User talk:Couillaud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like a clean talk page. Don't leave me messages unless they're important.


Contents

[edit] talk page reversions

Although you "like a clean talk page," and people will generally respect that here, you should know that it is quite frowned upon on other talk pages, like Talk:King's Daughters. Since the conversation in question is not banned, and is not irrelevant, it should not be removed. Obviously, the request is ridiculously dismissible without any sources. But we do not remove such comments, we address them and leave them in the record; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. So, I've restored the section and left a response. In the meantime, I feel the need to remind you of WP:3RR -- you should not revert any page (including talk pages) more then 3 times in 24 hours, and this is not an exception. If the pattern at that page continues, it may be possible to get the user in question banned at which point, it will be okay to simply remove all their contributions immediately without any problems. But until then, we should let their comments stand, even if they are annoying. Mangojuicetalk 14:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule against clearing your own talk page, as others (including admins such as yourself) have told me many times. Clearing other talk pages is limited, of course, to removing obvious vandalism, incivility, or irrelevancies. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escalation

Couillaud, I just woke up and read the dialogue on my talk page. I feel your pain. Unfortunately, I need to get to work soon and probably will not have time to deal with this large and expanding dispute. You should probably escalate this to WP:ANI and/or WP:RFC. I would suggest WP:RFM but it honestly doesn't seem like that would help - there are too many hard feelings here. Maybe WP:CEM? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent community development involving Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) blocking a long-disruptive editor which I am hoping is a sign of things like this improving. When you pursue this further, you should mention that the YoSoyGuapo account has already been indefinitely blocked once for similar behavior (only to have it lifted) so this is not new. People will take notice of that. They will also take notice of the following from page to page when the only relationship between the pages is you. That's a big no-no. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Gibson

Thanks for the comment on Churches of Baseball. Obviously, I got that title from Bull Durham, and it also dovetails nicely with Phil Lowry's work, one of the most comprehensive studies on ballpark history that's been done. Regarding the Gibson article, I'll see if I can add something to that RFC on YoSoyGuano. Even if all his facts were correct, his writing and structure are so poor that he's really trashed the article and likely won't let anyone change it. In the area of facts, I would put him below Liebman. In the area of attitude, it's a tossup. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Hey man, I didn't reply to your original request about a month ago on my talk page because I got caught up in day to day activity. I was also focused on other articles which were less time consuming. I pretty much didn't agree with what you had to say but I figured we could compromise by having 2 sections included that would show both point of views. Which is what I created. The talk page led to nothing since it kind of died away without any sort of compromise being reached. I do agree with what WKnight said above that maybe we should have some type of Community enforceable mediation since discussing it has only gotten all of us more and more upset. How about we simply file for one of those and keep it at that. YoSoyGuapo 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, WKnight94 said he would suggest mediation, but felt it wouldn't help in this case. And for the record, he is perfectly correct. YoSoyGuapo has already taken this too far, and trying to change the focus of his latest shenanigans just to the Gibson article is just misdirection. His claim of "figuring we could compromise" rings hollow with his most recent activities. His offer to "simply file one of those" RFMs comes way too late, and offers too little, as his only "compromise" offered has been to write his half of the article in his way, using only the "facts" that he believes. I think he either misunderstands just how poor the resulting article would be, or that he doesn't care. He makes this offer after having filed a complaint against me, and after having caused me to file one against him; perhaps we'll consider such a thing after we've had the hearing over his trolling behavior. As WKnight94 indicated, it's too late (or at least not the proper time) for mediation at this moment. That offer should have been done before he started trolling the Daughters of the King article and this talk page.
And BTW, just so no one is surprised later, I do plan to wipe my talk page clean every now and again, once discussions get too dusty, just to keep it clean. -- Couillaud 19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Well for the record I did file a
Hello Couillaud. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

on you. I filed RFC almost a month and a half ago. A request for comment inviting others to comment on the article. That was an attempt to compromise and get a consensus. Which didn't happen for some reason. What was wrong with making 2 sections one with the disputed information and stats and one with the generally accepted stats ? That I thought was the best compromise. I never complained about you cleaning your talk page, but your talk page isn't the King's Daughter talk page. Mediation has been a month too long. YoSoyGuapo 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

YoNoSoyGuapo says he's now going on wiki-leave for awhile. I recommend waiting about a day and then reverting his junk-additions to the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In reference to your questions, I would say "going on wikibreak" means the heat is getting a little strong and he's going to back off for awhile and hope it goes away... another trolls' trick. Thanks for the explanation about the terrible tragedy in your family. I think comparing mere internet trolls with real-life murderers is a bit of a stretch, but what they might have in common is narcissism. Dogbert essentially defined himself as a narcissist when he told Dilbert, "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant." That's just a joke, of course. But the chilling real-life extreme equivalent, as with the BTK killer or Scott Peterson or O.J. Simpson for examples, is not at all funny. The bottom line on those folks is they do what they do because they want to. They may be low-lifes, but they are smart enough to invent external justifications for what they do, or to deny it in the face of all evidence. Well, that was a bit of rant. Back to the matter at hand, yes, I would like to see a comprehensive layout of the known stats, provided they are published and not "original research", because I for one would like to see the real numbers. This stuff of "nearly 800" or up to 962 or whatever that real-sounding but probably fake number is, needs some exposure also. I'd like to know where they get those numbers from. On the surface, guys like YoSoy sound like they want to treat Gibson as a holy relic, and quash anything that suggests those numbers are somewhat bogus or that even asks where they came from. However, in his case, it's just trolling behavior. He doesn't really care about Josh Gibson, it's just a vehicle for an argument. It's just a game. One more thing: If you don't know, his name means "I am handsome" en español, and I refuse to reinforce that bit of egotism by stating his user name as-is unless I have to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should let you know that I'll be on here only sporadically during the next 3 weeks or so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range blocked

I've blocked the 132.211.195.0/24 range for 48 hours for returning to troll at Talk:King's Daughters. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negro league baseball

Thanks. I assumed it was a hoax, but because I'm not very knowledgeable about the late (1950s) era Negro leagues I wasn't 100 percent sure. I agree, all of the major Negro league articles get a lot of vandalism, and it wouldn't hurt to have this one semi-protected. It's a sad comment that racism continues to be alive and well. BRMo (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PL Inthesquare.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PL Inthesquare.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regrooving the Dream

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Regrooving the Dream, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.pattylarkin.com/discography/regrooving.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Angelsrunning.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Angelsrunning.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your user name

Where did you get your user name from? This is a very serious question, I assure you :) Take a look at Larocque (surname), and you'll see why I ask! Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then cousin, there is another Couillaud genealogist on Wikipedia! You are the direct ancestor of Jean Baptiste and I am the direct ancestor of Antoine. To think we owe our shared existence today to Philibert Couillaud!
My site for Québecois starts here with my father- my father's side is heavily Québecois as both my grandfather and grandmother were. It seems that by chance two Couillaud/Larocque/Rock genealogists have met!
My great great great grandfather and the family actually lived in St-Charles-sur-Richelieu and was forced to leave after the failed Patriote movement. I only wish there was a clear record as to what happened. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

13:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am related through many, many more branches- for instance, most of Marin Boucher's children- Pierre, Madeleine, Francois and Francoise- are all direct relations to me. I spent a long time looking through University of Montreal PRDH records to finally connect them all. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Baltimore_Afro-American_03241964_p15.pdf listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Baltimore_Afro-American_03241964_p15.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The above busybody knows nothing about the situation, and I told him so on that deletion page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The admin who marked it said that it should be sufficient to simply cite the publication and its date, without having the actual image here. Does that seem OK to you? P.S. I already downloaded the image in case we need to get it back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll let the admin know it's OK to delete it. As regards SABR, Liebman has a bad reputation there, regardless of what he might say about it here. If they thought he was involved, they might reject it on its face. Otherwise, it might just be that the wheels grind slowly there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination

The article George Richardson (Negro League officer) has been nominated for deletion. I'm not aware of any information about him other than a one sentence entry in Riley's, but since you have expertise on the 1920s Negro leagues I wondered if you might know whether any other information is available. Please feel free to comment on the AfD page. BRMo (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NY Lincoln Giants

Hello, Couillaud! The Complete Book of Baseball's Negro Leagues by John B. Holway lists the NY Lincoln Giants as a member of the ECL in 1927 going 21-22 in league play. Is this source wrong? Please respond here on your talk page. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lincoln Giants scheduled and played games against various teams still in the ECL (hence Holway's listing them in the league), but they dropped out of the league before the 1927 season. Writing from memory, as I'm not near my resources. IIRC, Robert Peterson's Only the Ball Was White shows league standings for the 1927 ECL sans the Lincoln Giants. I know that SABR's The Negro Leagues Book shows that. Holway may have given them credit for games played against ECL teams without concern for whether they were a member of the league proper. You might also notice that in Holway's yearly standings, the totals of wins and losses almost never balances, so his standings are suspect if only for that reason.
As for the Homestead Grays/Philadelphia Tigers question, the Negro Leagues Book shows Homestead and Hilldale, but I saw no mention of Philadelphia. SABR researcher Gary Ashwill ({http://agatetype.typepad.com/}) has researched the 1928 ECL, and would have the definitive answer on that.
--Couillaud (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response. I figured that the standings didn't balance because of the shoddy record keeping, and I would be skeptic if they did add up properly, truthfully - what with all of the non-league games they played and randomly counted in the standings; so I wouldn't necessarily hold that against a source. Admittedly, I am committing an inexcusable "don't" by using one source and one source only (Holway). Since there was such poor reporting on the NLs, I wonder if WP should mention the contradictions rather than take one side or the other, sort of like was done on the Western League (original), unless of course a source is just plain wrong.
I was going to start a stub on the Negro Southern League, but the WP references state it existed for 1932 only, but Holway shows the league was around for 2 seasons, 1931-1932. Do you know which is which? Rgrds.--Tombstone (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giants

Here's where I'm going to betray some ignorance, despite my user ID. Has anyone determined why so many of the Negro League teams liked to incorporate "Giants" into their nicknames? Was it reflected glory from the New York Giants? Or was it something else? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No one really knows the answer to that for absolute certain, except that it became custom that nearly every touring team after 1900 named "Giants" (or some permutation, like "Cuban X-Giants") was almost certain to be black. Many newspapers of the 20s would refer to Negro League teams as "Giants" even if their true nickname was was known to be otherwise (this is true about the Milwaukee Bears and Toledo Tigers of the 1923 NNL).
The most commonly believed reason for this is that the New York Giants were one of the earliest big league teams to extensively play exhibitions against Cuban teams (on which many Negro Leaguers played), and John McGraw did try to sneak Negro Leaguer Charlie Grant onto the Giants by passing him an American Indian named Charlie Tokahoma. The ruse failed, but it is thought that McGraw's consistent praise for many black players, his willingness to play against them in exhibitions, and his actual attempt to integrate baseball (even if surreptitiously), caused many early teams to use the name "Giants" in homage, and the tradition continued well into the 20s and 30s.
"Stars" was the other common name for black teams. In 1923 (the season of my particular expertise), there were the Detroit Stars, St. Louis Stars, Cleveland Tate Stars, and two teams called the Cuban Stars (one in the mid-west, and one in the east); at the same time there were the (Atlantic City) Bacharach Giants, Brooklyn Royal Giants, Chicago Giants, Chicago American Giants, Harrisburg Giants, (New York) Lincoln Giants, and the Richmond (VA) Giants. It's almost a "Who's on First" routine all by itself.
-- Couillaud (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That general theory makes total sense. The Giants were famous, and a consistent contender anyway, and McGraw's visionary and unprejudiced approach might have endeared him to the black players for at least trying to break the color line, decades before Branch Rickey succeeded. That's why many black people apparently admired Babe Ruth, in that he was always willing to play in exhibitions against black players, despite sometimes getting in some hot water for it. Ruth was never an executive, though, so his influence was limited to merely "good will". That brings me to a couple of editorial points that I may have brought up before. One is that as much as Judge Landis did to purge the game of the cancer of gambling, he was also an impediment to integration. He did his job well at the time, but it would have been better for the game if he had left office sooner (one way or another) and if a more progressive leader (such as Happy Chandler) could have come along sooner. The other point is one you may have heard, lamenting the loss of the Negro Leagues on the grounds that it gave marginal players a chance which they might not have had otherwise. While that might be technically true, it's also true of the marginal white players in the big leagues. If the total number of professional players among black and white dropped, yes, the total opportunities dropped. That would be mathematically true. However, the notion that somehow black people were "better off" having their own leagues is on the same level of the similarly well-intentioned-but-ignorant argument that blacks were "better off" being slaves, in the sense of being economically "safer" as opposed to being out there on their own (i.e. free) - both of those views are highly patronizing, to say the least. OK, end of editorial. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your insightful comments from yesterday. I've heard the bunting story before, of course, and I've wondered if it's aprocyphal. If I hit a game-winning homer and got fined for not bunting, I'd tell the manager that if his primary goal is not winning, I'll go work somewhere else. That reminds me of a moment from the 1971 World Series that you might have seen in the World Series film. Game 3, 7th inning at Pittsburgh, Pirates already ahead 2-1, Willie Stargell on first, Roberto "Bob" Clemente on second (I wonder if anyone ever called the great Clemente "Bob" to his face), with Bob Robertson at bat. The bunt sign is on, but Robertson is obviously in a swing-away stance and has missed the sign. Clemente turns to the umpire to try to call time, but the pitcher is in his windup and time is not called. The right-hand batting Robertson smacks it over the right-center field fence at Three Rivers, putting the game on ice for the Pirates. I don't know if Robertson was fined, but I'm guessing he never heard the end of it. OK, back to the main editorial. It's probably unfair to characterize any historical figure as "unprejudiced", since we can't know what was in his heart and mind, we can only judge by his actions. I think of Branch Rickey and Bill Veeck that way, the two who were most interested, initially, in hiring black players. They were businessmen who saw this large, untapped talent pool, and wanted to use it. I would say the same was true of McGraw. I recall reading in Veeck's autobiography the statement that black athletes "can run faster and jump higher". Well, a comment like that nowadays would draw considerable ire. He's also the guy who said, "I'm not handicapped, I'm crippled." Political correctness was not his best feature. But he hired Larry Doby and kept him on the payroll, one way or another, as long as he owned a team. Personally, I think Doby got the short end of the Robinson hoopla, since he had to go through the same stuff but wasn't such a fiery personality, and wasn't in New York, so he didn't get the press. It's true other teams were reluctant to bring in black players, until they realized they had to in order to stay competitive. But that also explains why it has taken so long for blacks to penetrate the management side: They were seen as being "needed" on the field, but not necessarily "needed" as managers or in the front office. That's my take, anyway. Thankfully, progress has been made in those areas. Regarding Ruth, he was as politically incorrect as they come, and I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped the N-word from time to time, as was common in those days. The difference is that it wouldn't have meant anything - he was just naturally vulgar and profane. Actions speak louder than words. Your comments about Landis are interesting. It suggests that Landis might have been simply echoing the owners' desire to keep the game white. For the owners, he was the right guy, since he was unlikely to make any waves, whether he was prejudiced or not. Chandler saw the light, and of course his contract was not renewed, as with the case of other "maverick" Commissioners that I admire (Ueberroth and Vincent, in particular), who the owners replaced because they wouldn't kiss up. I do think Landis did a pretty good job of stopping the gambling problem, although the rise in player salaries that went along with the baseball boom might have had something to do with that too. And as you suggest, the Negro Leagues ended up being kind of an unofficial high minor league for the majors. Maybe something could have been done to align the Negro Leagues officially, and they might have had a more graceful denouement. So it goes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)