've only gone through bits of the file center, but there are great images and documents that someone has bothered to collect and host.
You may not like the person who you think runs the site, but it's a good resource.
Also, in re baseball almanac, WP:EL says that sites with excessive advertising should be avoided. My browser blocked three pop-ups and baseball almanac had top and bottom banner ads and asked for donations mid-page. That's excessive. BTW, many pages that are ok as sources are no ok as ELs because of the excessive advertising clause. Advertising is taking up larger and larger page percentages and becoming flashier and flashier everywhere. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:36, June 12 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments

I am still learning my way around here and this is getting confusing. I was doing research for a paper on Chicago court trials, and I find that link just fine. It didn't help directly with my paper but the files on that site were REALLY helpful. IrishGuy and BaseballBugs, your arguments don't hold up. I find it interesting that IrishGuy went and deleted the link from a whole mess of biographies calling it spam. What a joke. El redactor

[edit] Spam

I disagree that the link (regarding the baseball cards) is spam. I do not see spam on that page, nor do I see 'numerous links' on that page which take me to spam.

Although the site may (or not) meet WP:RS guidelines, I found it very interesting information that 47 cards related to Joe Jackson and that 6 of them were available to view on that page.

May I ask the specific objection to having the link on the page? Lsi john 18:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought it was against the rules for editors to be trying to use wikipedia to sell their wares. Baseball Bugs 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We are also supposed to assume good faith. I clicked on that link. I read the page. And, I really didn't see anything that looked sales/spam(ish).
In my opinion, if he were really trying to sell things, he would have advertising all over that page and he would have significant links at the top to direct you to the 'sales department'.
  • Is it blatant spam? No, not in my opinion.
  • Is it a black and white situation? No.
  • Does it bear watching, to make sure? Sure, why not.
The purpose of wikipedia articles it to provide readers with interesting and useful information. It is unreasonable to expect that we will never link to a page which has links to pages which 'sell things'. In reality, we have articles on companies, that have links to their company website. Those websites often have additional links to sales departments. The test for 'spam', is not absolute. It is often a matter of degree and opinion.
The fact that another editor (account) suddenly appeared to re-add the information, does look suspicious though not criminal. If the user did create a sock, to support his edit, I would be displeased, but it would not change my opinion of the page itself.
In this case, I thought the page looked very well done and found that it contained some interesting and relevant information. If that information is available elsewhere (the list of cards and the cart photos), then by all means replace the link with a more reliable source.
Lsi john 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No, there's more to it. You need to review the history on this subject: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl.
I see on that page that the admin has exposed User talk:El redactor as a sockpuppet of User talk:Tecmobowl, and he is now blocked. Baseball Bugs 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
So I see. It's unfortunate that people do things like that. I'm still not clear as to why you consider this link as spam. I just followed the 'sales' link and all the cards are sold. Lsi john 19:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use proper edit summaries. That link was not spam. By calling it spam, you lower your reputation for accuracy. Lsi john 19:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And in my opinion, you have lowered the quality/value of this article. Best Regards. Lsi john 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The admin called it a "fansite". Maybe that's a better term. Baseball Bugs 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Pardon my sarcasm in advance: .. I can certainly see where the argument could be made that fans have no place in baseball! :P (not).
Anyway, you clearly have a history with this person, and I am very disappointed that he used socks. And it could still simply be an avid fan, who has his own website. I'm not an admin and I have no desire to sort through what appears to be a messy situation at best. And no matter what he did, or tried to do, or wanted to do, it does not justify your last edit comment. Though I understand that things can be frustrating. I have no doubt that you'd cringe at some of my comments when I'm involved with some contentious editors in other articles. Happy Editing. Peace in God. Lsi john 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john--I would welcome your participation on the page. You can see that there are clear problems here--especially as the link is still being called a spam link no matter who adds in back and that discussion is not really happening, which is what I'm still attempting to get, but hasn't quite yet happened. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:10, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- I know that you have personal issues with Tecmo etc. But it would really help if you could talk about content instead of constantly crying spam when it's not Tecmo or anyone related to Tecmo who's inserting the link and thinks that its a good one. All we're even trying to do at this point is have a discussion about it, and it's very hard to do when you won't talk about content, preferring to revert war blindly. I'm going to request page protection, hoping that the inability to use the undo button will bring people to the talk page and that it's possible to discuss this calmly. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:10, June 13 2007 (UTC)

Editors have NO RIGHT to push their own personal for-monetary-gain websites in wikipedia, whether or not the editors are sockpuppets. Meanwhile, as Tecmo has shown, he is very quick to lecture others about wikipedia rules, and loathe to follow them himself. Baseball Bugs 12:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
First I don't think it's for monetary gain. So he (the site owner) also happens to trade cards and sell ones that he has duplicates of or is willing to get rid of. That doesn't really constitute monetary gain. Consider the hosting and that he's buying cards too...get real.
Second, this isn't about Tecmo. We are not discussing Tecmo. Editors should not add their own sites if they think that the sites fit the EL requirements--they are supposed to raise it on the talk page for discussion. Pretend this is Tecmo's site--he clearly didn't follow these rules properly. But, if he had followed rules, he would have raised the issue on the talk page and said -- "this is my site, I think it's a good EL, would someone other than me add it, I have a COI and don't want to be accused of spam". Pretend he had--let's discuss if it's a good EL. I think it is, and so do other editors.
We can actually gain good content from editors who don't follow the rules properly, and we lose a great deal if everytime something isn't done quite right our reaction is to thrown out everything associated with it without even looking to see if what we do makes sense. Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You've made your point. Tecmo has a COI, yada, yada, yada. Now can we please discuss the merits of the link and the WP:EL issues that I mentioned earlier? Miss Mondegreen talk  13:13, June 13 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Please use this talk page to come to a consensus about the external link instead of edit warring. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how a page featuring baseball cards, some of which happen to be purchasable, is spam. On a lesser player's page, Bryn Smith, I use a citation that links to a page on Beckett.com, a website which happens to includes much more links that could be considered "spam" than blacksoxfan.com ever will. (Obviously, there will never be the hubbub about it that there is about Shoeless Joe) So what if you can buy the cards shown on the page? The fact is that there is something that can at least be nominally intriguing about how he was portrayed on cards in his time. Maybe this doesn't do enough to support you keeping the site in your eyes, but whatever. Anyway, I'm also in favor of keeping the site...there is at least a few iotas of value that can be gained from the site. Please bury the hatchet and stop removing the link. -- transaspie 14:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming it was not your personal website, though. This one is Tecmobowl's own site, or (so he claims) the site of a friend of his. Baseball Bugs 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Which was a problem when he added it. When I added it and other users added it and other users say they don't see the problem, the issue isn't Tecmo's relation to the site. The issue is whether or not the site itself is ok. There are millions of wiki editors. Had someone else added Tecmo's site, and Tecmo never knew (though he was still a wiki editor), would it still be forbidden? No. There's no rule that says if you're a wiki-editor your material can't be used as sources or ELs. It just has to be free of COI and follow the other policies and guidelines. Ok, well Tecmo's not the one adding it now. So stop talking about him and discuss the actual link. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:59, June 13 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not off-topic. Pushing his personal site has been a number one priority for Tecmobowl and his sockpuppets from day one, last summer to today. His constant yelping about "content" is a diversionary tactic. Baseball Bugs 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It's off-topic. The conversation is not about Tecmo, but about the site. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:17, June 13 2007 (UTC)
It's not off-topic. He and his site are inseparable. It's the one thing in wikipedia that appears to be the most important to him. Baseball Bugs 22:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Recently you posed a question about galleries and copyrights. Presumably your thought was to lift the appropriate images from that website and put them on this page. Tecmobowl declined to participate, of course. If you were to post those galleries, he would no longer be able to justify linking to his personal website. Baseball Bugs 17:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, let's stop talking about Tecmo.
Until he backs off from pushing his personal website, he is on the table for discussion. Baseball Bugs 22:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Erm, actually yes, if they are public domain, a gallary of images would be really, really nice. However, the content is still unique due to the list of cards--that's the type of thing that WP:EL encourages including because it's too much information to be included in the article.
  • But, there's a limit to how many images an article can really have. What I think would be best for the article content wise would be to first look at the file center. The author of the website has a ton of content up there--trial photos, contract documents--stuff that could really be used for this and other articles. The images are especially great because they wouldn't be fair use ones. I can think of multiple articles that could benefit from the use of the trial photo. See what's what. If the article doesn't end up having too many images, then I'd add a gallery, unless the wikiproject is against galleries, and if there's a gallery, I'd change the EL to a footnote link, saying that a complete list of all cards he's appeared in was available at .... This article could benefit from the use of both references and footnotes and that would be nice to see. I'd also change the link section to say "additional resources" rather than external links, but that's preference thing. You're not linking to "the official site" and all that stuff, the links are really additional resources that can't be contained on wiki for some reason or another. I think it's a better title in this case.
  • I'd really like to encourage you to to think about he who may or may not own the site. I think that there are some really incredible resources there that can and should be used and that we should all just focus on that. Maybe having a link to the site will mean that someone gets to the site from Wikipedia and he makes a trade for a card he really wants that he wouldn't otherwise. Maybe he does get something out of it. But the point isn't what he gets out of it--wikipedia raises the profile of various sites for better or for worse. The point is whether or not there's something there for Wikipedia to gain. If there is, we don't want to not use it, just to spite what someone else might gain. That's cutting off the nose to spite someone else's face and it doesn't make sense. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:17, June 13 2007 (UTC)

The best of the pictures could be extracted and posted. That would make the article more attractive, and get wikipedia out of the business of allowing an editor to promote his personal website for personal gain. Baseball Bugs 22:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop talking about Tecmo and reply to my content related comments above. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:08, June 13 2007 (UTC)
It's a personal website posted for personal gain. It doesn't matter if it's the greatest website in the world, it's still his pet website, so it's unacceptable. He and his website are inseparable, so talking about one is talking about the other. As to content, posting selected photos from it on the article page, then stating in the picture page (not the article itself) that its source is that website, might be acceptable. Baseball Bugs 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing WP:EL I see that his website violates at least 3 rules. It has to go. Baseball Bugs 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't even count the number of times I've quoted WP:EL for you and explained why it did fit, so know that you have reviewed it and disagree, please explain why.
And no, a website with content about baseball is not synonymous with the owner. Assuming it's his site, we can assume (bad faith) that he posted it for personal gain. Though he may have not read, or just ignored part of WP:EL and thought it was a good link and posted it for those reasons (good faith) instead of proposing it to the talk page to avoid a COI.
Regardless, if two years down the line someone who stumbles upon the site adds it as an EL, they aren't adding it for his personal gain. Neither am I. Neither are the other people who agreed that it was a good site--unless you're accusing all of us of being sockpuppets. By your argument, every website that stands something to gain by being linked to from wikipedia (oh, as in ALL websites) aren't ok, even if it's someone else who adds them as a link, and even if "it's the greatest website in the world". Here, you happen to know who you think the owner is and that is more important to you then anything else. So let's play a game of pretend. I added the site. You don't know who owns it...it's a site that I stumbled across while googling and think would make a good EL. You disagree, you think it violates some WP:EL rules and want to talk with me about it because you think it should be removed. Remember, in this scenario we're about to act out, none of us know who owns the site. Ready....go! Miss Mondegreen talk  01:46, June 14 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of people agreed Fangraphs was a good site. But Tecmo doesn't, therefore it's out. That tells you all you need to know about that guy: It's his way, or no way. And it has been that way from the moment he and his sockpuppets began their "work" in wikipedia last summer. And as soon as he's off block this week, he'll go right back to deleting it, having learned nothing in the process... except maybe to be a little more clever in his sockpuppetry next time. Baseball Bugs 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's hopeless. He wins. He'll be back even more full of himself than ever. Have fun dealing with him. Baseball Bugs 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We'll try this again. I added this link I found while googling to the article. You think it's not allowed under WP:EL and are going to explain it to me. Ready....go! Miss Mondegreen talk  06:29, June 14 2007 (UTC)
As I expected, Tecmobowl's first act upon his block expiring was to restore his personal spamlink on those pages. As far as answering your question... allow me to quote Tecmobowl: "I'm done talking to you." Baseball Bugs 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please get the facts right. That was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the first act. I restored the other links to blacksoxfan as other editors have provided reasonable arguments for its' inclusion. I noted this discussion in the article and was on my way over here to explain to people the other pages it was included on. For those interested, the other articles that contained a link (inserted by me in all cases) were: Eddie Cicotte, Eddie Murphy (baseball player)]] - which I created, Abe Attell, Buck Weaver, Lefty Williams, Fred McMullin, and Chick Gandil. I also believe a link to the file center would be a huge benefit to the Black Sox Scandal. To again state the facts: I do know the owner of the site. I am not that person. I have no vested interest in the site. I am almost always going to have an identical or very similar IP to the owner of the site as we live in the same apartment complex. It is how I found out about the site. From my reading of WP:COI, I have not violated anything, especially when you consider the fact that I am willing to openly admit those pieces of information. //Tecmobowl 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL and how it applies

Irishguy, these are the ELs that need to be considered here and how I think they might apply. Note, these are for the entire site, not just the EL for this article but for the file center, etc...anything that might apply, I pulled.

Shoeless Joe EL
the file center

What should be linked

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

Links to be considered

4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Links normally to be avoided


1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.


I don't think that links mainly intended to promote a website applies, nor do I think selling applies. First, the link to the selling page is minute, really minute. Plus, the selling minute in and of itself. I doubt that the owner makes much if any money from the selling, considering that he traders and buys, and when you add in hosting costs, the site probably costs the owner money. Will a link from Wikipedia to the site promote it? Yes. But, #3 is only true, only a problem if we aren't using it for something real, if it isn't a "what should be linked" or a "link to be considered". And I think it is. And if it isn't, it won't be included anyway.

I think that this is clearly unique information. The links for the individual players all have statistics lists which can never be included in the article. The bio information (some aren't even filled in--and that is a problem)--that is not unique information. Since the only unique information on the site falls under what should be linked, this number can also be ignored.

So we're left with the following--one guideline telling us it should be include, one telling us it should be consider and one telling us it should be avoided.

The site has information that can't be included in any of the articles it would be linked to. The individual bio pages have card lists that are too long. The file center's files can't be included either, but linked to only (though some might be used as references). The images are probably all, or at least mostly public domain, but there's a limit to the number that can be used. At any rate, this clearly applies.

This doesn't fit the reliable sources guideline, because it is a personal web page. But the documents themselves are reliable sources, and the cardlist is easily sourceable, and the site definitely fits number 4--it contains information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

The real issue is that it is a personal website, and it makes no bones about it. It's very clear reading it that it's a personal website--much more clear than it is that it sells stuff. But I think it's a mistake not to use an incredible resource like this--I've mentioned some of my ideas in the section above. With the exception of the personal information, this is what an EL should be. The short bio, well it's not necessary, per unique. The playing stats aren't necessary as they'd be covered in another EL. But everything else is information that can't go on wiki but that's on topic, accessable and everything else an EL should be, save that it's someone's personal website.

Given the EL guidelines, and the content the site contains, I'd weigh on inclusion. But I'm looking forward to discussing this and hearing other users weigh in. Miss Mondegreen talk  18:42, June 15 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a fairly well presented argument. I do not see any clear and obvious reasons to exclude the site and I do see that it provides unique and interesting material which expands the knowledge of the reader. One of the reasons for WP:IAR is for situations which don't fit the norm. However, in this case, I don't believe that WP:IAR needs to come into play. I support using the link, in this situation. Lsi john 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The bio on that site is completely unreferenced. The stats can be found on any number of other sites. That brings it to the baseball card list...something that is extremely trivial. A list of baseball cards isn't very pertinent to an encyclopedia article and I guarantee that if that information was added to the article (not a link, but that information actually added to the article) it would promptly be deleted as unnecessary trivia. A list like that would in no way assist the article in becoming a Featured Article. That's my take. IrishGuy talk 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Per the shoeless joe page specifically, yes. And yes, that information would not be contained in the page, because it's too much, more than that's it's trivia. Personally, I found it fascinating and it made me want to go look up those cards--he's in cards after the banning, and I wanted to know why and what they were. The first thing I did was look at the other lists of cards and compare them. He's the only player to have a card published after the banning, and comparing the card lists told me a lot about the players in terms of popularity too. Though perhaps sources that discuss this should be found and some of this should be in the article. Surely, cards are one part of the business side, in addition to contracts and salaries etc, and perhaps a slightly different side as it reflects fan appeal and numerous other things as well. Certainly markers of a career, just different ones.
Also, do you have any comment about the various pages in the file center being used as ELs or the use of the bio pages in re the images? Miss Mondegreen talk  20:29, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy -- you mentioned on your talk page that you thought the following EL exclusionary guideline applied:

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

I was under the impression that the bios were fairly simple bios, that while unreferenced, were easily verifiable. You think that there's either factually inaccurate material, or unverifaible research in the bios? Which one? Can you point to where? I did a quick check of a couple and they seemed pretty simple. I know that the blog has commentary and stuff, but I never suggested linking to that (though I do think that that would be a good place for editors to look though because of all of the good sources that are linked to). Anyway, can you elaborate on your concern here? Miss Mondegreen talk  00:51, June 17 2007 (UTC)

  • I've replied on IrishGuy's page, so I'll reply here briefly also.
IMO, the first part of that sentence is the relevant part sites that mislead. I do not believe the fan site is misleading. Secondly, regrarding verifiable information: It does not say the website must provide the source. It says the information must be verifiable. I submit that the statistics and details on that page are verifiable (somewhere). I hardly believe that the website author made up those card numbers and dates. That would be absurd. Lsi john 01:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming he was referring to the biographies, though I really couldn't figure out what parts. First, not all of the players even have biographies yet and the ones that exist are very, very sparse. I found nothing incorrect and nothing misleading, which is why I asked Irishguy to elaborate--I know there have been content issues on this article before, and I was assuming that that was spilling over perhaps, but it was hard to see how. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:53, June 21 2007 (UTC)


Smallbones These are exerpts from Smallbones comment on the meditation talk page. His comment can be found in full, here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Shoeless Joe Jackson.

"The only policy issue that I know of involves linking to a comercial site, that probably is spam. The pictures of baseball cards are interesting, but they are there for sale. The pictures of the cards themselves could have been uploaded and put in the article (the cards were published before 1923) EXCEPT that the pictures of the cards include watermarks or sales info."

Linking to a commercial site isn't definitionally spam. I don't think it is in this case, and I don't quite think that this qualifies as a "commerial site". You can't actually buy anything on the site--theoretically, he has a very small gallery of images of cards that are available for sale, but in practice, he has a gallery of images of cards that he's sold. It is a fansite though and that should be taken into account.

I believe that the images themselves can still be uploaded--only the large versions of the images have watermarks, not the small ones. The small ones could be uploaded and added to a gallery--these don't have waterwarks and they are cropped in more so you only see one side of the card, not two the way you do in the "sale" cards. This is of course a seperate issue--how the various resources on the site can and should be used I'm assuming will be a topic for debate for a while--and should be discussed on the specific article's talk page, and each issue should be raised and dealt with as a seperate issue. ELs are for content that can't be included in the article. Like the baseball card lists, or perhaps some of the files in the file center. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:07, June 22 2007 (UTC)


[edit] refactored

Please reply to the content issues above and avoid getting off-topic and personal. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:33, June 16 2007 (UTC)

Response to Irishguy The bio on that site does not need to be referenced. It is easily verified by checking other sources and it is written by a widely regarded expert on the scandal and the team. He has been interviewed for a number of articles about the scandal and collecting (read the blog on the site for more information). The content is not going to be added to the article for the specific reason you mentioned. That is exactly why it was placed in the EL section. The site's "file center" could be considered an indispensable resource (on this article and several others).//Tecmobowl 08:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
"Indispensable" for helping you sell more baseball cards. Baseball Bugs 09:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs--if you have something to say about the site, please do. This is not the place for your issues with Tecmo. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:33, June 16 2007 (UTC)
The site is for Tecmo's personal financial gain. His site cannot be separated from him. Mondegreen does not own this talk page and does not have the exclusive right to define what is "on topic". Baseball Bugs 14:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion I opened above is about how the WP:EL guidelines apply to the website. If you disagree with my interpretation, feel free to say so above. If you think that I missed how certain ELs apply, and didn't mention all of the key ones, bring it into the discussion. And, you needn't worry--there are EL guidelines which address money and COI and all of those things. However, it can all be said without personal attacks, and on topic. On topic includes all of the issues you have, but yes, it does seperate the site from site owner. The EL guidelines apply to sites, and they handle all of the things you want to discuss, so feel free to join us. You can decide that sites cannot be seperated from owners and that person attacks are ok, but until you get community consensus for their application, we'll discuss what does have consensus (WP:EL). What we do not yet have consensus about is how they apply, so I hope you join us for that discussion. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:51, June 17 2007 (UTC)
The site's purpose is to sell baseball cards and to enrich Tecmobowl. It is an inappropriate link in wikipedia. Pulling individual pictures of cards from that site and posting them should be fine. Tecmobowl would oppose that approach, for obvious reasons. If there is any part of my view on this that is still unclear to you, let me know. Baseball Bugs 01:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Tecmo--unless there is a particular need for you to respond, I'm going to ask you to stay out of the discussion. Because of your COI (community consensus has decided you have one, even if you disagree) and the way this "discussion" has gone in the past, you should stay out of it. It's hard to do this with you partially in the discussion not only because it riles other users who already find it hard to focus on content without you here, but also because we're trying to decide this on content alone, not any of the past stuff, as though someone else had found the link, put it in the article and someone had raised objections. In that case, there is no site owner or friend of the site to explain how it fits the rules or doesn't, and we're going to try and do that here. Also, quite frankely--it's both unnecessary and probably doesn't help your case.
The blog should not be referred for anything here, not even in this discussion. First, I saw none of the references that Tecmo was refering to, though I didn't spend much time looking I'll admit. The blog, is a blog. While the blog does link to good references--editors of the articles that we're discussing might want to spend some time sifting to find those, the blog is not an organized set of references for the pages we're talking about, so it's irrelevant. The material is either easily sourceable, or not. I think it is, and I think that as we'd be linking to the page for the reference on the cards, it's of lesser importance. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:33, June 16 2007 (UTC)
  • First, my reply did not get personal or off-topic. I simply responded to the the particular post by Irishguy. Second, you should refer to WP:COI#Examples to establish if I have a COI. Remember, just because you believe that I have a COI and does not establish that I have a COI.
I have, in the interest of those guidelines, volunteered information regarding my relationship with the owner of the site in question. A close relationship is NOT tantamount to "living in close proximity to another editor". Surely there are other editors of wikipedia that know each other outside of the "digital context". Again, living in an the same apartment complex/dorm as another editor DOES NOT create a COI.
Lastly, I felt a need to respond and did so. I will remain in this discussion. I am not prevented from making comments simply because some editors cannot separate content from the editor. If someone wants to raise the issue of a potential COI, there is a notice board for COI here. Please feel free to do so Miss Mondegreen, I appreciate your opinion and have a respect for due process. Just don't ask someone to do things simply because you know they, or other editors, can't control themselves. As a note, I am not a fan of moving comments around. //Tecmobowl 13:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Tecmo you said that another user was the owner of the site. As your sockpuppet case has been closed, and it has been decided that you own both accounts, other people have decided for you that you have a COI. They may be wrong. Sockpuppet cases get closed incorrectly. Consensus is sometimes wrong. But, being right doesn't rule wikipedia, consensus does. Consensus might be wrong here--you say it is. But we are going to proceed as though consensus is right.
And you are correct, with a COI, you can participate in the discussion--just not add the links yourself. I do think that your closeness to the site is blinding you in certain ways, and as such, it would be better for you to stay out of the discussion. Other people have and probably will raise legitimate questions and your answers have not been ones that would make the site acceptable per WP:EL, or they've been irrelevant or off-topic and I think someone farther away could do a better job of answering the questions, of having the discussion. You're generally pretty good at this, when you aren't being hot-headed, but I think you're too close here, and it's working to your detriment. Feel free to ignore my advise, but your answer to an issue that was raised was a non-answer and got other editors off-topic and got Baseball bugs hot under the collar again. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:51, June 17 2007 (UTC)
  • On a closely related note, I too do not see the particular article referenced anymore. I was only pointing it out because it would help substantiate the owner's expertise. The fact that the link itself isn't there does not change whether or not the owner is an authority on the topic at hand. //Tecmobowl 13:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • With regards to your first point, the various number of cases raised on the noticeboards against me were handled so poorly that I am not inclined to agree with how you see things there. A checkuser came back negative and I was banned for most of that discussion. Many of the users involved clearly have some significant issues with me outside the "sockpuppet" issue that it is hard to see how they can accuse me of COI without considering their own position. I was unable to defend myself and point many things that would show how I am not a sock. I just don't care to discuss that anymore. People are going to have their own conclusions and there is nothing more i can do about it. I can simply discuss the relevant bits of information. I understand your comment regarding my hotheadedness and there is something to be said for that. However, the only reason I snap back is when I am attacked without respect to due process or polite discourse. I have engaged so many people on here in polite discourse but again who cares. Let's just move on with the content of the discussion the link.
  • There was a post at some point in time on the sites blog pointing to an "external" article, I thought it was still there and that it would show you (with ease), that the site owner is not merely just a "fan" with no knowledge. //Tecmobowl 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I have come up with a compromise. I would like you all to consider it, but you do not have to accept it. I believe what would solve the problem is if we could find new links to replace the disputed one. I am sure that we can find links that have the same information. Thanks for your time.--†Sir James Paul† 04:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Tecmobowl will oppose any alternate link (i.e. to a different, unrelated website), because it would affect a source of his revenue. Baseball Bugs 05:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, what evidence do you have that the website is a source of Tecmobowl's revenue? Thanks.--†Sir James Paul† 05:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's his personal website and its purpose is to sell baseball cards. Baseball Bugs 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's more info: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl. Baseball Bugs 05:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out, in fairness, that the heat of this situation has cooled a bit over the last couple of weeks. Baseball Bugs 06:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thats good. The end of this dispute should not be to far away then. Just do not do anything that would "put fuel on the fire".--†Sir James Paul† 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I previously suggested finding an alternate link. I'm not in love with this particular link, though I do happen to believe it provides additional value to the article. An alternate link (or more if necessary) that provides this information would be acceptable to me.

I also agree with †Sir James Paul†, that putting additional fuel on the fire is unnecessary. We should speak for ourselves, not for each other. Baseball Bugs, it is up to Tecmobowl to say what he will or will not accept. And, given that it is his website (which I am taking on faith - because I have no reason not to.) he does not get to 'vote' on whether or not it stays, as that would be a conflict of interest.

The question, which you didn't answer, is "Would YOU accept a different website if it provided the same information?". Previously you have indicated that you would not.

Lsi john 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

An independent website with the same info might be acceptable, provided its purpose is not to sell something. The better option would be to simply lift the card images from Tecmo's website and post them in the articles. His website could be listed as the source, on the picture pages. Baseball Bugs 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea Baseball Bugs.--†Sir James Paul† 02:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Miss Mondegreen's answer

Short answer: Of course I would.

Long Answer:

I do have some issues with the site--not making money--the fact that on one page of the site cards are listed for sale (not currently) doesn't bother me particularly--knowing people who collect things, I can say that unless he's selling his whole collection, he's probably spending more than he's saving. This does not in any way appear to be a business, but a hobby, and one that costs someone money if anything. However, it is a personal website, which means that finding another website would be ideal.

The baseball cards themselves are rather easy--we can load the small versions onto wiki and add a gallery for each article. No big. Artists with dozens of albums have gallerys, so even if we had every shoeless joe image, we could do this, and we have half a dozen at the most.

The other stuff isn't.

Documents: Some can and should be added to certain articles (images). Some can't (images, documents). Some should be used as ELs and references. I don't think there's a problem with linking to specific documents in the file center. If we could find them hosted on an official database of some sort that might be nice, but I have no problem linking to them hosted by blacksoxfan.

Same goes for the card lists--if there's another better site that has them, obviously we link there. That's never been a question. I just haven't found one and no one else has mentioned one, and I have asked before, but not gotten any answers (either because there isn't one, or it's something else people don't want linked to or ...?). Obviously finding an alternate site would be the easiest solution, and (provided it wasn't a bad EL for some other reason) what's best for wikipedia. I just don't know that there is one. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:11, June 24 2007 (UTC)

  • I assume some sort of Free-Use applies for the copyright issue. (Which would also necessarily apply to whatever website we link to.) Lsi john 12:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • These are, by definition, cards (i.e pictures) made prior to 1923, so I wouldn't think there is any copyright issue. Baseball Bugs 12:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One last time: This is not my website, Baseball Bugs clearly has an agenda against me and as such, I am not going to engage in childish he said/she said. The content to this site is unique and it is offered by an expert on the topic. There are two or three other sites that offer some information, but it is my understanding that their information is out of date (with respect to the . When you people want to grow up and discuss the issue at hand, i'll gladly join in. You are not going to get much more of an official resource than this as the site owner is one of the countries leading experts. Again, pointing to the file center instead of the jackson page might be more useful. //Tecmobowl 13:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Baseball Bugs, all due respect, stop making this about Tecmobowl and his 'adjenda' and stay focused on the material. Lsi john 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tecmobowl's more general agenda is to become the de facto owner of all the baseball biography web pages. For example, his right-now ongoing reversion of the reversion of the Hall of Fame template. You need to (1) stop lecturing me as to what I can talk about and (2) stop trying to divert attention from his behavior with the "content" smoke screen. Baseball Bugs 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The mediation is about the content. The fact that you continue to bring up 'adjenda' tells me that this is a personal issue for you with respect to Tecmobowl. And, in fact, I don't support Tecmobowl. If you believe he has s conflict of interest, or some other improper action, then take it to the proper dispute resolution forum. (1) I'm sorry that you perceive my comments as 'lecturing'. (2) the subject of this compromise/mediation is the content, not Tecmobowl. Therefore any mention of Tecmobowl's behavior is diverting attention away from the focus of the mediation. Lsi john 14:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you cannot look at this in a vacuum. Tecmo's personal agenda is part and parcel of the whole discussion. He has issues with many users, most of whom are reluctant (so far) to take that spoiled child User:Tecmobowl/links#users harassing me behind the administrative woodshed. Baseball Bugs 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs First - how did you find that page? Seeing as i offered no edit summaries during the creation of that page, i would guess that you continue to follow my every move. Get OVER IT. MOVE ON--FOCUS ON THE CONTENT. It is evident that you are convinced i am a sock who is here only to spread my opinion and make it law. WE GOT IT! Now...MOVE ON! As such:

On-Topic Here are the links that are on this page and I'll mention a few other things. 1)Baseball-reference.com 2)blackbetsy.com 3)Find-a-grave 4)NotableNames 5)hallyes.com 6)shoelessjoejackson.com 7)letter to commish 8) Blacksoxfan

It is pretty clear that his official website and baseball-reference.com should stay. I don't know why Find-A-Grave is so widely used, but it is, and it would seem okay (although, I think it could be removed). Notable names should go. Hallyes & the letter are kind of unusual and i have no opinion (though i would lean toward eliminating). That leaves the two fansites - blackbetsy & blacksoxfan. Now, we have to separate out this discussion from the other articles in question (the black sox scandal, 1919 world series, and other players). Blackbetsy is a a nice content rich site, and has an extensive database of information. The same can be said with blacksoxfan. The content on the two sites, however, is different...and based on the blacksoxfan site being produced by someone who is both an expert on the scandal AND baseball cards, the card list is more accurate. The documents at the file center are for the most part unique to the ones on blackbetsy. I say they both stay on this article, but could see the blacksoxfan getting axed if need be. However, this does not extend to any other of the articles in question as blackbetsy is specifically geared toward joe jackson and not the scandal as a whole. //Tecmobowl 14:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Where is the citation demonstrating that the owner of blacksoxfan is an expert on the subject? Baseball Bugs 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Tecmobowl, I can sense from your last comment that you are getting stressed out from this dispute. I do not know how you act when stressed because I have not interacted with you in the past, but I know that many people can get incivil when they are stressed. All that we need in this dispute is for someone to say something incivil.
If any of you feel like you are stressed out, please just take a few days off from this dispute, or at least watch what you are saying more carefully. Contemplate if what you have wrote might make things worse before you hit the "save" button. Remember that the second that you hit that button there is no taking it back. Thanks for your time.--†Sir James Paul† 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have said all I can think of to say on this subject, and am removing this item from my watch list. Hopefully, Tecmo will come up with the citation I asked for, and you all can judge if it holds water or not. Baseball Bugs 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope not stressed, just not going to put up with his crap. Take a look at this gem here. This is a content based discussion, and not a he/said she/said. I have not said anything uncivil, and based on the past actions of certain editors and their unbridadled attacks on me, I think I have every right to say something back if i want. I just don't care...STOP TALKING ABOUT ME... this goes for you to SJP. I knwo you are just trying to help, but please ... WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE INVOLVED //Tecmobowl 15:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Tecmobowl, I have not commented on you or any of the other editors nor will I. I agree with you that the discussion needs to be about the links, not the editors involved in this dispute. It is unneeded to comment on the editors involved.
I would like to ask for everyone to just stop talking about Tecmobowl or any other editor involved and just talk about a compromise and wether or not the link is fit to be in the article. Thanks.--†Sir James Paul† 15:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we all agree to stop commenting on the editors and comment only on the links?--†Sir James Paul† 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break, just 'cuz

back on topic

NNDB - Good point. What on earth is that doing in the article? NNDB bios should really never be used as an EL. NNDB profiles cover basic information that should already be in the article. If not, I've never seen one that has important information that wouldn't be covered in a featured article. NNDB profiles can be used as references of notability, but we don't need that. That's straightforward.

Blackbetsy - well, it's a fan site and they do sell merchandise, but they have a lot of good stuff, stuff from experts. Perhaps linking to this specific page instead of the home page would be better? Also, blackbetsy has statistics. Do we need both sites?

blacksoxfan - forget whether or not an expert is writing it, we'll go back and forth on that forever because people have a tendency to get personal. The issue is verifiability. First, the documents are documents--they're just hosted on the site and that shouldn't affect anything. No one has an issue with linking to the documents in the file center, do they? If so, what's the issue? Second, Irishguy did raise the following reliability issue: he pointed to the EL that says "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. " isn't ok. But he hasn't said which problem it is, or what exactly he thinks is inaccurate or unverifiable and I don't see either problem (Lsi John and I have both asked Irishguy for an elaboration and haven't gotten one). Unless someone else also sees this problem and can actually specify it....

Going back to the original question, does someone know of a better EL that provides card statistics like blacksoxfan does? That's the specific issue here Tecmo--we aren't linking to it because of the filecenter--we would, and I assume will link to specific files in the center as appropriate. Like the current EL linking to the letter from the Commissioner. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:20, June 25 2007 (UTC)

So to summarize:

  1. Anyone see a reason to link to NNDB?
  2. linking to http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm instead of blackbetsy homepage?
  3. both blackbetsy statistics and baseball reference statistics needed?
  4. Does anyone have an issue with linking to files in the blacksoxfan file center?
  5. Does anyone see "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." in the blacksoxfan ELs? Be specific if you do please.
  6. Does anyone know of a better EL that provides card statistics like blacksoxfan does?
  • 1-no 2-sure 3-baseball-reference 4-i don't think that's a problem 5- no 6-no, there are a number of sites that are professional that *might* contain that information, but there is no better list for bbcard information on the black sox than black sox fan. //Tecmobowl 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you make an attempt to find some? In terms of the links to the pages, we are judging in terms of the list, so if some other website has the same list, it's important to know. If the list isn't as complete, we can see that for outselves. If some site has good lists for some players but not others, we can use one site for some article and one site for others. Can you make an attempt to find something please? Miss Mondegreen talk  07:01, June 26 2007 (UTC)
  • Attempts to find what? Why is the onus on me here? Blackbetsy.com has a list of baseball cards that it sourced from another site, those are both wrong. It is obvious here that blacksoxfan provides a useful resource to people. This is why I inserted it. That's it, nothing more to it. I am sorry if i am getting snippy with everyone, but i am sick and tired of this complete waste of time. Fangraphs does not belong, blacksoxfan does, hrpace.com does not belong, other sites do... what i am getting at is let's just move on. //Tecmobowl 11:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::*And, as expected, your idea of "compromise" is "Do it my way!" Baseball Bugs 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, please do not say things that could make things worse. It does not help.--†Sir James Paul† 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous comments were stricken as an apology from Baseball Bugs to Tecmobowl. Lsi john 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

BB, instead of replying to Tecmo, could you reply to my questions? I find myself constantly asking questions and only getting responses from Tecmo, or only from people who aren't in conflict and there's no point to have all of this discussion if the only people answering questions and talking don't have a really disagreement with each other. I don't see the point in continuing this if you're just going to continually respond with comments critiquing other people, instead of actually discussing and responding to questions and concerns. We're trying to take your concerns seriously--even though you haven't actually voiced what they are. Could you please be respectful of other people's opinions as well and attempt to join discussion? You don't have to talk to Tecmo, you know. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:43, June 27 2007 (UTC)

Lsi John - I'm a bit confused. Is this to say that Baseball Bugs is apologizing or that you are doing it for him? In any case, I neither want, expect, or need an apology from this user. All I care about is the content. //Tecmobowl 12:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why comment at all? Let it go. I marked it appropriately and documented it for history. If you want nothing, then say nothing about it, and focus on mediation. Peace.Lsi john 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The apology was more towards the user SJP who advised against posting that snippy but true statement. Tecmo has been a jerk towards me more times than I can count, so he gets no more appy polly loggy from me. And Mr. "peace in god", lsi john, decided to stir this up some more by re-posting my comments. Baseball Bugs 12:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it wasn't my intention to stir things up. It was my intention to properly document the history. It was said, it should stay. BB wished to retract it, so it gets stricken. If the apology was sincere, fine. If the apology wasn't sincere, thats fine too. Lets move on, shall we? Peace.Lsi john 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I chose to post the comments, I chose to delete them, and you chose to repost them and throw more gasoline on the fire. Tecmo's constant yelping about "content" is a smokescreen. Wikipedia is not just about content. It looks like Tecmobowl is about to start an RFC against the admin Irishguy, as a revenge move for Irishguy having shown Tecmobowl to be a sockpuppet and getting him temporarily blocked, which was at least two weeks ago with no apparent harm to Tecmo other than bruised pride. That could well see the tables being turned on Mr. Tecmo, as he has made a lot of enemies himself here, beyond those he specifically lists on his page User:Tecmobowl/links#users harassing me. Thank you for your contributions to that effort. Baseball Bugs 13:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
And just in case the meaning of my snippy comment was unclear to Mr. "Talk about the content!" the bottom line is that there is no content more important to that user than to push his personal website. Baseball Bugs 13:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john, people can take out rude comments, wether it is from themselves or someone else. Actualy, it is a good thing to do that in a dispute. Thanks.--†Sir James Paul† 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
†Sir James Paul† thank you. I've been reprimanded for removing comments in the past, and also, on one of the AN/I boards, I removed my own 'filing' and someone 'reverted it back' and 'closed it' commenting - for the record. I understand your point, and I also feel that leaving the words and striking them out, did three things.. 1) it documents that Bugs did lose his temper.. 2) and it demonstrates that he thought it over and retracted it and 3) it showed that Temcobowl was rude in the face of an apology. In some ways I'm a deletionist, and in other ways I'm an inclusionist.. go figure. Peace.Lsi john 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As it turns out, this was just the start of a Bad Day at Black Sox Rock for Tecmo. I had wondered if his pushing all those administrative grievances would backfire, and boy did it ever... they re-did the checkuser on him and determined that he was using El redactor as a sockpuppet. He just went nuts after that, practically begging for sanctions. Maybe the week off will help, although there's nothing in his behavior pattern to suggest that. Currently there's an administrative complaint against him, so we'll see if the current 1-week suspension turns into a "life sentence". Baseball Bugs 08:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and it's worth pointing out that I had some discussion with Lsi john, and we're good now. Unlike Tecmo, he will actually engage in dialogue. :) Baseball Bugs 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. And, by the way, thank you for dropping by and finding out. Peace.Lsi john 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, come on people

Of course the link to Tecmobowl's site is inappropriate and should be removed. Vidor 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see more editors here, we could really use more opinions on this. Do you have anything content related to say? A reason that the site is a bad site? An alternative? A comment on the compromise? An answer to any on my questions above? We have plenty of editors saying "tecmo this" "tecmo that"--we know that people can talk their heads off about tecmo. Do you have something to say about WP:EL and how it relates to the site in question? Miss Mondegreen talk  22:13, June 30 2007 (UTC)
Content-related: Baseball Bugs is right, the link should go. Is that enough? This is Wikipedia at its weakest, when there's a clear and obvious course of action but people won't take it. Vidor 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Baseeball bugs hasn't given a reason why. It's not enough to say "it should go" if you don't have a reason why. Nor is it enough for it to be Tecmo's site. It was enough when Tecmo was the one who added it--then it was spam. But two users who aren't his sockpuppets (both I and Lsi John) thought the site was good since. Wikipedia users, and banned users can have their sites as ELs on Wikipedia. The proper procedure is to raise it on the talk page and someone else make that decision. We all know that Tecmo didn't follow procedures. But it doesn't matter if he had a COI or whatever--because he's not the one adding it now and he can't even participate in discussion. Nor can he attempt to spam again, and if he tries and is caught, well, hopefully he won't be stupid enough and hopefully some new user won't revert someone who removes the site unknowingly, because if that user isn't Tecmo, they'll be condemned anyway. That aside, the issues are unique info v. fan site. leave tecmo aside. Miss Mondegreen talk  21:37, July 4 2007 (UTC)
As for your questions--

1. Anyone see a reason to link to NNDB? No. 2. linking to http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm instead of blackbetsy homepage? Don't care. 3. both blackbetsy statistics and baseball reference statistics needed? No. Baseball Reference only. 4. Does anyone have an issue with linking to files in the blacksoxfan file center? Yes. Don't. Commercial site, as pointed out at great length above. 5. Does anyone see "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." in the blacksoxfan ELs? Be specific if you do please. Eh. 6. Does anyone know of a better EL that provides card statistics like blacksoxfan does? Remain unconvinced we need 'card statistics' at all. Not entirely sure what "card statistics" are, other than the going rate of sale for individual Joe Jackson cards, info that has no place in the article. Vidor 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good answers. FYI, that's the personal website of User:Tecmobowl, who is now indefinitely blocked, so once they lift the editing ban on this page, one of us can delete that link. Baseball Bugs 02:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
card statistics are the complete list of cards that that ballplayer was one. There are no statistics in terms of selling etc, it would be great if you looked at the site before answering. out of various baseball statistics, I find this more interesting than some of the bizarre ones INTENSE fans focus on (i.e. fangraphs). it speaks more to the business end of the sport, though it's sort of an incomplete picture. i wish that what that data meant was incorporated into the wiki articles and explained but it never is
the only issue that I can see EL wise is that this is a fan site. there doesn't really seem to be a monetary issue--first, as long as I've seen the site, he hasn't been selling. second, it's clearly a fan site. he trades as well as sells, and he's spending on bandwidth too--he has no ads to offset expenses--he's not making money
I'm confused, you have an issue with linking to a document on his website? when you link to the document there aren't even navigational links. he has an enormous file center. photos, letters, contracts, old articles, movies, images of old tickets, signed balls--it's like a mini baseball museum. if we link to a file, we link to the file and the person would have to get to the rest of the site by editing the link in the browser. plus, this stuff isn't anywhere else most of it. and it's incredible stuff that can't be incorporated into the articles because most of it's media that just can't. some of the images can be and should be--most are public domain, but why on earth wouldn't we use this stuff? do we really care that he's hosting? Miss Mondegreen talk  21:37, July 4 2007 (UTC)
I've stated any number of times why it doesn't belong; the majority agree that it doesn't belong; and the admins agree that it doesn't belong. It's spam; it's a fan site; it's not an appropriate external link for wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of offending admins everywhere.. An admin is an editor with more tools, nothing more. It does not mean they have more life experience or are any more qualified to make a decision than an editor with 2 edits. As much as you've stated that the site shouldn't be an EL. I've stated that it should. It boils down to an opinion. Peace.Lsi john 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, they know how to recognize a sockpuppet when they see one, and they know spam when they see it also. Baseball Bugs 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
One man's spam is another man's dinner. As I said before, the link is far more important to you than it is to me and it's clearly preventing you from moving forward. I previously said I wouldn't fight to keep it. In the interest of moving on, I now change my vote to 'delete' it. Peace.Lsi john 23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

card statistics are the complete list of cards that that ballplayer was one--then there's no such thing as "card statistics", just an index of Shoeless Joe cards. Hardly enough to merit linking to a personal fansite, even if it weren't also a commercial site. Baseball Bugs is right on the money. Needs to go. Vidor 02:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

index, statistic, whatever you want to call it, it's too long to be included in the article. and it's a field of baseball statistics--how many cards a player had in how many years, how early in their career they got one, how many team cards, how many cards after they stopped playing (memorial cards), etc. it's not laid out that way in a chart, though I presume it is somewhere, but a great deal of that information can be gleaned by looking at that list. personally, I find it interesting, looking at which players get certain kinds of contracts or deals and which didn't and how that does or doesn't match up to the rest of their career. it's certainly unique information. it's a fansite yes (not a commercial one, give it a rest), and frankly, the way ELs are included in baseball articles this would never have been a problem if it wasn't an issue with Tecmo. the weeks of personal attacks (even when Tecmo left the issue alone) speaks to the fact that editors couldn't or didn't want to seperate the site from him. irishguy and baseball bugs both alluded to content issues but never actually outlined any. and then you came along and agreed with baseball bugs' non-existent comments on content, and raised an issue with the file center, but wouldn't say what. this is ridiculous. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:25, July 6 2007 (UTC)
index, statistic, whatever you want to call it, it's too long to be included in the article. and it's a field of baseball statistics. No, it's not. That's not what a "statistic" is. A statistic is a measure of a player's performance, like runs batted in or batting average. A list of baseball card numbers? Not a statistic. Pointless trivia, actually. not a commercial one, give it a rest. No. You see, I wish to make this article better, instead of using it to hawk Tecmobowl's baseball cards. Vidor 03:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
"it's a field of baseball statistics" --I wasn't referring to the actual list, but more generally to the substance it was dealing with. on that note, you should look up the word statistic, as I don't believe, that even discussing baseball it is a measure of a player's performance, though I do think that some people would think that baseball card statistics would in fact be one way to measure a player's if not performance, success. at any rate statistics are just comparitive numbers. you just don't think this aspect is important, or important enough and that's your call. but try and seperate issues here please. there's a difference between not thinking that this is important, and believing that it's irrelevant, and believing that it doesn't matter because you don't like the site Miss Mondegreen talk  22:14, July 11 2007 (UTC)
Baseball Bug's majority
I'm not sure who you were counting baseball bugs, but I believe that until vidor said "hardly enough to merit linking to a personal fansite", lsi john and I had been for the link and Irishguy had expressed a similar opinion to vidor's. that's it. three people, two for, one against. we know that you are against the link and dislike tecmo but you have declined to provide anything content related other than "SPAM!!! COI!!!" something smallbones also mentioned. for the record:

"adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."

while it could very well have been considered spam when tecmo added it given a strong COI, the most recent addition had been by lsi john, and who added it for the purpose of bettering wikipedia, not promoting blacksoxfan Miss Mondegreen talk  11:25, July 6 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the file center

Moving the discussion away from card lists and back to the file center issue for a bit.

Vidor--you said about linking to files in the file center, "Yes. Don't. Commercial site, as pointed out at great length above."

Are you kidding?

First, let's go over what a commercial site is:

“ Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. ”

Raise your hand if you think that the owner of blacksoxfan is running the site primarily to make money. He's hosting dozens of files, his blog and a fansite all so that he can have a page that isn't even currently selling things right now? Are you kidding?

Also, we'd be linking to a file--whatever we link to, no navigation to the rest of the site.

Finally--links normally to be avoided, guideline--these are great documents that can't be put on wiki at all. Why would we avoid providing links to incredible documents? This is the kind of stuff that people break rules and guidelines for in the name of improving the wiki--and I don't even see how we'd would be doing that. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:25, July 6 2007 (UTC)

  • "Counts of baseball cards" would only be of interest to collectors, which takes it back to what that site is really about, which is selling cards, and thus it's against the wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs 12:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? No. Raise your hand if you think that the owner of blacksoxfan is running the site primarily to make money. Don't care. He uses his site to sell baseball cards. Am not sure why you are so determined to keep a link to a commercial site on this page, but I hope in the end that sanity prevails and the link is removed. To review: 1) the link is a commercial site, and against Wikipedia rules, and 2) the "information" is pointless trivia. Vidor 03:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so determined to keep a link to this site. I came here as a mediator between baseball bugs and tecmo. I saw problems with the site, but not flagrant el violations, and I attempted to mediate their discussion, ask baseball bugs for an opinion that wasn't altogether irrelvant or a personal attack. when that didn't work and didn't work and I'd finally spent some time at the site, and since I didn't really know the complaints baseball bugs and irish guy had, i took a stance on it and added it. at the time two editors thought the site had positive el value, and discussed that here. all i wanted was consensus--not consensus based bullying. all baseball bugs and irishguy had to do was say--the list of baseball cards is unique, but not at all important. considering that it's also a fansite and we have a lot of other els--or anything else that wasn't incorrect, a personal attack, or stupid. after a great deal of time, at least two editors have said something content related that is not a wild accusation with no support, that is not false, and if I ignore everything else that you and irishguy have said, i can pretend that those are two content related opinions. i'm still not happy--not because i really want this el here, but because this is still wikibullying. what i really don't understand is why. i said all along that all i needed was a reason and i'd go away. i can't imagine that none of you know how to wikilawyer--in fact, i've seen it before. and months later i'm still hearing COI! SPAM! COI! as if none of you have read any wiki guidelines or policies and i know that's not true. winning this should have been so easy, because there were always enough people for consensus, and it's not like more couldn't have been rounded up. all I ever insisted on was that this was one through consensus--no bullying, no personal attacks. why was that so damn hard?

calling this a commercial site is stupid

yes, stupid. figuring out what a commercial site is takes judgement--takes drawing a line in the sand. if you're going to include this site, then that automatically includes blackbetsy and a whole lot of other sites--websites don't just use advertising to offset costs. a lot sell things. you can't draw the line here for one site and then take it back for another. and since you have other content reasons for not included blacksoxfan, you don't need this one. but it's up to you. i'll stop arguing that it's not a commercial site. but i already said that wiki-bullying doesn't work with me. i'll make sure that whatever consensus is reached, is enforced.

the file center

this, i actually do have an interest in. the owner of the site has loaded dozens of files online. the only way we can make use of those files is to link to them. this site should have been an enormous boon to use. dozens of photos--not just of baseball cards, but of the trial and training and all sorts of things. and, every, or almost every photo on that site is a public domain image. we could add baseball card galleries to several articles, and dozens of articles could benefit from images in the file center. just the photo of the trial--think about how many articles could use that.
the files we can only link to--but that's something people come here for too. they come here for top rate articles that show them great images and link them to the documents related to the article. not only that, but a fair number of these could be used as references, not just els. i don't see the issue. we would linking to a document, and if we linked to the document it would be relevant (or it would be dealt with). it's a fan site, but so it blackbetsy--so are a lot of things, and while it's something to be avoided, linking to documents that we can't provide ourselves falls into the "What should be linked". it's not commercial, though if you want to draw the line there and exclude a lot of sites, i can't stop you--but again, documents fall into the "What should be linked" category and we'd be linking to the individual documents--not the home page (the way we currently link to blackbetsy) not to the filecenter page (the way we plan to link to blackbetsy in the future)
the only decisions left to make are about linking to individual files from the file center as they are relevant. please provide an opinion about blackbetsy too
we're talking about linking to http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm and linking to individual files from http://www.blacksoxfan.com/file_center/browse.php
The links would look something like this:
Shoeless Joe Jackson's Virtual Hall of Fame
This one is just a random example that I pulled--the idea is that a relevant article could be used as an el (or reference possibly):
Arnold (Chick) Gandil's Confession, Sports Illustrated, Sept. 17, 1956
WP:EL doesn't apply the same to both sites, but for both it's a clash between "what should be linked" and "links normally to be avoided" Miss Mondegreen talk  22:14, July 11 2007 (UTC)

Maybe by the time the page is unlocked, some number of months from now, this issue will actually be settled. :) Baseball Bugs 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

all i wanted was consensus And the majority opinion that the link needs to go apparently isn't enough?. Vidor 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the problem that Tecmo keeps trying to come back. User:Long levi was his latest (banned) sockpuppet. Once Tecmo's various incarnations are gone with the wind (to make an appropriate Atlanta analogy), it should be safe to unblock this page and zap that link. Baseball Bugs 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

And the problem that Tecmo keeps trying to come back is relevant how? The page wasn't locked because of Tecmo--in fact, I believe I requested page protection while he was blocked. the page was locked because of edit warring and a complete lack of discussion. the locking of the page was used to force discussion. at the time it was locked, tecmo wasn't a part of the picture, nor were any sockpuppets, and no one would still discuss any of the issues at hand and yes, we've settled as best as we can for now the issue of the baseball list EL, changing the blackbetsy EL and we just have to decide on linking to files. Once a decision is made, great, i'll request the page unprotection myself and make the changes myself. The problem is is that the precedent that was set with blackbetsy is the one generally used when people follow WP:EL--that what should be linked comes before links normally to be avoided and unless the link hits a number of the criteria to be avoided or is particularly agregious, if there is no alternative for linking to that material, the link should remain. I think this makes sense and is what we should use here. blackbetsy is used as a reference in this article twice, and it's an EL once. and yet, with the exact same issues at hand, people have expressed problems with linking to files from the blacksoxfann file center as both references and ELs. I think we should side on content. both sides are providing good content and generally what should be linked, and good resources for references trump links to be avoided. If consensus, at least on this article is strongly against that, as recent comments would suggest, that's fine, but the blackbetsy links would also have to be removed. If people don't want to talk more, sure, I'll request unprotection and remove the blacksoxfan link, but given where consensus was when discussion stopped, blackbetsy links and references would also have to be removed. and I'm pretty sure that as soon as I do that, someone will put them back and very shortly we'll be back where we are now, a protected page, the same issue to be figured out Miss Mondegreen talk  02:54, July 16 2007 (UTC)

It could stay protected until Doomsday with Tecmo/Levi's link in there, and that would be tolerable, as he probably needs the income. Baseball Bugs 03:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not talking about the link to the baseball card lists. See the file center question posed above. The two questions asked were about the baseball card lists as ELs and linking to the files. The responses about linking to files would also require the remove of the blackbetsy links. None of the changes have gone into affect yet--not the tecmo link removal, not the link change discussed and not the blackbetsy link removals. The page protection was to force discussion and I think it should be continued because I don't think people will be happy with the blackbetsy link removals--especially as we're talking are both references and ELs and I think that if we unprotect and go forward we'll be brought right back to where we are now.
Talking would help of course--additional insults to Tecmo do nothing. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:05, July 16 2007 (UTC)
Leave it protected, or un-protect it. Either way is fine. Baseball Bugs 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you †Sir James Paul†

I'm removing this article from my watch list and withdrawing from my limited involvment in the mediation. I appreciate the time you've spent helping. Peace.Lsi john 12:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. Until the site is unblocked, nothing will happen. And until Tecmobowl is absolutely and finally gone, which he isn't yet, it remains a stalemate. Baseball Bugs 13:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woah

You need to stop edit warring at this page and altering comments on this page. It's disruptive. If someone is indef blocked, fine... but there really is no reason to remove or strike out all of their previous comments here. At this point, further disruption along these lines may result in blocks... just fair warning.--Isotope23 20:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am (again) stopping watching this page, to divorce myself from this issue. Baseball Bugs 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Iso--I believe that the reason to strike through comments of a banned user are those expressed in the philosophy behind the deletion of such user's comments on their talk pages -- as WP:BAN puts it, to "The purpose ... is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." I would suggest that you consider those RVing BB to be engaging in disruptive behavior, in that what BB is doing is in accord with the philosophy behind WP:BAN.--Epeefleche 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't kick people while they're down. >Radiant< 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy

Here are comments from Mademoiselle Vert World and Mr. Isotope Michael Jordan / Ryne Sandberg from my talk page. It's important to point out that while I was concerned about Tecmo/Levi still being active a few days ago, he appears to have disappeared, or else is being very stealthy:

He was banned therefore his opinions are irrelevant? He no longer contributes to consensus, but he didn't at the time--COI, remember? His opinions don't become irrelevant though--just because someone is banned doesn't mean that everything they have said is irrelevant. Plus, I like to be able to read the talk page and I bloodly well can't right now. This is ridiculous--I don't care what your problems are with Tecmo. He's gone and continuing this obsession with him is beyond insane. It's not your talk page, you don't control it. It's a record of conversation--not a record of conversation adjusted to your preferances. When I read old discussion I have to realize that I'm only able to take what's in front of my face for granted--the content. Striking through the comments makes it impossible to read--you aren't striking through your own comment and replacing it, or striking through and improper vote--you're messing with someone else's comments for personal reasons. Miss Mondegreen talk  13:12, July 17 2007 (UTC)

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

Baseball Bugs 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm sure someone I've chastised for editing other editors' comments will diff this as proof positive of my hypocrisy, I block quoted & indent formated the text Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) posted above so it is clear that I and Miss Mondegreen (talk · contribs) didn't actually leave those comments at this page... there was no change to the actual text.--Isotope23 02:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Iso--I followed it, but tx. Just want to say I appreciate your offer on Tecmo. He has had 3 socks already, I believe -- one after the indef ban. And it just took him under a week after that ban to start the sock.--Epeefleche 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about any confusion. The comments I had posted by Mondegreen and Isotope were originally on my talk page (and still are, until I ark-hive them) and I copied them here since they pertain to the Tecmo/Levi/Redactor discussion. Meanwhile, I've not seen any evidence that he has made another try at a comeback this week. Meanwhile, I'm un-watching yet again. :) Baseball Bugs 10:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Here are comments from Mademoiselle Vert World and Mr. Isotope Michael Jordan / Ryne Sandberg from my talk page"

Excuse me? Lay off the personal Baseball Bugs.
I was making a little wordplay with your usernames. Where's your sense of humor? Baseball Bugs 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's important to point out that while I was concerned about Tecmo/Levi still being active a few days ago, he appears to have disappeared, or else is being very stealthy"

I don't understand at all the relevance of these comments. If you've changed your mind about Tecmo being and issue, or you want people to look for a stealthier one--say that. What are the comments from your talk page being copied here for? Miss Mondegreen talk  00:46, July 19 2007 (UTC)
I've not changed my mind. An IP address using a Verizon Wireless subnet, which Tecmo/Levi made a point of telling us that he uses, has zoomed in on some of Tecmo/Levi's pet articles and tried to undo some of Epeefleche's nominations for deletion. I have reverted them. [6] Baseball Bugs 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, whatever your opinions, what was the point of this little display, the quotes, the grand statements, the names? Aside from the fact that it's completely irrelevant and doesn't belong here, you're stirring the pot and coming close to a personal attack, or at the very least, getting personal. You could contact someone if you need to tell them something or talk about something on their talk pages. Issues should be raised at appropriate pages--ANI, AIV, etc. Personal attacks--well don't. So can we return to at least pretending to discuss something related to the topic? Miss Mondegreen talk  14:06, July 22 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for asking, I've only very briefly looked at this dispute, but does anyone agree with Baseball Bugs? If not, then I would suggest there is a consensus the external link should be included. Addhoc 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's the personal spam site of a permanently blocked user. You do the math. Baseball Bugs 18:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
To answer Addhoc's question, from scanning this page it is apparent that yes, a number of people agree with BB.--Epeefleche 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining - I should have looked more carefully. Addhoc 10:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If it were spam, the article would not have been protected for MONTHS while this lack of a debate continued. And really Baseball Bugs, the files are spam too? Linking to articles and copies of contracts? Let's put it this way Addhoc--there are personal issues here I can't even begin to understand. There about the same number of editors for and against the EL, but some of the editors have provided reasons per WP:EL and some have attacked other editors instead. Reasons have been provided for why not to use the files--reasons that would require the removal of another EL and a few references, and when I pointed that out and attempted to reconcile that issue, well the most recent problem started---the strikethroughs. We're desperately looking for mediation and/or outside opinions. So if you'd like to offer help on either score, please! Miss Mondegreen talk  13:48, July 22 2007 (UTC)
In the context of Wizardman resigning from the mediation, I've listed the case under tasks on the Community Portal page. I don't have a very strong opinion about including the external link, however it does appears reasonably informative. Addhoc 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The article was protected on June 13, which hardly qualifies as "for MONTHS". Admins have agreed with me that the link is spam and doesn't belong. And that link is the sole point of disagreement about the article, as far as I know. As the protection notes, its presence during the protection does not imply approval of the conent, it's merely a roadblock to edit warring. And my view from day one has been that the link serves no value other than to promote the (now banned) user Tecmo/Levi's personal interests. Baseball Bugs 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Slight exaggeration--it's only felt like months. Since you're the editor with a primary interest in this, please comment on the file links. Also, if some people think a link provides value and others don't, we tend to generally side on inclusion. Readers who stop by look at the link and think it provides value. This kind of fight over a link would never happen were it not connected to Tecmo. Other then the fact that you don't see the value it provides, is there some reason NOT to link to the site (a reason that doesn't have to word Tecmo in it)? So far people have mentioned it's commercial (laughable) and a fan-site. That however doesn't seem to be a problem for other links on this specific page, nor on other baseball pages. My original interest was in the process, and while that interest remains, I do have an additional interest in the files now. And BB--if no one talks, this will be protected for forever. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:24, July 23 2007 (UTC)
I have lost track of how many times I've given you my opinion of the link in question. I'm not saying it again. Baseball Bugs 12:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that it was 17 times, but I may have missed one or two.--Epeefleche 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If it were spam, the article would not have been protected for MONTHS while this lack of a debate continued. The link to Tecmo's page is spam. And I think your vigorous defense of Tecmobowl is one of the primary reasons the link remains and the page has been protected. Vidor 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you Vidor. Agreed. It is especially disturbing, in light of Miss M's recent offer to serve as a proxy for Tecmo, a banned user, in violation of Wiki policy. See [7]--Epeefleche 04:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Saying something is spam doesn't make it spam. From WP:SPAM:

  • Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

  • Maybe Tecmo added the link for the purpose of promoting the website--everyone certainly agrees that he had a COI. But I didn't add the link for the purpose of promoting the website and neither did Lsi John. If the head of a company adds a link to a site, it's spam, or at least COI--if someone else sees the site and thinks it's a good EL, it's not. That doesn't mean that if you happen to run a great resource you can't do anything. Users with a COI are supposed to raise the issue on the talk page and let other users--users with no conflict decide. Tecmo didn't do that properly, but by the edit warring, the topic did get raised on the talk page and it did get the attention of other edits. Baseball bugs has cried spam, so has Irishguy and Smallbones and now you Vidor. But, by definition, it isn't. The link was added by Lsi John and then I reverted Baseball bugs trying to remove it on the grounds of spam. And since that time I've been trying to get the users who are up in arms about Tecmo to talk content, not Tecmo.
  • And in terms of offering to act as Tecmo's proxy? Epeefleche, you took advantage of Tecmo's ban to strike through his comments on talk pages and remove old edits of his, going back as far as a year almost--at least the ones that I know. You used edit summaries that said you were enforcing a ban so that people who disagreed with you wouldn't be able to voice those opinions, even though you were not in fact enforcing a ban. I and others from WP:ANI reverted what we saw and were able to find, but by no means did any of us have the time or capabilities to do the extensive research into your edits it would have required to find all of them. So I suggested, that if Tecmo was watching he might e-mail an editor with a list of anything we missed. Had I received an e-mail, I would have posted the contents at ANI. I never did. It was an attempt to keep users like yourself from getting away with serious post-ban harassment. Banned users don't have any options--other than sockpuppetry to keep people from abusing their bans. If we properly enforce the don't harass banned users element of WP:BAN, that prevents sockpuppetry and a lot of other behavioral problems--both from banned users and from current users. I hope my explanation clears this up for you. But whether or not you understand that, understand this--I will no longer put up with continued harassment from you. I don't mention all of the disagreements I have had with you, or your Wiki violations in content disputes. Nor do I anyone else's. I don't know how many times I have said this--it's about content, not people. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:22, July 27 2007 (UTC)
The link is spam, and it was originally posted by a Tecmo sockpuppet; all you or anyone else has done since is try to restore it from time to time. It is not true that Tecmo had no options, he just refused to accept any of them. It is also not true that it's "just about content" (as Tecmo kept saying, to try to deflect attention from his bad behavior), it is also about people, i.e. it is about getting along instead of adopting the "my way or the highway", bullying attitude that Tecmo and his sockpuppets continually used. And I commend you for expressing your candid comments in vigorous debate, and not descending to edit-warring. If Tecmo had taken the same approach, he might still be here. Baseball Bugs 10:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was originally posted by Tecmo--Tecmo probably posted it to promote the website, I don't know. If it wasn't spam then, at the very least it was COI, and not ok either. But, out of talk page discussion and looking at the site, other editors found value in it and added it not to promote the site, but because they thought it made a good EL. Maybe you don't quite understand the idea of spam or COI. This isn't about punishing people. If someone adds a link to promote a site, that's not ok. But if the site is a good site, that doesn't mean that we try and punish the person and the article and everyone else but refusing to use it. WP:SPAM does not read "cut off your nose to spite your face". As a banned user, Tecmo has no options, except to try and come back, and a path has been laid for that, but that both takes a lot of time, and it assumes that he wants to continue editing Wikipedia. The reason that language is in WP:BAN is that so banned users aren't taken advantage of, whether or not they have the possiibity of coming back in front of them. Short term, there was nothing he could do that wouldn't be breaking the rules, except contact another user and hope that they took the situation seriously. We had a choice of letting a current user get away with abusing the system, or accepting help from a banned user. Tecmo never contacted anyone, afaik, but even if he had, I'm not sure what would have happened. I appreciate the compliment Baseball bugs...though I must say it's something I hope you'll think on. You clearly have strong opinions about things, and when I've worked with you in other areas, you've expressed your opinions very well. It's disappointing and frustrating to only hear "tecmo this" and "tecmo that" coming out of your mouth here--it makes discussion about content issues that aren't straightforward--content issues I want to hear other opinions on and go back and forth and have real discussion about--well, it makes that discussion hard at best, nonexistent most of the time. Miss Mondegreen talk  11:02, July 27 2007 (UTC)

Miss M-I'm going to not address your over-long discussion of off-topic matters. I would appreciate your respecting consensus. As you point out, your viewpoint is a singular one that you share with an indef banned sockpuppet, whom you have offered to act as a proxy for. All others who have expressed views here differ. Your edits are quite long, but not only are they repetitive and circular, their length does not give them greater impact than the consensus of the others on this page.--Epeefleche 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you just did. Off-topic? I was replying to your off-topic claims against me. Had you stuck to the content and not attacked me, I wouldn't have had to, also off-topic, defend myself. This is only circular because any time someone calls it spam and I quote WP:SPAM and show why it's not, they, like you are doing right now, refuse to respond on topic. Either stop talking about me and find away to discuss content or just don't say anything to me. This is harassment Epeefleche. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:25, July 28 2007 (UTC)
I will limit myself to clarifying the difference between personal attacks and criticisms of your actions. If I call you fat, ugly, and surprisingly hirsute, those would be personal attacks. I do not do that. Nor would I -- and not only because I suspect you are slender, beautiful, and becomingly smooth-skinned. I do not do it because those would be personal attacks. At the same time, when I describe your actions as innappropriate because, among other things, you offer to act as a proxy for a banned users, I am attacking only your actions and not you. Peoples' actions are important. For example, people get banned for disruptive actions--content aside.--Epeefleche 15:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You also assume I'm a woman when the only indication you have that is my username which is literary. For all you know, I'm a balding, heavy-set, man in the midst of a mid-life crisis. At any rate, there is a thin line between criticism of actions and personal attacks. When the criticism is repetitive, provocative, irrelevant, unnecessary, used to avoid a content related discussion, and based on factual inaccuracies, you're more likely than not on the other side of the line. And, since this is in fact off-topic here, I'll continue on your talk page. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:57, July 29 2007 (UTC)
You once again put words in my mouth. While I said I suspect you are slender, beautiful, and becomingly smoothskinned, I do not believe I indicated that I assume you are a woman -- despite your use, of course, of the honorific "Miss" for yourself. In fact, your suggestion of the possibity that you are balding matches nicely my suspicion of your being smooth-skinned. But that of course is all beside the point. I've made my point, and will not clutter up this page further with responses to your off-topic remarks ... to the extent possible.--Epeefleche 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not put words in your mouth. You've referred to me as "she" on a number of occasions. As many people do based on my name. I chose the honorific Miss because Lady is already in use most places, including here I think, and so Miss seemed like the next best thing. As I said, it's a literary name. It's not a big deal--I was well aware that it was not a gender neutral name when I chose it and I didn't real care. It was simply a comment on assumptions. And, you have no obligation to keep my comments on your talk page, but I do expect you to stop attacking me. I went though and responded to everyone on your comments. You can no longer pretend that you are not aware of the factual inaccuracies that I have now brought to your attention, nor can you continue to pretend that you really aren't attacking me. You don't have to keep that comment, but I commented because I want you to stop attacking me. So find some way to stop--and no, don't reply to this and accuse me of still more. I just want you to stop. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:07, July 30 2007 (UTC) 00:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
BB--Funny comment about the Braves!--Epeefleche 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

un-indenting
The link in question? I was speaking of linking to the files--as ELs, as references--so I don't know what you mean by THE link in question. You've said no, tecmo, spam, yada--but no one has addressed the issue of using X as a reason not to include something and then in almost the exact same circumstances, ignoring X--having no problems with it and not seeing it as a reason not to include something. The only difference in the two situations is Tecmo--and we make decisions based on content, not personal issues. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:47, July 24 2007 (UTC)

Banned users don't have any options--Well, they could take up knitting. Or read a good book. Enroll in a cooking class, maybe. But "ban" means BAN, not "Get Miss Mondegreen to edit Wikipedia for you". Vidor 16:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that was a beautiful, pithy, and accurate response. Kudos. --Epeefleche 15:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If they get really desperate, they could go watch the Atlanta Braves. Should be no problem to get tickets. Baseball Bugs 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] it should be possible to behave while unprotected

All I have been asking for--through this whole ridiculous mediation etc., thing is discussion. I think unprotection is good--this article had edits other than edit warring and protection is a serious growth stunter. But I was very careful to make no edits that were controversial--I don't want to head back into edit warring.

It seems every time we take a step forward we take two steps back. There might be legitimate reasons for not including this EL. But no one will know unless it's actually discussed--it's not SPAM. When Tecmo added it, yes he had a COI and yes, it probably was then. But read WP:SPAM, read WP:COI. I've quoted the applicable sections to you more than once. Let's not do this again, please. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:25, August 5 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed a great deal. Find me an admin who doesn't think it's spam, and then you'll have something. Baseball Bugs 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I won't comment on whether it's spam but I will say that it's exactly the type of site that Tecmo would have wanted removed, i.e. it doesn't give any information that couldn't be found at more reliable sources. True or not? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect, I think. I'm not sure what you mean by reliable sources--if you're referring to it doesn't give any information that wouldn't be included in a feature article, then it's a judgement call, but I'd say no I think. The information is too much to be included in the article--it's like statistics, too much information to be in the article. Now if this material was discussed in the article (having cards after banning etc) then I wouldn't include the same information as both a reference and an EL. But I don't think that this information would be included in the article (again, judgement call), and we were supposed to be discussing the site in general (not just this EL but linking to particular files as ELs and references) but that discussion hasn't really happened because, "it's SPAM! obviously! Miss Mondegreen talk  09:14, August 6 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point. I'm not attacking Tecmo or even saying he's trying to sell anything. I haven't gotten to that point yet. I'm being plenty neutral and independent and I'm saying that he's just duplicating information that is already in the more reliable statistic sites like baseball-reference.com as well as official baseball card books like Becketts, etc. What advantage are we supposedly getting by linking to this site? Anyone could copy statistics from MLB.com and then copy baseball card lists from Becketts and make a web site. Spam or not, it's pointless and not informative. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere up above, Mondegreen says "the link in question contains a full list of every baseball card that Shoeless Joe has appeared on, the year it was published and some additional info." That is the sole basis for the argument for keeping it here. Wknight94's argument would be that, instead, a link to a more comprehensive card site like Beckett's should be here, if anything. As Wknight94 implies earlier, that would be in line with Tecmo's own argument against sites with duplicate info. However, ballplayer articles in general do not have links to baseball card sites. Barry Bonds is an obvious example. So why this one here? Well, the answer is obvious, as Mondegreen admits below. However, unless the plan is to have a baseball card link on every ballplayer article -- and I don't know that there has been any discussion at all about that on the project page -- there's no point in having one on any article... except maybe an article specifically about baseball cards... at which point this one also likely fails, due to duplicate info, as Wknight94 suggests it would. Baseball Bugs 12:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In order:
  • "That is the sole basis for the argument for keeping it here." Yes, and no. For that particular page, or another one that contains the same information, yes. But you and other editors also had problems with linking to files etc and the files have nothing to do with baseball cards.
  • I've been asking for months for another site that has the same information or more, so please, if there's a better site, don't refer off hand to it assuming I know what the heck you're talking about, provide a link. Barry Bonds is an obvious example of what? Please explain what you mean by that. Unlike a lot of baseball editors I don't obsessively watch hundreds of articles and/or a small group of editors and so you can't refer to a long ongoing situation by a few words and assume I've heard of the situation and know what you're talking about. As much as you all like to think that I'm a really involved editor I'm not and you treat me like one and it doesn't work. It's also a bad habit to have in general and something I guess that contributes to a lot of the problems in WP:BASEBALL. If you have a point to make, make it. Give me your reasoning. Instead, the attitude I constantly get and--in fact you've flat out said before--is to go research some vaguely related topic and only then reply because I don't know what I'm talking about. That's not how Wikipedia works. I shouldn't have to look up and make your argument for you. Are you kidding? I never get explanations or answers to questions or diffs of any kind--just a short blanket statement that you don't bother backing up or explaining--you expect me to do your work for you.
  • "Every admin and nearly every user who've seen it agree it does not belong here." What? First, I don't know who you're talking about. Second, this article has been protected for months in an attempt to get actual discussion and most of the users who don't agree it belongs here (admins and editors alike) haven't participated in discussion. And by participated in discussion I mean actually talking about this not just attacking or talking about Tecmo or going on and on about how this is SPAM. WP:SPAM and WP:EL and WP:COI have community wide consensus--you can't just rewrite them for this article or for a particular editor--though you're more than welcome to go to those policy and guideline pages and try and change those policies and guidelines.
  • This article was protected for two months and you refused to discuss things--I asked for alternate links, and I tried to discuss this from every single different direction. And we're moving a little more forward then we were before, but you're still side-stepping a lot of the discussion and trying to use the weight of phantom editors. This is ridiculous--it should not be that hard to discuss the pros and cons of including this content, whether there is an alternative site, and what the actual objection is to liking to related files. In the meantime--enough with the edit warring, please! Miss Mondegreen talk  10:54, August 7 2007 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussion. You just don't like the answers you're hearing. Do you see a baseball card link in the Barry Bonds article? Do you see a baseball card link in any ballplayer's articles? No, you see it here solely because Tecmo wanted it here, solely because it was his personal site. It's outta here. And if you want to keep pushing for it, just to keep his memory alive, you'll see the page get protected again. It's up to you. Baseball Bugs 12:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry what? That was your argument? For the love of baseball, can you please stick to content? That means stop making crap up! Don't rewrite the definition of spam, don't figure out what the ELs for this article should be by looking at the Barry Bonds article. Are you kidding? That's ridiculous. In fact it says explicitly in a bazillion policy pages not to do something or not do something just because something is done or not done else. So other bad ELs aren't an excuse for keeping a bad EL and not having good ELs in certain places isn't a reason to exclude them in others. And everybody doesn't want it isn't a reason either--it's not true and everybody--whomever everybody is actually has to provide a reason. Lsi John and I both provided reasons for including the EL and then I went a step further and went through all of WP:EL every single thing that I thought could possibly apply. It's your turn to actually read WP:EL and realize that the reasons for including and excluding ELs have nothing to do with Tecmo or Barry Bonds.
In addition I raised the issue of linking to specific files and you've said nothing on that regard either. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:44, August 11 2007 (UTC)
The point being made is that there is no precedent for linking to baseball card listing sites on Wikipedia and that's a valid point. Why not link to sites that show old uniforms? Or old scorecards? Even if one concedes that the link meets WP:EL, it is still a non sequitor of sorts since the article isn't about baseball cards and doesn't even mention baseball cards. I've got an even better reason (sorry if it's already been mentioned): The BlackBetsy.com site already has a list of baseball cards. So we're already providing a link that provides the only unique information available on blacksoxfan. Actually, a Google search on "Joe Jackson baseball cards" shows several sites with more clout when it comes to Jackson baseball cards. There are simply no other reasons to keep this external link. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
We link to additional information about the person--articles on them, interviews they gave, statistics of all sorts and to exclude baseball cards as one of those areas of information doesn't make any sense at all. At any rate, there are a couple problems still:
  • I added in a specific link to the baseball card page. An EL is not supposed to go to the top layer of a site unless that's where it's directing people--we're supposed to provide direct links. The files on blackbetsy and the baseball card list are in two different sections so that means two different links still need to be maintained.
  • the other issue is that the discussion here wasn't just about this specific link or even this specific article. but for simplicities sake, let's deal with one issue at a time. There was also the additional issue of linking to specific files (http://www.blacksoxfan.com/file_center/browse.php) as both els and references on this and other articles. I haven't added any of these files, which affects more than just this article, because the issue baseball bugs has continually raised has been with the domain. You can't separate the site from the owner, it's SPAM, barry bonds, tecmo, yada yada yada. The site has a lot of content and the discussion was about adding baseball card ELs, and links to files. So we keep going back and forth. If baseball cards are bad content--and I haven't seen any reason for why, then that has nothing to do with not linking to important documents. Nor does this solve the problem of the additional baseball card ELs--discussion was occurring here for edit warring that had occurred over a number of articles. I'll wait a couple days for a chance for people to say something about the files before adding. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:03, August 12 2007 (UTC)
If you're trying to introduce a new concept that would cover all baseball-related articles, you should at least get consensus for that at WT:WPBB. I especially say that because I don't think you would find the community agreeable to that idea - but you're welcome to try. As for http://www.blacksoxfan.com/file_center/browse.php, I found a particular problem. It contains links to photocopied newspaper articles and replicated online newspaper articles. I'm no expert but those are almost certainly copyright violations. If blacksoxfan.com wants to violate copyright, that's their prerogative - but we are expressly forbidden by WP:C from linking to sites that do so. For the images that are not copyvio, someone should be uploading them here or at Wikimedia Commons, not linking to an external site for viewing them. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What? Most of that stuff is public domain...same way that we can link to blackbetsy. You can't say that linking to documents from 1919 is ok on one site but not ok with another. We're talking, in large part, about published articles from before 1925--that's public domain. In addition, I've been saying for months that there are really important pd photos that blacksoxfan is hosting that should be added to this and other articles and no one has done anything. For the things that aren't obvious--it should be fairly easy to find out the current copyright on stuff from the Roush estate etc.
And no, I'm not trying to intorduce a new concept that would cover all baseball-related articles. I'm not trying to introduce any concept at all.
WP:EL
  • things to consider
    • Is it accessible to the reader?
    • Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
  • What should be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
IMO, this material is accessible, useful, informative, factual and all that jazz. I fall into the category of reader of baseball articles, not writer or obsessive fan, and I found the material accessible, informative and more interesting than other statistics etc. We're talking about neutral and accurate material that cannot, ever, be integrated into a Wikipedia article because it's too much detail. This is an EL that IMO clearly is an EL that fits the WP:EL guidelines. I'm not introducing a new concept, I'm talking about the WP:EL guidelines and respecting community consensus. I don't understand this idea in the baseball community that something (content wise) that hasn't been done before has to always been agreed upon by WP:BASEBALL. We have policies and guidelines of all sorts, and WP:BASEBALL seems to be constantly ignoring them or having the community decide if the smallest edit fits the guideline, or whether or not it's a direction they want to go. It's all well and good to have communication and an idea of what a good baseball article should include, but this is ridiculous. This is batch editing--a content dispute gets raised on a couple articles and even though the outcome might be different for each article because each article is different, the dispute goes to WP:BASEBALL and it's decided that all applicable articles should have this EL and this EL and this EL but not this one and that's ridiculous. Maybe that doesn't work for every article, maybe the link is a bad link for some articles. It's great to have suggested sites for references and ELs, but in the short time I've been minimally involved in this corner of Wikipedia I've been appalled. Every small thing is made infinitely more complicated, guidelines and policies are often ignored or rewritten, the spirit and idea of Wikipedia is missing and common sense is as well.
Yes, WP:Baseball would be one place to go if there was a dispute about these ELs, but no one has said anything more concrete than "but barry bonds" and "it's not a baseball card article" as to why these ELs should not be included. I've gone through WP:EL again and again and provided explanations more than once. We have a guideline for what makes an appropriate EL. If you or anyone else has a dispute with this, make an argument that makes sense. Disagree with me. Say "this guideline is correct, but I don't think that this EL is _____ because of x, y and z" Don't just make (often nonsensical) standalone statements that seem irrelevant. I can't connect your train of thought for you, or Baseball Bugs' or anyone else's. If there is a real content issue with this, someone should be able to look at the guideline or my argument or whatever and say what the problem is. Not, "but barry bonds". Miss Mondegreen talk  07:20, August 13 2007 (UTC)
One of the main problems with this conversation now - and I've mentioned this to you before - is that you are juggling so many issues at the same time with such long filibusters that you can't even match up my responses with your issues. Let me re-try my last message as well as a new one:
You say: Linking to baseball card sites is appropriate for all articles.
My response: I think the general community would disagree and WP:WPBB would be a good place to settle that.
You say: We should link to the blacksoxfan.com "file" page.
My response: Look closely - that page contains several clear copyright-violating pages including an HTML copy of a 2005 online Wall Street Journal, a 1960 letter that says "From the Estate of Edd J. Roush" right on it, a 1963 article of unknown origin, photocopied images of two 1969 Chicago Tribune articles... Pretty clearly a violation of our WP:C policy if we linked to it.
You say: I've been saying for months to upload public domain photos but no one has done anything.
My response: Be bold and upload them yourself.
—Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break

  • I didn't say that linking to baseball card sites is appropriate for all articles, or even all baseball player articles. I have been saying that WP:EL is appropriate for all articles, including baseball card articles.
I have been arguing for the inclusion of an EL based on WP:EL and while a lot of people don't want to keep it, they haven't been reasons based on WP:EL or even reason. I'm getting the double-edged sword of "but other baseball articles don't use them" and "proposals for what should be included in baseball articles should go to wikiproject baseball". Well the first is a non-sequiter and the second is too really--why does the baseball project need to make a decision about this? It's a content decision, and we already have guidelines for what makes appropriate content. So since we have guidelines for that, anything else is a content decision, and wiki projects don't write articles en masse.
  • I didn't say: 'We should link to the blacksoxfan.com "file" page.
I said that we should like to FILES from the blacksoxfan.com file center. That is, an article about the trial should be linked to (the article not the file center itself) from appropriate articles, and so on. About half of the files in the file center are public domain, which means the photos we can upload and use, and the articles we cna link to freely. But Baseballbugs was not only in protesting this on the grounds that this was tecmo's site and so linking to an article from the times was clearly conflict of something.
  • The images thing--that was in response to your comment that public domain ones should be uploaded to commons not linked to as ELs. I was just saying that I agreed--no one had been advocating (AFAIK) linking to photos as ELs, and I'd been suggesting the same thing (taking advantage of the resource presented instead of complaining about it) for months and that no one had listened. Someone should be uploading them to commons, clearly we all agree, but I haven't bothered to do it yet, and neither have you or anyone else. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:26, August 20 2007 (UTC)
I said months ago that lifting those out-of-copyright images from Tecmo's site for use here would be just fine. The fact that no one, including yourself, has done that suggests how "important" those images really are to this article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I no longer understand what you want to link to in blacksoxfan.com. Please give an exact URL. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to interject that, while I'm not sure if the link to blacksoxfan should be in the article (in some form), finding it here in the talk page led me to it and I enjoyed it. If I were to be so bold as to "vote", I would fall on the "include" side of the fence - probably using the file list page. While a lot of material there could presumably be ported over, it would then lose its context, which is part of why I enjoyed the site. You can blame this comment on AMC running "Field of Dreams" a few days ago... Huw Powell 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the definition of SPAM

from WP:EL

You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings.

WP:SPAM (refers editors to WP:EL and WP:COI)

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.

Yes, this site was spam when Tecmo added it--he didn't properly follow COI guidelines etc., etc. But, we aren't talking about Tecmo--since Tecmo didn't make the edits we are referring to his name shouldn't be raised again. In order for this to be spam, you are accusing Lsi John and myself of having added the link for the purpose of promoting the website, and not because we thought it was a relevant and informative site that should be included. The fact that spam is still being used as a reason to avoid discussion etc. just shows how completely far we've wandered away from neutral and independent. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:14, August 6 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay in the section above please. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songs?

Oh yes, I came here to see if there was discussion about listing song(s) that mention the subject of the article. I don't know how the WP community feels about "trivial" references, but isn't Roger Daltrey's "Say It Ain't So, Joe" about Mr. Shoeless? Huw Powell 01:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)