Talk:2013 Detroit Tigers season/Archive 1

Source for Spring Training schedule
http://springtrainingonline.com/features/master-schedule.htm MMetro (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Great but spring training's over...TomCat4680 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC) And?

Regular season highlights
"Tom Cat", plenty of sports articles are being updated with stats during regular season. It's later that you can "summarize" and reduce the content if needed. But why have to go back and look all that up? Do it as you go. Your reverting of my content is a violation of "policy". You are supposed to give good faith edits the benefit of the doubt, and you most certainly start a discussion on this talk page first to avoid edit wars. Just because no one else started a "Regular Season" section until now, does not make it invalid. Your actions are inappropriate and should have been discussed. I don't keep this article updated, but if something significant happens, I add them to baseball teams which I've been doing on others without conflict (unlike with you). Please be more cooperative/respectful and not part of the problem(s) on Wikipedia. Thank you and with all due respect, best of luck! :) P.S. I will revert the content back if you do not have an open discussion with your valid "reasons". I expand articles and that content is not hurting anything nor incorrect. I can't help others don't contribute (or haven't contributed). How about you do that for other games instead of undoing another editor's hard work!? Very disrepectful. It's not like ESPN isn't a valid source. I'm not up for a "fight" that doesn't need to happen here just for someone to get their way even if they're not right. It's played out on here. I'm thinking you removed it based on discouragement perhaps, as if it affects you personally? Because regarding Wikipedia, it's not "wrong".99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From your own talk page:
 * Assume good faith.
 * For disputes, seek dispute resolution. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I was going to call the section "Regular Season" (notes/stats) except that was used already, so including "highlights" may be what 'threw you off' and why you removed it!? 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Geez don't take it so personally. You wrote a giant paragraph about 2 games, seems excessive, especially since they were pretty dull (I watched them both and almost fell asleep). A sentence or 2 would be sufficient for notable games, but nothing was special about those. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personal. I just don't like people making trouble (not saying you) or causing hassle with unproductive reverts. It would be nice if someone gave more input to the section, but just because I come along and give notable information, doesn't make it all bad. Sorry this is Wikipedia, not a "hype" pop culture news magazine (it's not supposed to be anyways). It listed facts, status with Tiger players, etc. Who cares if you fell asleep during the game, you're not the one who dictates if information is worth adding or not. That is not the gauge to determine if stats are included. That is also bias. Just because YOU thought it was boring, doesn't make it wrong. You removing it was wrong. We discuss what is appropriate or not, but just undoing it is not warranted. It doesn't have to "wow" people, the purpose is to correctly list status details. The "Game Log" section is boring too, but you can't remove it (for instance). So that is a poor reason. I can edit it some, but gradually I'm sure more "highlights" may be added (or should be). It's probably boring to you since you're a Tigers fan and they lost? (nudge) Dull or not, please do not just revert something that is 1. factual, 2. sourced, 3. broad and 4. neutural. As you can see, I'm jaded from seeing people do this all the time on here. Nonetheless, thanks for responding! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. The games weren't notable. No records were broken, they weren't no-hitters, nothing was controversial about them, etc. etc. It has nothing to do with what I think, and it has everything to do with what actually happened in those two games: NOTHING. I don't care if they lost one game either (it's still April BTW), I'm a die-hard whose been following the Tigers for 30 years. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(Tongue-in-cheek) I agree, they probably are boring. But ESPN gave allot of coverage about José Valverde and Justin Verlander. And there is a "record" mentioned, even though it's about someone with KC against a Tiger pitcher. But the injury, recall and debut I mentioned could become more significant. If later something else overshadows it, then it can be trimmed down or removed or merged. But including these details are no different than listing trades, etc. It doesn't have to be "big news" to be included. I'm expanding it. In years past, the articles have been exactly what you typed, "dull". With no stats or summary. I know it's just April and this is perhaps a rude awakening for someone to come along and contribute to what you may think is your article, but you are viewing this as a fan and not an editor on Wikipedia it seems. You have to remain neutral. You can't dictate what is appropriate or not if sourced and accurate. Even though a record was broken (I guess you're not paying attention to it very well), it doesn't have to be "no hitters" or something more important to qualify. You are cherry picking. As a society, we want bigger and better. But some readers may come to this article and want to know basic/general status. It was controversial enough to have a full segment on ESPN air all day and on their site (video), regarding the injury and other details from the game (debut and record). You being a die hard fan for 30 years doesn't make you right. If you follow them, you'd know these could be potentially big factors and were "newsworthy". Regardless, they don't have to be in order to be included. No use waiting until the end of the year to include it and back-track. It can be merged with other highlights later. It's not hurting anything being there now. Please don't be one of those who wants to monopolize an article and find petty fault with something just because you didn't come up with it or else because YOU don't feel it's important enough. I'm not listing it on the Tigers article, I'm mentioning it on the 2013 season article. Give me a break and let's move on... This is a waste of time. P.s. We can go to dispute resolution if this continues to be a problem. I don't want to argue about it, I'm trying to expand and improve articles. It's not like I'm going through nearly every game, like some articles are doing (just see the intro and season information for many other teams this year), and listing every detail. Many articles do more than what I did. Overly explaining plots, episodes, pop culture activities, a celebrity's every move, etc. That's not what I did. I'm just trying to help. This is making things worse. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your contributions aren't constructive, they're meaningless stats. Being on ESPN doesn't make a stat notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI: You are not the consensus. You are not properly following the steps to resolve disputes. You are to leave the content and discuss it until there is closure. You have two reverts already and one away from the three revert rule. Assistance is being requested for this matter since you are not cooperating. Many other MLB contributions include details about the season by editors. That is what the article is for. You are being disruptive and causing unnecessary conflict. I'd appreciate you being more respectful. Thank you! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, I compromised and edited my contribution. I'm sure if I replace the second revert that should remain until the conclusion of this dispute, Tom Cat will violate a three-revert rule. This user is not cooperating. I was only contributing to this article since I update the Royals mostly, but I could have began from the start with Regular Season info and it still have been acceptable. Tom Cat can not be the judge of what is noteworthy enough to remain in the 2013 Season article. Fellow editor's assistance is appreciated! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the rules before you accuse me of breaking them. I did nothing illegal. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because I don't post the rule's article here, doesn't mean I don't know them. I've typed out your violations several times now. I'm not arguing with you. I will await others to contribute their opinions after researching other MLB articles, some of which I've edited on and had no reverts like you did. I am ending my communication with you as it's useless/pointless and unproductive. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you knew the rules of notability and followed them, this wouldn't be the issue. You obviously haven't even read them. Get back to me when you do. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page
You have reverted a constructive edit twice. You are creating an edit war without going through the proper steps. We are actively having a "discussion" about it on the talk page. Your reverts are out-of-line and a violation. I will take the necessary steps if it continues, since you want to keep it off the article and not go through the proper dispute steps. You are not the concensus. Stop being disruptive. Thank you! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A violation of what? Read the rules before you accuse me of breaking them. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, again... improper dispute resolution, removing constructive content before discussing and one away from a three-rule revert. Is that not clear? 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your contributions aren't constructive, they're meaningless stats. Being on ESPN doesn't make a stat notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It may not be a rule, but you're also being very aggressive. Stats are what belong on the 2013 Season article. Just because MLB articles tend to be one way, doesn't mean they can't include random details. You're being ridiculous. Sorry your team is in third place, but that is no reason to revert information about the season. I didn't include it on other articles it doesn't belong on, it's on the article where it should be. No one else cared to update anything else about the season, like I did, but that doesn't make it wrong. Other editors are doing this on articles and not reverting it or being questioned. What's that tell you? Get serious, for real. The article is about the season. If I want to type every single thing that happens, I can. It's not about "notable highlights of the season" article or "only what Tom Cat thinks is important" article. Wow! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of your childish insults. It's not about my opinion. There's rules about what's notable and what's not and your stats are meaningless. We don't need a summary of every game, it wastes space. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, not is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Specifically:

"Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."


 * P.S. You better start assuming good faith and not making it about me or I may have to report you. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Real mature, now attacks!? Great job... "Childish games" is what you had before, then changed it before I could reply since this talk page wouldn't let me update my response for a little while. I'm not insulting you personally, like you did. I'm saying what you're doing was wrong. My content is no more meaningless than what's already on there. There is no "rule" about what can or can't be on the season article as long as it's about the MLB team. It doesn't have to be important to you. Besides, it requires a consensus. So how many things have you done wrong? Those aren't insults, those are facts: you've lied, being harsh, not got a consensus, reverted without dispute resolution, and thanks to me I saved you from getting the three-rule revert. You're welcome. Anyways, I can see you are not going to follow rules, so I will request assistance and do what I have to do based simply on principle now, because truth be told I could care less if it's on there or not. I was just helping (while updating the Royals season games), which is more than what I can say your edits reflect. You're just upset. And according to you, if something is "dull" then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia? Good to know. You doing what you're doing is wrong, and unfair to editors just trying to help and who sometimes get "blocked" as a result of someone who won't do what is appropriate on here in the first place. I'm finished dealing with the way you're behaving. I'm not the one playing childish games/insults. That doesn't even make sense, stay on topic. P.S. I assumed good faith. You have not. You're the one who is spinning this around to make it like I did something wrong, when it is you. Nice try! Get other people to agree with you, then we can remove the info. Since you keep updating your page so that I can't reply, and now saying you'll report me, I'll do just that about you. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop telling me me how I feel. Specifically what rule have I broken? Go ahead and "get help", I've done nothing wrong except maybe offend you because I took down your edits. You've made it personal from the start. I guess you're not mature enough to see that though. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read what you posted above? I didn't create a list. It is "text". Wow! And I haven't made it personal, it's the fact that you have not properly handled disputes nor gotten consensus. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm hello? Apparently English isn't your first language. From dictionary.com: List (noun): a series of names or other items written or printed together in a meaningful grouping or sequence so as to constitute a record: a list of members.


 * Rules are rules, your daily game reports are against them. Anyways, I'm done trying to reason with you. Just admit you were offended and move on. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

1. More insults and bad attitude. ("apparently English isn't your first language" is belittling, offensive and an attack.) 2. The "rule" you posted about statistics is about lists of facts or tables which are trivial or excessive, not a paragraph that recaps a game and talks about the debut of a player, a record set and/or two injuries affecting the team. You are mentioning something that is unrelated to this. 3. You are the one who was mad/offended, and using me as a smoke screen. You said not to "say" how you feel, and that is what you're doing. The things you are feeling/thinking about yourself is what you're blaming me of. (psychology 101) My point is this: it's about the season game, and you did not properly follow the steps for resolution/debates. You are wrong. I am not. I feel sorry for you. I should change it back since it's still in debate and let you violate the three-revert rule. P.S. It wasn't daily reports. You have only made inaccurate statements without an ounce of research. This user is also repeating things I observed about him/her. Not very original. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. There is an open dispute about this and links to your page about the matter, so removing it doesn't really help your case any.


 * God you're so full of crap. I'm a psych major in college and it has nothing to do with my feelings. It has everything to do with YOUR bad attitude and YOUR refusal to follow simple rules about notability. Read them please, it's not very hard. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

TomCat: For what it's worth, I haven't replied until now regarding our dispute over content, and this is all I'll type, but cursing at me in one of your messages and telling me I'm "full of crap" here is inappropriate and disruptive. It was actually apart of my original complaint about you as well. I left a general message here to avoid direct contact with you per the resolution noticeboard messages I left that I would not and did not want to, but another editor incorrectly removed it several minutes ago. So to you personally, I hope in the future you handle communicating better with other editors who are just trying to improve articles. We can all get along without "power-tripping". Thanks, and good luck! P.S. I'm also aware of "rules" except I don't showboat about it. Practice what you preach would be a good rule of thumb and point to take. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not "power tripping" or "showboating". I'm tired of your baseless accusations and personal attacks. I don't own this article or any other article on here. Anyone who wants to post here can do so, as long as it doesn't violate any of the notability rules of the site. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)