User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] deleted comments

I have restored the comments to Shoeless Joe Discussion and marked them stricken. I also noted your apology to Tecmobowl. It would probably also be nice if you apologized to him directly rather than "applying polly loggies", but that is up to you. Lsi john 12:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't push it, son. Tecmo has been a jerk towards me, more times than I can count, and no apologies have come from him. So the one is all he gets. Baseball Bugs 12:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I merely suggested that 'applying polly loggies' may seem less than sincere to some. As for 'son', it's more likely you have the ages reversed in that statement, but I'll let it slide. Lets go get this resolved, shall we? Peace in God. Lsi john 12:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It was "appy polly loggies", not "applying polly loggies", an obscure reference I'm sure. And lose the hypocritical "peace in god" stuff. You stirred this up by putting back my comments. Baseball Bugs 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing hypocritical about it. And you stirred it up by posting the comments in the first place. Take responsibility for your choices. Peace.Lsi john 12:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I chose to post the comments, I chose to delete them, and you chose to repost them and throw more gasoline on the fire. Be advised that your pal Tecmobowl is about to start an RFC against the admin Irishguy, as a revenge move for having shown him to be a sockpuppet. That could well see the tables being turned on Mr. Tecmo, as he has made a lot of enemies himself here, beyond those he specifically lists on his page User:Tecmobowl/links#users harassing me. Thank you for your contributions to that effort. Baseball Bugs 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I know nothing about Temcobowl. (And don't really care to). And you're correct, an RfC could easily backfire. Peace.Lsi john 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir, I really am sorry you feel it was for gasoline. It's been obvious to me for a while now that this is a very personal issue for you, and you have strong feelings about it. And you may very well be right in your conclusions about his motives. But your attitude and disposition are not helping your cause.
I, too, am involved in a situation where I believe someone is behaving very inappropriately, and it has led me to take a wiki break. I'm not currently editing articles, and I'm trying to have minimal wiki-presense. But I'm also trying not to neglect on-going mediations in which I have been involved. I'm finding myself typing posts that are unproductive in the more personal discussions and I need to take some time away in order to regather myself.
I'll leave you with that thought. Again, I regret that you see me as an adversary in this, simply because I support the material that is contained in the EL. Peace.Lsi john 13:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tecmobowl

I see you reverted one of his many recent deletions of links. Having now been proven by a second checkuser to have used User:El redactor as a block-evading sockpuppet, he has basically gone ape, throwing the f-word at admins and me and so on. I don't much like having the f-word thrown at me, as he did on Cy Young talk page, but it's only words, not sticks-and-stones. Baseball Bugs 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • He had a leg to stand on before we discussed the link issue. But given the overwhelming consensus in favor of including all of these links, it would seem completely unjustified. Alansohn 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And when I say that I sympathize.. I mean it. Peace.Lsi john 01:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop poking him. :( I know you don't want him back, and it seems obvious (to me) that you are trying to provoke a negative response. If that is not your intention, then please stop poking at him. You know it won't be well received. Peace.Lsi john 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Perfect games

I would like your opinions on the talk page as to the edits I have just made and whether or not the "no-hit-walk-hbp" section should even be in the article. User DCGeist reverted all my edits some time ago. Since two weeks have passed and he never returned to the Talk Page to achieve his "consensus", I would like you to visit and give a second opinion. Vidor 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrigley storm

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

[edit] Fair use image

Hi, thanks for filling in that rationale ([1]). Good to see that people sometimes do have rationales that a actually make sense! :-) (You know, when you do a lot of image cleanup you sometimes despair of what kinds of poor rationales people come up with... - but this piece of information really nails it down.) So, no offense, and sorry for the trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. That tells me more about what to do in the future. The main justifications of fair use seem to be (1) no free alternative easily available (i.e. when the subject of the photo no longer exists); and (2) that it is being used as a visual reference in the article, not just a "decoration". Baseball Bugs 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, precisely, I guess that's a good rule of thumb, especially the second part (which often gets forgotten). The full set of rules is of course at WP:FAIR; I think what you say about "visual reference" is essentially what's meant in point 8 there ("contributes significantly to the article"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball Cyclopedia

Thanks for the link to Lanigan's Baseball Cyclopedia at McFarland Press. I may have to order that book. How is it?

After I checked out the McFarland link, I went to Lanigan's WP article and much of the text is identical to what's on the McFarland page. Do we have a copyvio here? --Sanfranman59 02:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that you had entered the verbatim text. I'm relatively new to WP. Are we supposed to tag the article or something? I don't really have enough interest in him to fix it. --Sanfranman59 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Good job! The only suggestion I have is to more closely follow WP:CITE and use {{cite book}} to format the reference. Is Baseball Cyclopedia the only source for the info in the article? --Sanfranman59 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you're able to put together a syntactically and grammatically correct sentence already puts you light-years ahead of a lot of the editors out here. Keep up the good work! --Sanfranman59 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ha ha, he's done it again

Ron, that is. Check User talk:Colagrossi, which I put the sock tag on in anticipation (he'd only done one edit to Whitey Ford, so figured it was too soon to report). Only Ron would immediately jump to that conclusion, as opposed to the other. And he wonders how we can tag him so fast. *teehee* --Ebyabe 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Some" critics?

Regarding your edit on 2001: A Space Odyssey, can you clarify which critics you mean by your ambiguous expression "some critics"? Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for why I'm asking you this. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 05:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Why are you coming to me?

I am not even involved in this dispute. All I did was change two players colors because they reflected the Angels' current colors, rather than the Angels' colors when Nolan Ryan and Wally Joyner actually played with the team. I'm not the right person to come to about this ongoing argument. ––Ksy92003(talk) 18:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not really the right person to discuss this with. My main concern is changing the Angels' colors to reflect the colors they wore when they were with the team. That's all. I'm not concerning myself with any other team's player's infoboxes. ––Ksy92003(talk) 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright... I've said this on several talk pages, but all retired players shouldn't have infobox colors at all... If a player retires, then he doesn't have any affiliation with any team, correct? What about the players who retire, but aren't in the HoF? You can't use the colors for whichever team is on the plaque because some aren't in the HoF. Just scrap the infobox colors altogether. ––Ksy92003(talk) 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with that at this point. So, we could either wait for someone to decide, on the project page (where it seems to have drawn very little interest), or someone could just take it away from the retiree page and see who complains. What do you think? Baseball Bugs 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, first of all, since there are a lot of retired baseball players out there, that's a lot of infoboxes we'd have to change. It's not a job that just a couple of people can do without objections. People who notice the removal of colors might assume that edit to be vandalism. I don't think we should remove the colors from all of them, or even a large amount of them. But what I think we can do is take about 5-15 players and remove the color from their infoboxes. If any of them are reverted, which most likely they will be, then we can create a discussion at the players task force project page about if we should scrap the colors altogether. A discussion about this, I feel, is imminent because it's far too large an issue for just a couple people to do without any discussion. ––Ksy92003(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't think about removing that from the infobox template code directly. That would be a good way of removing them all at once. However, from past experiences I know that sometimes, if you aren't careful, removing any parameters from a template code like that could potentially screw up the entire template. But if removing those parameters doesn't damage the entire infobox template, then I think that would be a good idea. That would be a good way of definitely getting somebody's attention. I think we should try to remove that parameter from the code itself and see if that works, then see if we have any objections. You can get on that, if you wish. ––Ksy92003(talk) 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If your concern is that people will get mad at you, then I will willingly do it myself. But... just to be safe, I'll do it under my IP address, so people won't know that it's me, if they want to get mad... I guess I shouldn't have said that :o But if you don't want to take the risk, then I will do it willingly. I don't really care if people are mad at me, as long as I'm trying to help. It doesn't matter to me what other people think if they don't know my true motives.

Alternatively, I could just go to the template and remove those parameters, but say in my edit summary that it's a test edit, just in case somebody notices that. I did that earlier today when I reverted something to test something else (when there was that bug we had earlier). So I could do that if you want. ––Ksy92003(talk) 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the attempt to do this, but unsuccessfully. The arrangement of the parameters in the code was far too confusing for me to know what affects what. I removed parts of it, but the colors stayed exactly the same. It had no affect on the infoboxes, as far as I could see. This makes me think that there are some more parameters that affect the color of the infobox aside from what I removed. I'm fairly certain that this is the case. Again, I'm not that knowledgeable in the code that is used for things like templates, so I haven't the slightest clue as to what I would have to remove. Perhaps I will try again later and see if I can remove the color completely by removing all parameters. But I'm going to put this on hold for now. You could still try, if you feel fit to. ––Ksy92003(talk) 23:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...

I was just threatened... by a recently-created user account (see User talk:Ksy92003#About the redirect). Apparently, the reason s/he threatened me is because s/he doesn't like that I fixed 136 re-direct pages that were linked to Anaheim Angels and changed it to link to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. I worked from 7:36–8:49, continued from 12:38 AM–1:03 AM, and all that gets me is a threatening notice from a new user.That doesn't make sense to me.

The reason I'm telling you is because I just need to tell somebody that I worked so hard doing all of this, by hand, nonetheless (no AWB or TW or anything like that), 100% manually, and the only thing I get in return is a threat. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is a link to all those contributions I've made during that timespan: [2]. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I reported him/her to WP:ANI. It was weird, because it was past 2:00 AM, and I spent a lot of time earlier working on all those edits, and the reaction I got was inappropriate, nonetheless, but completely unexpected. But because of that comment, it makes me think of who that person really was and why they were paying attention to my edits. This makes me think that this user was a sockpuppet of somebody who I've been involved with a conflict before. But I don't have any way to back up that claim, but that was the suspicion that I had since s/he first left me that comment.
Anyway, I was able to finish all those re-directs; there are no more articles that link to Anaheim Angels. That means that in a combined total of about 4.5 hours (± 1 hour), I edited well over 400 links on ~360 articles that were linked to Anaheim Angels and linked it to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Here is the link to all my contributions in the time span from when I made my first re-direct fix to my last (excluding my recent one to Kenny Lofton): [3]. In case you are interested, later today, I will do the same thing with California Angels. ––Ksy92003(talk) 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What's even more bizarre, as another user noticed, the user's name, Beneath the Bridge, suggests that the account was only created for trolling, anyway. Can't believe I didn't catch that first.
As far as the name change, the Yankees last changed their name from the Baltimore Orioles in the early-1900's, more than 100 years ago. Hopefully the Angels don't change their name within that time... after 100 years, if they change their name, I'll be in Heaven and it will be somebody else's problem. Not trying to sound selfish, but I don't want to do it again any time soon. But if they do, then hopefully it's a shorter name. I typed "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" every single time individually, by hand, with no Ctrl-V. I did use Ctrl-V for my edit summaries, but I had to do all those "Los Angeles..." by hand every single time. Hopefully, all that hard work stays for a long time... and I know Arte Moreno will be murdered if he changes the name again, believe me, Angels fans can be pretty harsh when it comes to things like that.
As I said, I'm gonna work on California Angels later tonight... but as for right now, I'm gonna take a break, play some video games, and get to it after America's Got Talent. ––Ksy92003(talk) 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I could only use Ctrl-V to copy one piece of text, not two. So I used it to copy the edit summary and individually typed each Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. So I probably screwed at least a couple up, but somebody will fix it if they see any mistakes.

I'm praying they don't change their name again. I honestly liked the LAAoA name, but as I was doing this, I ended up realizing how much I liked the Anaheim name, and now I'm not sure which I prefer x( As far as my edits, I'm just doing it how it is now, and of course I'll be upset if they change their name again, but again, I know Arte Moreno and he isn't gonna change the name as long as he owns the team, which will be a while because the team has had great success with him as owner and they won't mess around with ownership or management like that.

As far as Disneyland goes, they broke up with their ownership contract with Disney, so I doubt they will go back to include that in any way. But I know you were being facetious with that example... right?

And something that nobody knows... the "Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles" t-shirts given out at Dodger Stadium on Opening Day in 2005 was my idea... well, I had the idea first, but being an Angel fan I didn't want to do anything to help the Dodgers fans cheer, so I kept shut. Somebody else a couple months later suggested it to front office I believe, and that's how the promotion came about. I had the idea originally but I'm an Angels fan so didn't suggest it to Dodgers personnel.

And also, I'm not gonna work on the California Angels links tonight... I'm too tired :o so I'll work on it tomorrow. This Friday, July 13 (yay, Friday the 13th) I'm attending the Anaheim Angels oops, I mean Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Texas Rangers game, so all Friday night I won't be able to make any edits whatsoever. So don't expect me to reply back to any comment you might leave me while I'm gone. I might reply back later, perhaps early-Saturday morning (and I mean really early, like maybe 12:30 AM. ––Ksy92003(talk) 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re [4]

Actually, I'm not an administrator. Tecmobowl was blocked indefinitely by SirFozzie; I merely posted the block notice on Tecmobowl's user page. If you have concerns regarding a user who may be an abusive sockpuppet of Tecmobowl, I would recommend making a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. John254 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you part of the Wikiproject Baseball?

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

WikiProject Baseball This user is a member of WikiProject Baseball, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the sport of baseball. Please feel free to join us.

Do you know how one goes about changing the name of an article? For example, the page "1903 Boston Pilgrims season" should be changed to "1903 Boston Americans season"... or perhaps something else. But in edit mode, you can not apparently change the articles title (I suspect this is a good safegaurd against vandalism). Maybe I need an administrator to do this...

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

[edit] Sockpuppet case

Although I am not an admin, nor have I been involved in a sockpuppet case before, I believe an admin can simply check the IP address a user is using and compare it against the suspected other accounts. Since this is a fairly serious accusation, it would be good to clear it up quickly. Basar 08:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just any admin can do this, they need checkuser privileges. Please see WP:CHECKUSER. Wikidan829 13:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
We're in communication with admins about this issue. Baseball Bugs 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Good work. Basar 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MisfittToys - a new Ron sock?

Speaking of which...
Edits are better at attempting sourcing, at least. The username fits the other Ron pattern of parodying other usernames, in this case User:MisfitToys.
Oh, he's just restored a Ron edit on Orlando Hernández; it's gotta be him. Look at his stuff and see if you think it's revert-worthy. I'll report him if you think apropos. :) -Ebyabe 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I see you got 'im. -Ebyabe 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York Yankees GA/R

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tecmobowl User:Long levi

How does Tecmobowl keep returning? I mean, did he get a new IP quickly or what. I'm just surprised he quickly returned. Thanks Soxrock 15:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Tecmo is a good contributor, but I think he is killing himself with the Fangraphs stuff. He has many good contributions, but he does need more civility and needs consensus. All he needs to do is contribute well, but he is overdoing it. He needs to layoff for a while if he attempts another comeback. And I guess he's fine to contribute As long as he doesn't violate policy or stir the pot... again. Don't take that as a sign that I want him back, though. I'm just saying. Soxrock 16:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've read the controversy, and obviously the EL's have killed him. He has a knack for good contributing, but I think he just overdoes it by being anything but consensus friendly. If we want fangraphs on, keep it on. He only needs to lay off that and we will like his edits (like Chief Yellow Horse and 1910 Chalmers Award, those are fairly good...). All he needs is time to clear his head. He is good outside of the EL controversy Soxrock 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information you gave me. And thanks for a good conversation. I really wanted to get additional information from this Tecmobowl/Long Levi/Thousands of sock puppets case. We all know he is a good contributor, but he has very bad issues when it comes to following the rules. If we see anything suspicious within the next two weeks by a new user, block him immediately. We don't need his garbage here. Soxrock 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Projects, Photos, etc.

No, I'm a member of the Vikings project. I'm not a fan of them, though. I'm a Buccaneer fan. Don't let the projects fool you. And the AFL is a dual reference, one because I love reading it's history, and because of the user RemembertheAFL. We are good friends. Soxrock 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep taking good pictures. I love how we can have pictures from 1993 here. It's good seeing photos you've taken in your time. Keep up the good work Soxrock 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Are you like me in that? I would love to travel to the early of the 20th century and watch baseball games from places like Huntington Avenue Grounds, Hilltop Park, West Side Park, Forbes Field... watch Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Homerun Baker, Gavvy Cravath. Baseball had to be more interesting back in the day, you know, when Homeruns were rare and baseball was played with more of a gameplan. Wow, weren't those just the good old days.

As for the 2001 Wagner picture, I know you said it was raining, but it's not even close to as good as the 1993 Wagner picture. Soxrock 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Same for me when looking at a 1907 picture of Ty Cobb sliding into third base, or of the iconic 1903 World Series photo. I know that the game is the same. Ty Cobb would be great today, he just would be torn to shreds by SportsCenter. I would've loved to watch the 1903 World Series between the Americans/Somersets/Puritans/Pilgrims and the Pirates. Deacon Phillipe and Bill Dineen both pitched 6 games for their teams in that series. Why do you think I'm doing so much work with seasonal articles right now? Because those remind me of the early years of baseball and how it was played. And I still have like 18 teams to do, meaning it won't be done for at least three more weeks. Boy, I love baseball and how it was played then and now. Bud Selig has ruined America's Pastime. Soxrock 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Cobb photo at Hilltop Park. I think they said sometime in 1909, but I can't confirm a date (the Cobb photo I was talking about in the previous message wasn't the Conlon photo and it was in a chapter labeled 1907). Remember Fay Vincent? Selig should've had that happen to him. HE ALLOWED A FREAKING STRIKE! STEROIDS! THIS SPORT IS IN TURMOIL AND HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE NFL AND MAYBE THE NBA IN POPULARITY! WE NEED A GOOD COMMISSIONER. Anyway, I love baseball and I just wish that it could be played like it was in the early part of the century. Bandboxes done away with, pitchers pitching complete games (what an odd commodity?) and bases being stolen. It's just absolutely ridiculous what Selig is allowing. "Contraction of the Expos and Twins" (Hmm, you allowed Montreal to move and Minnesota's getting a new park...). If you want to contract, DAMNIT CONTRACT. YOU HAVE NO BALLS SELIG! WE ALL WANT YOU OUT AS COMMISH! DAMN! Sorry, but I just hate what Selig has done to such a beautiful game. Soxrock 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not on here. It's in a baseball chronicle (I don't know the title, the book is literally in pieces) and it's the featured photo for 1907. Your right about Anson and Cobb. Cobb has to be the biggest jerk in baseball history. But Cobb is the greatest hitter ever, and Anson won over 1200 games as manager of your Cubs. And thanks for changing the images, I am trying to nicen up my pages and in general (as in in life) I'm trying to become nicer. So thank you for changing them to look better :) Soxrock 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How odd that the infield has dirt only in the basepath. Doesn't look anything like today's parks. But I enjoy looking at Stadium articles from stadiums of yesteryear. Again, my favorite of them, Huntington Avenue Grounds. I just wish I could watch a game there. Soxrock 19:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, those players like Cobb were never liked. Ruth ate too much. Hornsby was despised. Williams hated the press (How the hell does someone win TWO triple crowns and not be MVP both times?).

As for the Cobb picture, I'm going to give you the following questions to see if you have the same book:

1) Does it give season-by-season descrpitions of baseball seasons from 1901-2002?

2) Does it have a "timeline" at the bottom?

3) Is the 1907 season page on page 36 with the Ty Cobb picture next to it?

Soxrock 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The photos from 1903:

I know about South End Grounds, but where is it in the picture. I am trying to find it, but I don't know where exactly it is.

And the other photo that I uploaded in March proves that the warehouse behind left field is where the picture was taken.

And, 1903 would've been fun because of Cy Young and Honus Wagner and all of the greats. I love baseball history... Soxrock 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok, so I'd have a better chance with the book. I'm trying, but there are two problems:

1) My eyes hurt because of the smoke

2) And I'm trying to make out the roof, but that's all I see. I'll just look for a book, it's just too hard to pinpoint everything. Thanks for trying, though. Soxrock 20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I meant it had a timeline, but it wasn't in the name. Do you have a book with a collage of players on the front of it? The Baseball Chronicle is what I think the name is Soxrock 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok, the book looks like this : http://www.amazon.com/The-Baseball-Chronicle/dp/0785396233/ref=sr_1_6/002-5777627-4180832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184359388&sr=1-6

Soxrock 20:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Eh, it's fine as it is right now. It would be perfectly fine on the SEG article as is now. Soxrock 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And not only that, they played at South End Grounds longer than they have at any other park. Surprising that the home they played in so long is poorly circulated. But I still thank you for finally getting South End Grounds in that picture to be found. I just could not find it until the cropped photo was uploaded. Soxrock 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh that is clearly the building (Boston Storage Warehouse), because it is tall enough and it's right at that left-field corner angle where you could look toward right field and see the entry gate. I think it's impossible for it to have been a different building. Jeez, I love talking about this today. Soxrock 21:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

For sure. From the angle, you can't even see the street until you go farther left. And that would be great to see a ground-level pic. That would confirm the building (we all know, but, technically it's still speculation). Soxrock 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Individual season articles

Can you assure me that, in the event that articles like 1921 New York Yankees season are put up for deletion that you will vote keep? Thanks Soxrock 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note this; I mean for ALL SEASONS I CREATE. For example, look at 1985 Texas Rangers season. I have to complete that. I meant all seasons I create.

And I think that may be a typo. I took the lead of the created Highlander pages created in May when I did the Yankee seasons. And any help would be appreciated, but I just thought I'd clarify. And baseball-reference is my primary source outside of game logs. Thanks Soxrock 22:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I'm late in replying (dinner), but thanks for all your insight. I am currently working on giving broad descriptions of playoff appearances for teams in their seasonal articles and linking the main articles in the section. I just thought I'd check this with you because I think I read somewhere that a few wikipedians think that "If the team didn't win their league's title in the year the article was created, it's not notable and therefore should be deleted". Yes, I'm paraphrasing, but that is essentially what it said from what I remember, and, therefore, I wanted to make sure that a prominent wikipedian thought it was notable. In my mind, every season for a major league sports team is HIGHLY NOTABLE. Thanks for your time. Soxrock 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making them accurate. Today I plan on doing the Royals seasons (1969-2006, won't take forever) and adding playoff information to teams pages. I take what I get from the playoff pages them remove game summaries from it (like you said, I give the broadest scope I get from the playoff pages, I link the articles together as a result). I will someday have stats and playoff information (when applicable) on every teams page, although all you on the project are welcome to help! I have what I call a "laundry-list" that is like miles long (The one linked on my userpage gives the stuff that I will do but won't find others doing, I have a lot more that I want to do and therefore don't want others to know). Anyway, thank you, and I'll likely check back with you before the day is over. And sorry for the long wait (I was tagging American Football League talk pages with the project template, I have it done now for all created pages) Soxrock 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know whether the Tecmobowl comparison was a good or bad (simply because Tecmobowl has been an idiot and impossible to deal with with his repetitious removal of external links (which should not be removed, all are meaningful)), but I don't know how you got the enhanced photo? I mean, I can see the "Wilson" on the right field wall better and I can see the stadium in general much better. Gotta give it to you, you have made a hard to see facility very noticeable. Good job Soxrock 14:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job getting the image from the book. I've managed to work on all the tasks while not getting burned out. If I need to, I can try to take a break.

That is fascinating about ballparks built right by other existing ones. I mean, you can't compare Huntington Avenue Grounds and South End Grounds with, say, Riverfront Stadium and Great American Ballpark, and here's why (and I'm sure you know), because both HAG and SEG were used at the same time, while GAB replaced Riverfront. Back then, the nearby stadiums in those cities had to be great. Again, if you and I could go back in time and watch a baseball game from one stadium that was close to another and perhaps watch another game that same day from the other venue. But now, todays stadiums have so many attractions that may not even have to be there (I don't know about you, but, if I go to a stadium for a baseball game, shouldn't I watch the game?) and therefore think that some attractions shouldn't be there. I wonder what you think of that?

And I remember the Orioles story, it reminds me of the Anaheim Angels when Anaheim Stadium was renovated, the Angels continued play there despite the noticeable renovation. Soxrock 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

About the fences... yeah, Bill Veeck when he owned the Indians always tinkered with it. I must say that watching a game at Wrigley Field has to be the best ballpark experience ever. I need to go to a game there. Soxrock 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "J.C."

Hey, do you believe that Rickey Henderson should have Met colors on his page (he is employed by them but he played so long in Oakland I think it should be green and gold)

And something needs to be done to Pascack and Joeidaho, they are the most disrupting people on the project. Soxrock 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] banned therefore irrelevant

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

Actually, as a banned editor his opinions are irrelevant... it just opens a whole can of worms to go through and strike out a banned editors comments. By the way, if you suspect socks or block evasions by this banned editor (and I take it from your comments on the Shoeless Joe talkpage that he's still active here), let me know and I can investigate/deal with it. We don't need ban evaders mucking things up and making contentious issues moreso.--Isotope23 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I just saw your note about from the 14th about the categories and answered it if you had not gotten an answer already. I must have lost that in the other comments I got over the weekend whilst I was off killing brain cells.--Isotope23 00:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, let me clarify--by irrelevant, sure, his comments don't get weighed into decisions or anything else. But a banned editor does not equate with everything they did being wrong etc. Editors who are eventually banned often provide lots of good edits and opinions before being banned. Which Tecmo did. Therefore, the opinion itself may still be relevant to the discussion--his banning doesn't change the opinion. And especially in the ongoing ones, other editors may find his opinions useful--may agree with them and present them themself. Tecmo's vote in conversations--it's gone, but he may have presented some very relevant opinions in the past that other people might find useful--for the opinion. People might find them useful in terms of looking at a conversation for historical value as well and there are a whole host of other reasons not to get rid of the comments.

Also for clarification, I saw Epeefleche or someone pointed out on the community sanction board that you had notified me of the reinterpretation of the results on my talk page. I'm sorry for correcting you--I really wasn't aware. I had seen your comment on my talk page, but I'd skimmed it--it was under a section that someone else had started and you and Tecmo hurled a lot of accusations at each other on my talk page so I'd started skimming at that point. When I saw you making that point elsewhere I did go double check the checkuser result, and saw it was the same as before. It was only later I realized that the different interpretation of results was posted on the talk page. Miss Mondegreen talk  00:16, July 19 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrigley Field

Nice job. Unlike when the Cubs played at West Side Park, rooftop bleachers are able to be used. I read about the royalty, it's only fair. I wouldn't be the happiest if some people are allowed to watch my team's game without my organization getting the money, so I think the Cubs did a good job with that.

However, the left-field expansion shouldn't have ever happened. I liked the old bleachers out there. Soxrock 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henderson

Well, I'm very lenient on the colors unless their blatantly wrong. Mets blue and orange on Casey Stengel's page? WTF? He may be known partially as a Met, but he didn't win 7 World Series and 10 Pennants as a Met. All it is is annoying on that page, Reggie Jackson's page, and it's also annoying seeing Pascak's Yankee bias (i.e. removing Yankee colors everywhere). His opinions need to be disregarding when it comes to colors, it is only going to be against Yankee colors everywhere. Same applies to Pascak's buddy Joeidaho. Yankee haters need not respond. Soxrock 11:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that they left Stengel alone, for now, but that still doesn't take away the fact that They let their bias get in the way of their editing. I don't see myself modifying every page that has a player who played for the Yankees/White Sox and making it darkblue/white or black/silver, respectively. Same with you. I don't see you changing all the pages for a player who played for the Cubs and making it red/blue. And you actually had a double 3RR (it was like 7 reverts, but it was a good cause, no harm, no foul in my mind). Something needs to be done to stop the bias and he controversy. All it makes me do is stop what I'm doing to periodically check the Stengel page to see if the idiots have changed it again. I'm sorry that this waste's time for both of us just to make something right that a couple of idiots insist on making wrong. I'd like Pascak and Joeidaho blocked the next time they do something to the colors that is wrong. And I do mean both if one of them does something wrong to them.

And, for he record, I think that Rickey Henderson, despite playing for like 20 teams (exaggeration), should be in A's colors. Just my opinion. Soxrock 11:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Stengel That is exactly why it should be Yankee colors. More successful, better known, and in the HoF as a Yankee. Nuff said. Soxrock 11:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I had to laugh at the Henderson/every team comment. And, yes, Tecmobowl/Short Levi (catch the joke in the name) at least could contribute (1910 Chalmers Award, Chief Yellow Horse), but the EL's got rediculous. That requires consensus, and he went bold on something you don't go bold on. You go bold on either adding things or removing MEANINGLESS stuff. What he removed as MEANINGFUL. And, watch out for his next sockpuppet, I can probably catch it if he removes my stats section on Hank Aaron's page. Best of luck with you here. I can understand being worn-off by the EL controversy. Soxrock 11:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can defend a biased site and remove a very reliable one. Then again, Tecmobowl was out of control to begin with and just couldn't resist the urge to keep his own site up. If he dare come back, it better be weeks from now. We'd be willing to have a good Tecmo here, not the idiot, EL obsessed version. Again, I'm not advocating him come back, but this is in the event that it happens. Soxrock 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure about it. I'll detect it (most likely) if the stats on Hank Aaron's page are removed. I generally try to avoid these things (or else I would likely be gone by now if I got really involved with these things, I just work, I don't care about controversy so much unless it involves me), but I'll give you a notice if a new user removes them. And look out for a new user editing Braves articles, Levi gave it away by editing his favorite teams articles (and for being a blatant moron). Soxrock 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally use my watchlist (I have a lot of cleaning up to do for it), but I will say that I was surprised when I read the Braves history and how it lives on in three ways (he Cincinnati Reds and Boston Red Sox, and the Braves red trim). Eh, if you learn a good few facts per day, you'll only be smarter. Soxrock 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Great job, I love reading about that, but I'm not very happy suddenly (I'm sure you noticed I use a different account to reply to messages, well, I just used my main account to make the reply, which is something I never want to do... enough of this, it's my problem only).

I found it odd that MLB decided to add a second Washington team after the original Senators left. They would never be as popular, so it was odd that they decided to add a new team there. Soxrock 13:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see now. There were only 25,000 fans at the Senators II final game. I think that the Orioles could become the "toast" again if Peter Angelos sells the team, he's made them a joke. A baseball-tradition rich town like Baltimore should not be subjected to this junk.

And, for the accounts, I prefer a different talk account so I can check my replies quicker. And because I prefer contributions over edits under this account (in my mind, a contribution can only be made to an article, an edit can be made to anything) Soxrock 13:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and Rusty Torres was on the Senators, just like he was with the Indians on 10 cent Beer night and White Sox on Disco Demolition night Soxrock 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Precaution

Most likely, if we continue to talk today, it'll be at my talk page exclusively. Just a note Soxrock 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)