User talk:Epeefleche/Archive 1 (6/07-8/09)

Fangraphs
I have no strong opinions either way. The one time I saw that "secured site" message was from my office PC (gasp!) which suggests there might be something different going on with it which only my office PC's version of IE detected. If I were forced to cast a vote, I would probably vote Yes, just on the principle that the one guy who's so adamant against it also promotes his own pet spam site about Black Sox baseball cards. Baseball Bugs 08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now, I wouldn't want to force you of course. But I've never had anything like that show up when I access the site.  And I'm not even sure what "secured site" means on your office's system.  In any event, its not a site that's a sales site, or one that requires registration, which I think is what you are (rightfully) concerned about.  Nothing spam about it at all.  Feel free to check it from a non-office PC.  (BTW, my office PC used to block all emails from a Monsieur Le Cock in France, until I had our techies address it).  If you do believe that it is a helpful site to have, given that it has 69 unique categories of data and Tecmo was deleting it on the basis of it having no unique info, that would be great.  But vote your heart.  Tx. --Epeefleche 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I now see that User talk:Tecmobowl has decided to stop editing for awhile, facing at least two 3RR threats, probably over this same issue. I'll take a further look at Fangraph when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs 09:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, he was blocked for going over the line -- he violated the 3RR rule with regard to two baseball players (your guess was right), and is being punished. Tx for taking a look, as sanfranman is counting heads to see if we have a consensus on this or not.--Epeefleche 09:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's ironic he was taken down over an argument over a minor leaguer. And the "speculation" complaint was a mis-read. The article didn't say such-and-such was going to happen, it said so-and-so announced it was going to happen, which is factual (if somewhat trivial). I can only assume the user was going through some of what I was going through about a month ago when I came close to throwing in the towel. I came back with a somewhat better attitude. One key is not to be watching too many pages, as it can drive you crazy. I was watching over 2,000. Now I'm watching a hundred or so. I hadn't expected to run into trouble so quickly, but after too many arguments with that guy I mostly backed off and let the others do battle with him, figuring he would eventually go over the line and pay for it. Baseball Bugs 09:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the way I read it, he has been suspended. For two violations.  48 hours.--Epeefleche 09:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Consecutive rather than concurrent terms. I posted an article on User talk:Tecmobowl that someone had posted on my old page User talk:Wahkeenah when I said "I quit" in exasperation in mid-May. It's a bit painful to read, but it's worthwhile. Too many pages watched... getting too close to it... losing self-control... and especially the part about the middle of the night (and probably the wrong end of it, i.e. not waking early like I did today, but being up too late). Baseball Bugs 10:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to the discussion that is taking place on whether Fangraph is appropriate for articles or not? I have reverted this a few times, but, I see it is being discussed. Neier 07:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On Ichiro Suzuki's page, I recently reverted one editor back to Tecmobowl's version here. That is not an  endorsement of his view, but it happened to be the last good revision with the Japan team name in the box.
 * Since discovering this debate, I have refrained from removing or re-adding those links on articles, because, I'm still on the fence wrt this site. Some info is unique, but, if I make an alternative site that shows 1B/phase-of-moon stats or 3B/color-of-outfield-seats, the same argument would apply.  It is verifiable, etc.
 * If this goes to arbitration, I would like to join as an interested party. Neier 06:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, and explanation. How about putting back in th Japan team name, which does belong, without deleting Fangraphs?  I agree that the phase-of-moon stats would be of little interest.  Same goes with color of seats.  But Fangraphs is not adding information like that.  Only information that interests baseball fans, and SABR statisticians, and people who like baseball stats.  The point is actually made especially well with Ichiro.  Today, in 2007 54.4% of his batted balls have been grounders; 8th in the league.  Last year he was 10th with 50.7%.  He has 20 infield hits; 1st in the AL. Last year he led the league with 41 infield hits.  One more than Castillo.  In 2005 he was 2nd to Damon, with 31.  In 2004 he led the AL with a whopping 57; 21 more than the next best batter, Carl Crawford.  He has a 16.1 infield hit percentage; 2nd in the AL behind Upton.  Last year he led the league with a 13.0 percentage. Unlike your examples, this is pertinent information from the point of view of someone interested in baseball stats -- and interested in Ichiro.  It is not present in the other sites.  No worries -- if you are supportive of Fangraphs being included, that does not bind you to including sites with phase of moon stats.  (Or even day game vs. night game stats).  IMHO, though, it is a disservice to Ichiro fans to delete the url that puts at their fingertips these stats.  Thoughts? --Epeefleche 07:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said above, AFAIK I never deleted Fangraphs from Ichiro's page. In all my recent edits, the status of the fangraphs link on the page was exactly the same as it was before I edited it.  I think Matsui may be the only one I removed it from, and that was before I knew that the site was being actively discussed already.  I'm not planning on adding or deleting that link; and if anyone adds it or deletes it, I won't revert it on any article.  I'm glad you understand my other point wrt to types of stats, too.  As long as you have other stuff to back up "unique", then I think you will be fine.  Up until now, I had seen a lot of "it's unique, so it belongs according to WP:EL" without explaining the importance of the uniquity. Neier 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it. Tx.  Yep, of course ridiculous stats, no matter how unique, wouldn't rate.  But infield hits?  To me, more important -- with someone like Ichiro especially -- than a day/night split.  I had listed the stats that were unique in the discussion.  Those familiar with baseball stats would recognize them from their names, and those unfamiliar with baseball would be able to go to the url and see the description of each category.  Tx.--Epeefleche 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Attention to a conversation
If you would like to discuss the merits of FG for inclussion, please do so here. //Tecmobowl 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That would make no sense. There is an ongoing discussion of the subject, since May 31st, with 7 other editors, at . Opening up discussion elsehwere could only confuse and dilute it.  I would suggest that if you have any comments you bring them to the existing discussion, which already contains I might point out quite a number of entries by you on the subject.--Epeefleche 17:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute
Hi. It seems that you and Tecmobowl are currently engaged in a dispute. I am sure that you want to resolve this amicably, so can I please suggest that you review Resolving disputes and have a go at following the process described. Leave me a note if I can be of further assistance, but hopefully you can sort it out yourselves. I have left exactly the same note for Tecmobowl. Cheers TigerShark 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tiger Shark. Thanks much! I've tried Avoidance, Talk to the other parties involved, 3 Disengage for a while, Discuss with third parties, Informal mediation, and conducting a survey.  Have also appealed to admins to mediate.  Do you think that I should bring this to arbitration, and if so how do I do that?  Tx. --Epeefleche 17:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And this might interest you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#behavioral_problems_at_wikiproject_baseball:_Epeefleche.2C_Baseball_Bugs_and_Tecmobowl


 * So might this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tecmobowl_and_possible_sockpuppetry


 * Tecmobowl's an obsessive nut. Can they ban him? He degrades Wikipedia under some delusion of content ownership. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guilpert (talk • contribs).


 * I have opened a request that he be blocked indefinitely for persistent disruption at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard .--Epeefleche 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Update -- he has been banned indefinitely.--Epeefleche 04:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

EL question
You were, from what I saw, the main editor reverting Tecmo's changes to the EL's in other articles. I've looked at the discussion about the four statistics sites on WP baseball, and other than that I'd like to see a straw poll for each of them maybe, to try and get a large number of comments from editors, it looks great. My concern is that this was only part of the cleaning that Tecmo was doing, and that you weren't doing partial reverts to bring back in the statistics sites, you were doing full reverts, suggesting that you had an issue with the other cleaning he was doing. I asked about one revert war between you and Tecmo on the WikiProject baseball page and didn't get an answer because you maintained that I was off-topic. Obviously, a couple of the links removed are the statistics sites being discussed now, but what about the others? They seemed like standard WP:EL reversions to me, but since you reverted, and since you reverted other edits like these, could you provide an explanation of your revert? Miss Mondegreen talk  09:05, June 15 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your "I'd like to see" language suggests. Views were solicited.  On the baseball project Wiki page.  Which is more likely than most pages to attract contributors who understand baseball statistics; the main focuses of many of the deleted ELs.  A number of editors indicated their views.  Discussion there was extensive -- the most extensive of any issue on that page.  As were the number of contributiors.


 * We are seeking, in part, to determine which ELs if any are unique, and which if any are redundant. To simplify that discussion, it appeared, as editor Sanfranman had approached it, best to start by collecting discussion of 4 urls.  Summarizing the discussion.  Inviting thereby more comment on those 4 urls.  And achieving consensus on them.


 * Next step, as indicated, would be to seek to repeat the process with more of the urls. It only makes sense to move on to the next step in my view once we have achieved consensus on the first group of urls.  This is because it will be easier to show redundancy (or not) once we have a base number of urls that are accepted.  Also, the discussion is already wide-ranging, and difficult for some to follow.  This focuses it. I am as I have said before supportive of the deletion of urls that are wholly duplicative in data and format.


 * Problematically, despite what IMHO is a consensus on Fangraphs, and despite prior comments by Tecmo evidencing that he agrees that the formatting there is unique (he had the peculiar request that we only include Fangraphs on the basis of that point), and despite the heavy evidence of unique data (Miss M, don't you want to be able to see how many IHs and BUHs Ichiro has each season?), Tecmo is filibustering. This is unhelpful.


 * Tecmo is also today on that page seeking to open up discussion of that issue, already discussed on one place, elsewhere. That only has the efrect of confusing people who try to follow the discussion and contribute.  They are best served by it being in one place.  But just now, when I sought to centralize it, he RVd my change.  This is unhelpful.


 * Out of purgatory today, Tecmo is again deleting Fangraphs urls, as well as others -- see, for example, Hank Greenberg. And others.  This is unhelpful.


 * Deletion of urls, without consensus, causes more harm than retaining them. Let's assume there is a 50-50 chance that consensus will be reached either way, as to any of these urls.  If it is decided that they should not have been deleted, who will go look for ELs that Tecmo has deleted, and restore them?  Will you?  Will Tecmo?  How will you easily find them?  This is a highly labor intensive process.  It is not the same the other way.  If it is decided that retained ELs should be deleted, one need only search for the url -- if there is consensus to delete it.  The bios with the ELs all then pop up quite readily.  And one does not have to then search in the history of the bio for the EL, or perform an independent search to recreate it. As would be the case with an effort to find and restore deleted ELs.  Notably, the problem with finding the deleted EL in the history becomes greater as time passes, and there are more revisions on the history page.


 * If you really are interested in finding a way forward, I would be interested in your helpful suggestions on these points. Thanks.--Epeefleche 09:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tecmo has said that he's been trying to leave FG links alone and I advised him to leave issues of duplicate statistics ELs alone until the wikiproject discussion had finished. I also noticed that he seems to be in the middle of filing a request with the meditation cabal (taking a note from my filing on the Shoeless Joe page), which I think is a good idea.  I also understand why you were refactoring, but it might perhaps have been a better idea to open a new section about the four sites and ask for comments there.  Tecmo at least feels that the refactoring changed the meanings of some content, in some way, and the current discussion is difficult to follow.  It states what other people think, which I wouldn't exactly trust there, and on a talk page where people go back and change comments and that's not easy to follow in the first place, this is making this near impossible to track things in the history and follow the flow.
 * But that's not what I'm asking you about here. I understand that Tecmo was moving very quickly through a lot of articles and you were just trying to undo what he did.  But I also noticed places where you (and other editors reverting him) moved to fast.  Sometimes articles were reverted back to page versions that contained vandalism.  Or page versions where the EL list contained one link twice.  Or the Hank Arron article you just referred to, you reverted back in a dead link.
 * In the case I referred to earlier at the wikiproject page, Tecmo removed 5 links. 2 are statistics sites that are currently being discussed by the wikiproject.  I saw obvious reasons per WP:EL to remove the other three--was there a reason you reverted all five back in, instead of 2?  Here's a link to the latter part of the revert war where Tecmo was removing 7 links, still only 2 statistics sites being discussed, and the two additional removals still both fairly straightforward, though I have question about one.  (btw the link at the top of this discussion and one of the ones the wikiproject page is wrong--I linked to the latter part and not the earlier part of the revert war).  Anyway, these other removals seem, for the most part fairly straightforward to me, and I don't see an issue, like the other of the statistics sites.  If there a reason that you've been reverting these back, or did they get caught up in the whole other issue of the statistics sites?  Miss Mondegreen  talk  11:45, June 15 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, its not true that Tecmo has been leaving the Fansgraphs ELs alone. Freshly released from his latest block, he has deleted more such ELs.  That is disruptive.


 * Mediation or any advanced admin involvement is, I believe, helpful and likely necessary at this point.


 * As far as the refactoring is concerned, nearly 10 editors had commented, and/or their comments summarized, in one place. I can't imagine a good reason to fragment the discussion by opening it up elsewhere.  The only reason that I can divine that Tecmo is seeking to fragment discussion is the same as the reasons that he constantly deletes his talk page.  It makes it more difficult for people to follow the conversation.  And it is his disruptive way of keeping editors from getting a clear view of the nature of his disruptive behavior.  Neither reason is a good one. There is no basis in the charge that the refactoring changed the meaning of the discussion.  Look at it yourself.  And while you for example have time to spend on this, other editors and especially admins such as Nishkid and Wizardman can't be expected to repeat themselves.  The quotes of what they say are in context.  And they appear in the prior section, for those who wish to wade through them.  We have had extensive discussion.  You can't seriously believe that it would be more efficient to open up even new section headings to get them to repeat themselves?


 * Tecmo deleted 100s of ELs in a very short time. If any of the RVs included mistaken inclusion of vandalism or dead links, those are mistakes that should be fixed.  If as I suggested the ELs are not deleted in the first place, we avoid this problem.  The more time that goes by with any of these deletions not being RVd, the greater the number of these errors that we will likely suffer.  Another reason why it is best to not delete any of these, pending consensus.


 * I find Tecmo's deletes of urls to generally be wrong-headed. The statistics ones are the easiest to address first.  Inasmuch as an AB is an AB is an AB.  If there are truly duplicative sites, it is easiest to find it there.  Other sites, that are articles or bio material, involve greater discussion.  To keep discussion focused, I think it best to address the easier ones first -- such as Fangraphs, Baseball Cube, etc.  Once we have done so, we can move on to the others.  But people are already finding the discussion to be dizzying.  That impeded interest in commenting.  Let's give people bite-sized amounts to chew on.  You may have time and inclination to follow this very long discussion, but others whose input we would like may need out help in centralizing discussion and not providing a dizzying amount of info for them to address.


 * BTW, who will undo the deletes of url that do not have consensus approval? Will Tecmo?  Will you?  This will be a labor intensive effort.  As distinct from deletion of any urls that consensus suggests should be deleted.--Epeefleche 12:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fresh off of his block, yes, I believe he did--this was before he agreed not to. He said he won't.  Leave it at that.
 * Who will undo the deletes of URLs that have consensus approval? I don't know.  Tecmo might, I can't speak for him.
 * I didn't entirely understand Tecmo's issue with the refactoring, but I had a couple. One was that the summarization section meant that I had to trust whomever was paraphrasing to get things right, and I couldn't often find those comments elsewhere.  Moving comments I think is just a BAD IDEA on that wikiproject page.  People go back and edit their comments, the discussion is so incredibly sprawled that people may want to look at the history.  I do on a regular basis there, possibly more than anywhere else.  Moving the comments makes looking through the history or looking for something in the history harder.
 * I also think that yes, the discussion should be started anew in a fresh section. You may have made it easier to read, but the whole thing is still impossible.  Tecmo isn't editing those links at the moment, and I'll ask him not to until the discussion commences, but it should be done right.  I have comments and questions and no where to put them on that mess of a page.  The old discussion should be left for referencing, but a new section should be created with subsections for each of the four sites being discussed and people can give their opinions and real discussion can take place.  The copy-pasted, refactored semi-discussion thing doesn't work.  People can't even tell when the previous comments were voiced.  There needs to be something clean, coherent and chronological.
 * You still haven't really addressed my questions. You said that you find the deletions to be generally wrong-headed, and that a few mistakes might be mixed in there.  And yet you've commented on nothing but the statistics sites, and asking Tecmo to wait for an indefinite period, so that the statistics discussion can finish and you can then address the other ELs question is really ridiculous.  Take the Hank Greenburg reverts.  Two are statistics sites being discussed.  What else do you find wrong-headed here?  Miss Mondegreen  talk  13:18, June 15 2007 (UTC)


 * I will, as I indicated, discuss the other sites once we have brought closure to the first 4. We have way too much disjointed discussion already.  It has taken 3 weeks, and we still have not closed out the 4 sites.  I don't think it will improve matters now to discuss 8 more concurrently. I will, however, once we have addressed those 4.  That is one contribution I am making to focusing the conversation. Given the greater harm from deleting urls, rather than leaving them, pending consensus for deletion, I think we should leave them.


 * Will you undo the deletes of urls when consensus is reached that they should not have been deleted? I asked Tecmo if he would.  He did not respond.  If you and he do not do it, then the disruption to others is far greater than people may realize.


 * Unless you or Tecmo agree to RV unless there is a consensus for deletion, I would propose that the ELs be RVd now. For the reasons mentioned above.  This will become more difficult as time passes.


 * The summary section (of previous material) was replete with quotes. And you didn't "have to" trust it.  No one deleted the previous material.  You could always double check it.  As to Tecmo's opening up a new section, and me refactoring it, you could always compare to what was  refactored.  Check it.  No issues there. This is a red herring.


 * Given your comments on your personal use of history, what do you think of Tecmo blanking his talk page? It interferes with people seeking to follow the conversation there, don't you think?  I note that he deletes it, rather than archiving it -- which is preferable, and allows for one to follow the discussion in the archive.  I can't imagine any goal on his part, btw, other than to impede the ability of others to follow the discussion.


 * The section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Low-Hanging_Fruit:__MLB.2C_Baseball_Cube.2C_Baseball_Reference.2C_and_Fangraphs contained in part the following. The entries after it augment it.  It is a centralized coherent cohesive discussion.  Techmo followed by accusing me, curiously, of fragmenting the converstation.  And then later proceeded to -- yes -- seek to fragment the conversation.  This helps no one who is interested in considered consensus.  It is disruptive.  Below, the mentioned excerpt ....


 * 
 * Exerpt was Epeeflech's commenthere


 * --Epeefleche 13:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That exerpt was really too long for me. I've read it.  And while I don't quite understand why Tecmo disliked the comment moving, I certainly did.  It's not a discussion.  It's your comments and paraphrasing of previous discussion.  Comments are not chrological, and I cannot reply to users because they commented elsewhere.  Replies to you are not even divided sectionally by site.  It's a mess.
 * "Unless you or Tecmo agree to RV unless there is a consensus for deletion, I would propose that the ELs be RVd now."
 * Well that's interesting. Unless Tecmo agrees to revert himself unless there's consensus for deletion, or unless I agree to do the work for him (me? why me?) you propose that the ELs be RVd now.  Well, I'm guessing that neither Tecmo nor I would be doing that now, so you'd be doing the work either way.  So you're saying that unless Tecmo or I agree to do the work later, you want to do it now, and if there is consensus for deletion, who's going to do the work then?  While a fasinating argument, it's again off-topic.
 * I do have an issue with you reverting now, because you can't seem to partially revert, and when asked why you reverted something, your answer is "let's focus on this now". That's fine, except that you reverted it then, and have continued to, and want to continue to.  If you want to continue to revert Tecmo's EL edits, provide a reason.  You've said that you think the edits are "wrong-headed", and yet you won't elaborate.   These are not ELs that need to be discussed by the project.  They generally differ from page to page, and most seem to be straightforward.  Perhaps a few merit talk page discussion.  But I've seen no evidence that you are even looking at the edits, clicking on the links, looking at WP:EL and seeing if they belong.  Indeed, I see no evidence of even the first part, given the excess of mistakes like leaving dead links and duplicate links in.
 * Please, stop asking who's going to do what--stop focusing on who. I've been attempting to get an answer to this question for days, possibly even weeks now, and asking me what I think of Tecmo's blanking his talk page or who will do what, or copying a long section from the WikiProject page is not only not answering my question, it is looking like deliberate avoidance of the question, and frankely, it's rude.  Please, just answer the question.  Use the Hank Greenberg revert as an example.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  14:48, June 15 2007 (UTC)


 * As to why you, as another editor pointed out in the discussion that found Tecmo guilty of sockpuppetry, your defense of his actions, and mischaracterizations of his activities (he is a poor guy -- not a 4-time blocked in one week sock-puppeteer), and mischaracterizations of the writings and activities of others (your failure at the outset to see the heavy substantive discussion of others; your making it sound as though others are Wiki violators when he is the culprit), all suggest that you are more deeply in bed with him than an arm's length editor would be. Thus, you might want to fix his deletes. Plus, there is consensus as to 4 deleted urls.  Are you suggesting that people should delete urls without consensus, and then when it is clarified to them that their delete is wrong-headed they leave it to others to clean up their mess?  Doesn't sound quite right, for some reason. Every day that these url deletions are not addressed makes the clean-up more difficulty.  I clarified why above.  I provided the "reason" that you demand.  It is easier to delete later than restore later. And no, the other ELs do in fact need to be discussed by the project.  Look at how much you have written just today -- without substantive discussion of the ELs.  Do you really think that it will clarify and streamline matters to engage in even greater discussion?  When we can't even have Tecmo respect the consensus and the unique data presented? Unless you are seeking to confuse the discussion, I fail to see your interest in taking such a tack. As to the dead links, I think you exaggerate greatly. But of course any bad links should be replaced by good ones or else deleted. The number of those must be less than 1% of the ELs deleted by Tecmo, so again I find your focus to be curiously partial. The issue of who will fix the improperly deleted urls is an important one.  It bears on whether we can tolerate their temporary deletion.  And whether continued lack of focus on fixing them is causing others in the community more work every day -- or not.  In a word, the level of "disruption." Your suggestion that I "stop asking who's going to do what" again suggest a partisanship on your part, or a lack of sensitivity to the level of disruption of this activity. If you are interested in helping, in reducing the disruption of these massive deletes, in consensus being followed, in evidence of uniqueness being acknowledged (when lack of uniqueness was the reason given for deletions), in the ability to see a players BUHs and IHs -- indeed, if you have interests other than seeking to defend the disruptive activities of this 4-times-in-a-week-blocked sock-puppeteer, I would be most interested.


 * Furthermore, on the page discussing Tecmo's sockpuppetry,  SWAT Jester   wrote: "Miss Mondegreen, your own link ... seems to be quite conclusive that Irishguy was in the right. In the words of Caeculus above "I'm amazed that User:IrishGuy actually has to justify his actions against a highly disruptive user". Why are you bringing this up a second time? More importantly why are you defending him against all evidence to the contrary, everywhere? I could understand devils advocate, but that's not the case here." I have the same questions.--Epeefleche 15:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

EL example

 * "making it sound as though others are Wiki violators"?? Yes, none of what you just wrote to me was a personal attack in any way, shape or form.
 * I have been attempting to get an answer from you about this question for days. Is it too much to ask for to answer it, without asking me what I think of Tecmo doing this, without accusing me of various things, without copying text from ANI that I have already replied to--if you have the same question and my answer there didn't answer it, presumably you could reply there.
 * "'the other ELs do in fact need to be discussed by the project.'"
 * Please explain why. These are not ELs that are on every page the way the statistics ELs are--these are ELs that differ from page to page. Which ones need to be discussed by the project instead of on the talk page of the article, and why the project?
 * "'Look at how much you have written just today -- without substantive discussion of the ELs.'"
 * I have previous gone through a line by line breakdown for you, which you subsequently ignored, but I'll do it again.
 * In addition to the two links being discussed, he removed:
 * http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Hank_Greenberg
 * 12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/dimaggio3.html
 * dead link
 * http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=greenha01
 * 5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
 * http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/greenberg.html
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * http://jewishmajorleaguers.org/crrldrs/crrldrs.html
 * 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
 * What, if were your/are your objections to these removals? And why would they be discussed at the project page and not the article talk page?  Miss Mondegreen  talk  16:31, June 15 2007 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiousity...if those are valid reasons to remove those links, how exactly does Blacksoxfan.com meet those criteria? IrishGuy talk 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Join me over at Shoeless Joe? My answer(s) there is in pieces, so I'll post a nice succinct one.  It's actually an interesting link per WP:EL standards and merits real discussion.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  18:06, June 15 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked over the length of the discourse that you have engaged me in above, even with me seeking to first close down the Fangraphs issue. It strikes me that it would not be fruitful for me to accept your invitation to engage in even more diluted discussion until we have reached consensus on the 4 urls in question. At that point, I will be pleased to do so.

As to personal attacks, no, I've simply pointed out behavior on your part that is unhelpful and puzzling. I'm sure that you are a fine person.--Epeefleche 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche--I didn't contact you about the fangraph issue--I never have. I initially raised this issue on the second, and addressed you specifically about this, this article even on the fifth, and I've tried very hard to get a response.  You haven't given one.  In the meantime, without any explanation as to your objections to these removals, you've continued reverting them, even on this article where I step by step explained the other ELs.
 * I understand if you were just reverting Tecmo, trying to keep up with his speed, and not looking, or haven't had the time to look at the ELs. But you don't OWN the ELs or the articles in question.  If you won't answer as to why you think these removals are an issue, then I expect that you won't be reverting them until you do.  I see no reason to ask Tecmo to refrain from other EL cleaning because you have some unspecified objection to his application of the WP:EL guideline, but you won't explain it without first closing the fangraph discussion.  That's not acceptable.  They are completely seperate issues, and if you can't take issue with some edits Tecmo makes without hitting the undo button (occasionally actually editing to make sure vandalism he removed didn't get back in), perhaps you shouldn't be editing.  I hope not.  I hope that this is an aberrant behavior--that you generally do look through edits and don't just undo the whole thing. That you generally are willing to discuss your reverts. Maybe this is because it's Tecmo making the edit or because of the speed of the edits. But whatever it is, we're supposed to judge edits, not editors, when making changes to an article.
 * You have been reverting these edits without explanation for weeks now. You on the other hand have had explanations provided to you by both Tecmo, and myself.  If you don't want to discuss the issue now, that's fine, but I expect that that means that you won't be reverting these ELs (not the statistics ones being discussed, these ones), or that when you do, you'll be prepared to explain.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  17:38, June 15 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of ELs being discussed. We are addressing them in an orderly fashion. I've explained ad nauseum why.

I've also explained ad nauseum why the disruption caused by deletion of an EL is far greater than disruption caused by retention (until and unless it is determined by consensus that deletion is appropriate).

And you 2 have yet to agree to restore those urls you delete without consensus.

You have been the 2 people, of all the editors who have commented, who have militated in favor of deletions generally. As to those 4 ELs we've all looked at so far, uniqueness has been clearly apparent. Tecmo's arguments on them -- that Fangraphs does not have unique data -- have been so dramatically false that one wonders why he made them. Certainly one can have little faith in his judgement on the issue as to other ELs.

For all and in fact for any of these reasons, it is appropriate that you and Tecmo refrain from other EL "cleansing." Pending consensus. It is disruptive.

Tecmo's behavior does color matters, btw. That's why he suffered 4 blocks from editing, when his behavior was especially bad. Sockpuppetry is no small matter.

--Epeefleche 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You 2? I haven't been removing ELs.  I'm sorry if I'm in favor of removing links that no longer work, or that are not on the topic that the article is, or links to open wikis.
 * The ones I was referring to as not unique--they were biographies, and all of the information contained in them would have been contained in the article should it become featured.
 * WP:EL has consensus, and so therefore do the removal of those links. I understand that you don't like Tecmo or trust his judgement and that the same goes for me, but you cannot blindly revert him seeing that he has edited the ELs of an article, saying that you'll get around to discussing it later.  You have yet to provide a reason why these need to be discussed, much less discussed by the wikiproject.  Your issues with Tecmo are blinding you--I don't even think that you remember that I came to the wikiproject to mediate--I am now Tecmo to you, and that is sad.
 * It matters not. You do not have to trust Tecmo's judgement.  But neither does anyone have to trust yours.  You have been reverting for weeks without providing a reason why--Tecmo has.  The fact that you don't trust him is irrelevant.  You look at the EDITS when editings an article, not the EDITOR.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  19:07, June 15 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm in favor of deletion (with replacement, if possible) of links that don't work. That's a tiny fraction of what was deleted. I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Let's address the urls that were deleted in greater numbers first.

As you know, people are not uniformly in agreement of your reading of WP:EL. There is no consensus (yet) for deletion of those ELs.

I have never said I dislike Tecmo. True, he is a sockpuppet, a multiple 3RR offender, has failed to act in accordance with consensus, has been dishonest about facts, has been terribly disruptive on Wiki, and cause many people to waste time. But I'm sure he's a grand fellow personally.

The disruption caused by url deletion, by a person with a history of making such mass urls deletions claiming lack of uniqueness when that is not the case, is good cause for demanding that the urls not be deleted pending discussion. When we delete an article, we do so only after CONSENSUS TO DELETE. When we delete a category, we do so only after CONSENSUS TO DELETE. For the reasons given, the same should clearly hold for deletion of massive numbers of ELs.

Yes, it is sad that you have defended Tecmo when he was so clearly a sockpuppet and filibuterer and a warper of facts that some of us question your partiality.

In short, whether it is you, or me, or Tecmo, we should not be making mass deletes of ELs as he has. --Epeefleche 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus yet? WP:EL does not have consensus?  I'm not talking about the links being discussed on the wikiproject page--I'm talking about the other ones.
 * Epeefleche--there is consensus that those links should not be on those articles, we don't need to get that consensus--the consensus exists at WP:EL. When it's about deleting an article or category, we get consensus beforehand--consensus that we are reading the policies and guidelines properly.  And yet, many pages are simply speedily deleted, without need for that consensus. No one needs consensus to remove copyvio text or vandalism or to edit articles. The only pages that need talk page consensus before major changes are policies and guidelines.  These are articles.  He edits.  You disagreed with his edits and revert him.  He already provided an explanition in all of his edit summaries, so here's where you should have pointed out the ones you disagreed with or didn't understand or wanted more detail on.
 * At any rate, without doing that, he did ennumerate his reasonsings on more than one. And I've ennumerated reasonsings since.  And still, you go on about other things.  You've questioned Tecmo's judgement and my partiality and managed to bring up so many other topics.  Could you just responde to my ennumeration above.
 * And to an additional question that this answer raised.
 * "As I've said, I'm in favor of deletion (with replacement, if possible) of links that don't work."
 * Why? What is the need for these ELs.  If there was a biography linked that contained information that the article should have were it to become a featured article, why would you need to replace it with something?  That's not the point of ELs.  ELs serve to link the information that we can't put in articles.  "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
 * You also say that that's a "tiny fraction of what was deleted." Does that mean that you agree that the other deletions were good?  Or that you think the point I'm raising now is the tiny fraction?  On the Hank Greenburg EL reverts I listed above, he removed 7 ELs.  2 are in the wikiproject discussion.   And those kinds of numbers are true on a lot of his edits.  5 of 7 a tiny fraction? Miss Mondegreen  talk  19:45, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Given the circular and lengthy nature of this discussion -- despite my limiting it, I am going to disengage for a bit. I think that I have responded to you as much as anyone might legitimately consider reasonable. Cheers.--Epeefleche 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is circular because I asked you a question and you provide reasons not to answer it, and I attempt to respond to those. I started addressing this question to you specifically days ago, and you disenganged then too.  Feel free to do so now, but I wil have a problem if you continue to revert these types of edits with no explanation at all after I have persued one for days.  I'm not asking for an explanation for every revert on every article.  I'm asking for an explanation about one article revert.  Or for you to explain your edits in the future.  That is all.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  20:09, June 15 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
From a request at WP:3O. Summary: this is a big mess.


 * Revert war For the (technical) reasons listed by User:Epeefleche, URLs should be kept while consensus is being formed, though obvious violations (e.g.: clear spam-like URLs for which consensus is quickly formed) should be removed. Conversely, there is no reason to be hasty, and it damages the project. Unlike, for example, the lead section of George W. Bush there is no reason to revert changes. Though nothing prevents you from doing it, it does not help the discussion. Be aware that hasty actions like this can influence consensus - editors are less likely to support reckless changes. This applies to both sides in this conflict, those favouring removal, and those in favour of inclusion.


 * Refactoring An equilibrium should be sought between preserving context, and preserving readability. Complaints about citing out of context are not a reason to do no refactoring at all. They are a reason to closely inspect the way the refactoring was done. Refactoring and complaining about of context citations are both powerful tools. I would suggest leaving both to uninvolved editors. Anyone can refactor a discussion, and anyone can recognise out of context citation, when provided with the original and the compiled discussion. I have yet to see a discussion in which the editor who complains about out of contex citations was right. On refactoring, copying and summarizing rather than moving is the standard on Wikipedia. Leave a link to the old location at the new location, and notify readers of the old comment that it was moved. I have not seen the actual summary, these are just general notes. That is why they are small.


 * Other sites It does not aid your standing in a discussion to tell people that the pace and scope of the discussion will be dictated by you, and only you. Of course it is preferable to keep the scope as narrow as possible, but when asked numerous times to expand the discussion, there is no good reason not to do that. Please, don't be a dick. User:Epeefleche could have prevented twenty kilobytes of wasted discussion by writing "I agree with deleting those five links, please get to the disputed four now." Stubbornness to this level is annoying, and as the frequent use of caps lock below shows, enraging too.


 * Specific links Just below the section header "EL example", User:Miss Mondegreen lists a multitude of external links together with some interpretations of WP:EL. I think that editor is correct in the reasoning accompanying those external links.

Feel free to copy and cite parts of the above - I do not mind out of context citation. I kindly request that my username is wikilinked and the template is employed when citing. --User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fangraphs
I hope to avoid having to come to your talk page any more but this is just wearing on me. If you want to continue this discussion, I will watch this page and we can do so. However, I am very hesitant to communicate with you beyond this because of recent activities.

First, you might want to spend some time at WP:TPG. It will give you a great deal of information on how to handle long discussions, when to break up comments and when not to, and how to handle your own talk page.

Second, the existing conversations regarding the varioius EL sites are there and available to anyone who wants to read them. This discussion is an attempt to remove all of the fluff and personal attacks and bad blood floating around the other discussion. Furthermore, the other discussion is exteremly difficult to follow for several reasons. Per TPG, please leave it alone.

Third, as an extension of the fangraphs/url inclusion argument, there are a number of things that have been "left" out of the conversation. Because it has been so hard to get peoples opinion on the content relevant to wiki guidelines, I have been unable to see a useful discussion. I believe that I mispoke when i said "There is a consensus on ...". I was speaking specifically to the group of people engaged in the discussion and NOT toward the concept as described at WP:CON. Please spend some time reviewing WP:CON. It will be very helpful.

Lastly, there are a number of things that will have to be considered regarding all the sites being discussed. In fact, a number of the 'questions' that must be answered are simple Yes/No questions. They include, but are not limited to: a) Does said site include any unique information? b) If there is any unique information, is it significant enough to necessitate its' inclusion in the EL section? c) Would said site's unique information be useful to the laymen? d) If the purposed site also contains a significant amount of information already contained in a site that is already accepted, should the new site simply replace the old site? Again, there are a number of other questions to be asked, but that should give you an idea. All of this is geared toward figuring out whether or not a site meets the criteria laid out in WP:EL.

Let's just keep the discussions focused on the topics at hand.//Tecmobowl 10:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite a consensus on including the Fangraphs url as an EL in baseball bios, and despite prior comments by you evidencing that you agree that the formatting there is unique, and despite the heavy evidence of unique data, you are filibustering. This is disruptive.


 * You also opened up discussion of that issue, already discussed on one place, elsewhere. That only has the effect of confusing people who try to follow the discussion, and contribute.  They are best served by it being in one place.  Just now, when I sought to centralize discussion, you RVd my change.  The relevant revisions are on the history page at, focusing on today's revisions.  This is disruptive.


 * Released from your 3rd or 4th block of the month today, you are again deleting Fangraphs ELs, as well as others -- for example, Hank Greenberg and Ichiro Suzuki. This is disruptive.


 * Deletion of urls, without consensus, causes more harm than retaining them. Let's assume there is a 50-50 chance that consensus will be reached either way, as to any of these urls.  If it is decided that they should not have been deleted, who will go look for ELs that you have deleted, and restore the ELs?  How will one easily find them?  This is a highly labor intensive process.  How does one find the ELs if people have deleted them from different user names?  Even if one seeks to only restore the ELs that you have deleted that had, say, Fangraphs and url X, we would have to search your edit history.  And then search in the history of each baseball bio for the EL.  Or else, as to the second step, perform an independent search for the Fangraphs (and other) ELs to recreate them.  Notably, the problem with finding the deleted EL in the history becomes greater as time passes, and there are more revisions on the history page.


 * It is not the same the other way. If it is decided by consensus that any retained ELs should be deleted, one need only search for the url.  The bios, with the ELs, all then pop up quite readily, and the ELs can be readily deleted.


 * Given this, if nothing else, such ELs should be maintained, as consensus is sought, not deleted. Great disruptive damage has been done already.  And even today, you have gone on to create even more disruption.--Epeefleche 10:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read this on the other page, but will address it here. Again, there is a failure to read the various guide line pages.  As you will see, supermajority is not the same as consensus.  It is just one portion of the equation.  I am not filibustering as you say, I am simply trying to get you and the other editors to pay close attention to the existing guidelines.


 * Also, you are very selective in what you do and do not point out. First and foremost, you are the one who has rearranged content (you did not merge the discussions, you dropped the content in around another comment).  Sections have also been created out of order and content has been adjusted improperly.  As I said before, the entire discussion has drifted toward discussions of behavior and not of content.  The discussion, which was actually put in place a few days ago, is a discussion focused only on the content.   Second, the site you are such a big supporter of is still available on over 100 articles.  It has only been removed from articles of HOF players and those with a significant amount of notariety.  Until it is established that the site is truly worthwhile, it should not be included on those pages.  Although I think it should be completely stricken from all pages (based on what is said at WP:EL, I have left it on some of the "less notable" articles for exactly the reason you pointed out.  That is nothing more than a favor to you, the primary inserter of the site.  What is again, more frustrating, is that you continue to bring up my behavior.  That's not the issue here...the content is the issue.  The content dictates my behavior.  Please stay focused. //Tecmobowl 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with your characterization of the Fangraphs matter. The discussion there speaks for itself.  Leaving you out of it, while there is extensive discussion, there is not considered analytic support for deleting Fangraphs despite 3 weeks of discussion.  And your assertion that there was no unique data -- your assertion when you deleted 100s of urls, is demonstrably false.  And you yourself conceded that format is unique.


 * I also disagree with your characterization as to whether or not I merged discussion. The discussion there speaks for itself as well. The indicated section is replete with discussion of content.


 * Fangraphs is an appropriate site. It should not be removed from any players.  It has been established that there is a consensus supporting its inclusion.  Even were we to be awaiting such a considered analysis, it should not be deleted, for the reasons I described above. That reasoning applies to all bios.


 * There are two issues here. One is the content.  One is your behavior.  Your behavior, such as your failure to follow consensus as to Fangraphs, interferes with our ability to address other urls, and impacts the content that appears on the bios.  There is in fact a relationship between the two. But you are correct, in that even if your behavior is addressed, either by you or by an admin, there is still the issue of addressing the content. Your actions that I refer to above have the effect of slowing down that process.


 * I, as others have said, expect that were you to put your mind towards postive additions to articles, rather than deletions of materials that most of us believe should not be deleted, you would be a helpful addition to Wikipedia editorial efforts. And given that you are interested in the same subjects as the rest of us, that would be appreciated by those who have expressed displeasure over your deletions.  As it stands, however, you are un-doing the positive work that people have put into this effort.  That troubles people, and disrupts forward movement.


 * Are you going to add back the urls that you have deleted as to which consensus exists, and will be established in the future?--Epeefleche 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am again forced to stop discussing this matter with you. I don't care who does and does not like my behavior.  I don't care who does and does not like your behavior.  I do not care who does and does not like IrishGuy's, Miss Mondegreen's, or Baseball Bugs behavior.  All i care about is that content is well based and that the guide lines are followed.  I have been banned once for knowingly reverting your edits more than 3 times because you have spammed that site to a ridiculous level.  Go look at this] version of the Greenberg article.  Go click on some of those links.  See what happens.  Then go and see how many of them fail WP:EL.  I am not going to discuss my behavior anymore.  I will unilaterally eliminate fangraphs in the EL section for significant articles and leave it in the insignificant articles.  Unique presentation of the information IS NOT grounds for inclusion in an article. Sorry we could not have a better discussion on the matter.  As another note, I love how you just reverted the edit on Chipper Jones article when it included a site YOU WANTED IN.  You really are deserving of a personal attack. //Tecmobowl 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As was already mentioned, Fangraphs, uniquely, has hitters' 1B, BB%, K%, BB/K, ISO, BABIP, RC, RC/27, GB/FB, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, IFH%, BUH%, GB, FB, LD, IFFB, Balls, Strikes, Pitches, IFH, BU, BUH, WPA, -WPA, +WPA, BRAA, REW, pLI, phLI, PH, WPA.LI, and Clutch. Also uniquely, Fangraphs supplies the following for pitchers: BS, K/9, HR/9, BABIP, LOB%, FIP, GB/FB, LD%, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, IFH%, BUH%, GB, FB, LD, IFFB, Balls, Strikes, RS, IFH, BU, and BUH, WPA, -WPA, +WPA, BRAA, REW, pLI, in LI, gmLI, exLI, and Pulls. It also has sorts for starters vs. relievers. Fangraphs also provides some spring training stats, and Bill James, CHONE, Marcel, and ZIPS projections. It has a game log, play log, compare players feature, news articles, and unique graphical presentations. Furthermore, the unique graphical presentation that other editors have found to be particularly helpful there is ground for inclusion in their views; I don't see any support for your view, expressed for the first time above, that it is not grounds for inclusion. --Epeefleche 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Update -- Tecmo was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Epeefleche 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL supersedes that discussion.
That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) - absolutely refuse to focus on the content of the discussion in a simple and focused matter. FG is fine for referencing, but it is not going in the EL section when B-R, ESPN, MLB, & The BaseballCube all do a better job of adhering to the EL standards. You can stop warning me. //Tecmobowl 17:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an overwhelming consensus on the Baseball Talk page expressing a view that differs from yours. Kindly respect the consensus, and the possiblity that your interpretation may not be the correct one -- it is certainly not agreed to by the consensus of editors.  Thanks. --Epeefleche 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is NOT an overwhelming consensus. Until you focus on content, I will not discuss this with you any further. Plastering this conversation in 50 different places, breaking up comments, moving content around at your discretion has rendered those conversations unusable. //Tecmobowl 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To the contrary. The vote was 9-2 in favor of Fangraphs.  Plus conditional support from Caknuck.  There have been comments of support by Sanfranman59, Nishkid64,  Wizardman, Alansohn, Baseball Bugs, No Guru, me (Epeefleche),  ►ShadowJester07  , and Jackaroodave (whose analysis I found to be especially incisive).  And of those 2 negative indications, only yours had any analysis (other than Howe's comment that FG is "essentially a blog," which is manifestly wrong).  And your stated rationale for deleting Fangraphs -- your contention that it is not unique -- has been disproven.


 * The baseball talk page is replete with focus on content.


 * And, as I pointed out on the talk page when you opened up a new heading entitled "Fangraphs," you are the one fragmenting the discussion. As you are doing yet again here.--Epeefleche 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Update -- Tecmo was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Epeefleche 04:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply
While formatting is, of course, permissible, but is this constructive? The page is supposed to be for discussion to reach a comprehensive solution, not for aesthetic effect. Perhaps if you look at the comments, some don't logically follow one another, and are not indented on purpose. Indenting for the author of these comments may obfuscate the author's intent or meaning, however unintentional it may be. As for more commentary, all I requested was a recent diff explicitly indicating the intent to disrupt, and the apparent manifestations of that intent, adding perhaps his/her recalcitrance and refusal to change his/her attitude towards Wikipedia. Such a report will be concise, succinct, and free of "filler" that admins tend to ignore. Of course, these are only guidelines for reports, but they seem to be work better, and admin response times tend to be faster with more concise reports. — Kurykh  20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I do apologize for any incivility that may have been present in that edit summary. It was unintentional. — Kurykh  20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the apology. And for your comments as well.  I had thought that formatting changes were not only permissible, but in fact constructive.  That was the only reason I engaged in them.  I cared about readablity when making the changes.  Readability I thought can only assist us in our shared goal of reaching a comprehensive solution.  I did not care about aesthetic effect.  You appear to differ as to whether the changes were constructive.  Its not important enough for me to improve the page's readability --IMHO--if you differ.


 * I had not thought that any of my changes impacted meaning, but if they did then I apologize and certainly they should have been RVd.


 * The same goes for the mispelling. I actually think it is constructive to correct the patent misspelling.  I am puzzled as to how you might view it as constructive for you to RV that change, leaving the word spelled incorrectly.  But this is not important enough of an issue for me to debate if, as appears to be the case, you differ.  Thanks.--Epeefleche 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts
I have to say that I am not inclined to agree with you that any consensus was reached on those discussions. That really was not a well conducted conversation and most of the people involved acted very poorly and as others pointed out, the straw poll was faulty. I do not agree that a consensus was reached, nor do I think those discussions should supersede WP:EL if they do not address the circumstances. I am also not sure why you simply reverted the entire edit as the two biography sites can, and should be, used as references. I think you are very close to this topic and it might be best if you took some time off and let others get involved. I think it reflects poorly on you when you continually harp on someone that is not here anymore and you should leave their name out of the edit summaries. People will be more inclined to engage you if you keep to the content being discussed.  Long Levi  00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You said I do not agree that a consensus was reached, nor do I think those discussions should supersede WP:EL. That is pretty close to this edit summary wouldn't you say? IrishGuy talk 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the above Longlevi comment was a response to a comment that I had left on his page, I have moved it to that page to keep it in one place and avoid the fragmentation that affected conversations with Tecmobowl, along with the Irishguy response to him.--Epeefleche 01:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Update -- Longlevi was banned as a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user Tecmobowl.--Epeefleche 04:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
Thanks for the note about Tecomobowl's suspension; we'll see how that plays out. On an entirely different issue, could you please have a look at the discussion/argument I've been having over the Manzanar article? I've tried to explain that use of the term 'concentration camp' (and related terms) are unnecessarily incendiary, and that 'internment camp' is a decidedly less POV term. Gmatsuda insists that because those who were sent there believe that use of the term 'concentration camp' is important (which I can't personally verify), their first-hand experience should trump all other viewpoints on the matter. I've suggested that that is a decidedly subjective approach, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Gmatsuda has also repeatedly reverted my accompanying edits for grammar and style, saying that since the article has gone through a GA review in the past, such edits are no longer necessary; I've tried to explain that such copyediting can and must be ongoing. I've also suggested that his self-admitted personal affiliation with a Manzanar advocacy group makes his editing of the article rather biased toward a certain view, but he clearly disagrees (or believes that the bias is justified). I'm never eager to invite other editors into an argument like this, but I'm not making any headway on the issue. MisfitToys 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I didn't look at your changes, but did a quick edit of my own.  I think that relocation camp is actually the appropriate term, rather than either that you mentioned, so I made that edit.  I attached a citation for that.  I think that the best way to handle such disputes is to have a cite for one's language.  If there is no cite on the other side, that should end the story IMHO.  I agree that these articles are live, and that the fact that they have achieved GA status does not mean that they should not be improved.  If that were the intent, they would be blocked from further revisions.--Epeefleche 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

striking out another user's comments
Not only is it very easy to find out that a user is indefinitely banned or a sockpuppet, but Tecmo's various bannings and offenses were catalogued on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page.

It is appropriate to strike out the occasional sockpuppet comment, but to go back and strike out two weeks of discussion by a now banned user is inappropriate, especially considering the actions of the user are still being discussed on the talk page. The strikeouts are misleading because with an initial glance one assumes that the user struck the comments themselves, and this makes the talk page, which is supposed to be a record of past discussion, very hard to read. Miss Mondegreen talk  10:49, July 16 2007 (UTC)


 * Kindly point me to the Wiki policy that states as much.--Epeefleche 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First off there doesn't need to be a policy for everything. Beans and common sense and all that. If I say that it's inappropriate to push someone off a bridge, I shouldn't need to link to Wikipedia policy.  However, we do have talk page guidelines--archive don't delete, don't mess with other people's comments, etc.  If you'd like to review them go ahead. Miss Mondegreen  talk  04:29, July 17 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Among the items that I am allowed to delete per the guidelines that you refer to is "prohibited material."  The material in question is that of an editor who is prohibited from making contributions to Wikipedia.  Were I to wish to, I could by analogy support deletion of the material.  For now, all I did was use strikethroughs.  I didn't even archive the material, which is something else that you mention.  I am quite comfortable that what I did is appropriate.  Notwithstanding your above, bald and unsupported comment that it is "innappropriate." I'm not sure why you make these pronouncements from on high in such arrogant tones when they are unsupportable.  This seems to be a pattern in your communications with me.  Nor do I fathom why you continue to defend the writings of this sockpuppeteer who has been banned for disruptive editing.  Perhaps there are better ways to use your ample skills.  Just a thought.--Epeefleche 04:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're kidding right? Tecmo's comments aren't prohibited material.  And sure, do some archiving.  The page is long and the older comments on there old.  But removing Tecmo's comments and archiving them elsewhere (if that's what you were referring to) isn't really archiving--it makes the discussion as it happened impossible to read--talk pages are a record of discussion that happened--so are archives.  Going through every talk page Tecmo commented on in the last month or whatever and striking through paragraphs and paragraphs of text is messing with someone else's comments and it isn't an exception that provided for.  In addition, I can't read the page and I'm not ok with that.  The page is there for people to read it.  Destroying the readability of it isn't ok.
 * "I could by analogy support deletion of the material"--you're by analogy supporting the strike throughs, aren't you?. "Editing others' comments is not allowed."  By what exception did you edit his comments?  Not formatting, not user talk page, not signature, not unsigned, not interruptions, not personal attacks (if you try that, that would require deleting practically the whole page).  Which means that we're back to prohibited material and your analogy just to support the strike throughs (whatever your analogy is).
 * So please, stop asking me for references to policy. I refer you to something and you either ignore it or disagree or stretch it until you make it work--you only read policy the way it's written when it suits you.  This is endless Epeefleche.  Tecmo is gone, why are still obsessing?  I said on the community sanction noticeboard that nothing would change with Tecmo's ban if other editors didn't change their behavior.  All you had to do to prove me wrong, and to make it look like Tecmo was the big bad problem all along was to play by the book.  But he's gone and nothing's changed, and you're still doing things for personal reasons even after Tecmo's ban, and you had, in effect won.  What's the point?  Miss Mondegreen  talk  13:27, July 17 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is "to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." A goal supported by Wiki policy.  It is precisely because of that Wiki goal, for example, that Wiki supports the deletions of Tecmo's talk page, which another editor engaged in.  And the reversion of all of his sockpuppet edits.--Epeefleche 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been asked to stop by multiple peaople and I'm adding my voice too. Wikipedia policy is made by the community. The community does not want you to do it. Accept that fact and stop arguing the point. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I feel your behaviour, Epeefleche, is not warranted by any kind of policy, is not improving wikipedia in any way, and is distruptive. You have been told several times that comments made a banned editor BEFORE he was banned are not subject to any required removal, not is it required to add to those edits that the user is banned, yet still you persist on modifying/removing those edits, editing even archives (which should not be modified, as they are archives). In short, you are distruptive, and if you keep up your behaviour you will have to face the consquences for distruption. So, for your and our sake, please stop! 84.145.211.239 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I ignore complaints made by IP addresses. But I'll let Mr. Epeefleche give you his own opinion on that. 0:) Baseball Bugs 16:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it sure does look like a sock, given that it made not comments before that one or since. And we do know that Tecmo has used sock repeatedly.  Will leave it in for the moment, but may just delete in the future ... your point is well taken.--Epeefleche 04:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Articles and your revert of Lou Sockalexis; [Note: editor 75.203.180.191, who has made entries below, has since been banned from Wikipedia]
It seems you are upset, but please don't undo perfectly good edits. You tagged two Negro League teams for CSD and restored an older version of the Sockalexis article which was obviously weaker than the newer version. 75.203.180.191 08:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: The above user 75.203.180.191|75.203.180.191  was found to be a sock of indef banned user Tecmobowl, and was banned himself per WP:BAN.--Epeefleche 05:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is a Verizon Wireless user, which Tecmo/Levi made a point that he is. Baseball Bugs 09:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My edits that you refer to were reverts of edits made by a banned user (Longlevi, a sock of Tecmobowl) after he was banned. And the application of a tag to articles he created after he was banned.  My edits were made pursuant to WP:BAN, which provides as follows:  Enforcement by reverting edits  Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves.  As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.  Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users....It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to.  Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a db-ban to mark such a page."  --Epeefleche 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see that it's a struggle to get that article in shape. If Tecmo/Levi did, in fact, put unsourced superlatives in there, he should be slapped again. He had a problem with comments in the Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, etc., articles stating openly that these players are considered among the greats... that it was POV-pushing. The little hypocrite, as usual. Baseball Bugs 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Links
Yesterday there was a massive dispute yesterday that ultimately got be blocked for 24-hours. Aviper2k7 gave me a link that said to not include links. Go to and open up the 2nd collapsible box. Soxrock 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. As to the substance, I find the position taken by others to be counterinuitive, and left a note to that effect.--Epeefleche 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the links also. But from what you, Chrisjnelson, Pats1, and Aviper2k7 are telling me, I'm stuck in the middle of this mess. I'm being left no freaking idea what to do because it'll spark a controversy either way. I'm sick of being in the middle of this. I think links are a good idea, but Aviper told me of the WP:MOS and highlighted a section on my talkpage. But then you come along and tell me what I want to hear, but what has also been defeated. There needs to be stability, consensus. Links are a great idea, it's just others don't agree. I've only done 4 teams, so I'm not even close to done. But stop the freakin madness! Thanks Soxrock 10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what to tell you. I guess the options are: 1) ignore it, and let a bad approach stand; 2) Discuss it further -- perhaps on a WP page on the subject such as the talk page for wp:date, and see if you can get support and consensus for your approach; or 3) (not what I would suggest) limit your conversation to those w whom you have discussed it, and try to convince them.  I had a thought that I thought was very reasonable, and none of these approaches worked (tried them all), so there is no guarantee ... it's not as though people have to go through any sifting process in order to be able to state a position.  They can even be 7 years old, or 107 and senile -- as long as them have a pc, they can state a point of view.--Epeefleche 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One last thing, though. Given the lack of consensus on this, which you point to, my suggestion would be for now to just leave all the dates in the baseball bios however they are.  I don't see a consensus to change them either way, given statements made on both sides.  IMHO.--Epeefleche 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The opposite approach would be to not link dates at all. Since there are presumably pages about "the year in [sport]", the place to link those would be from a select few articles about the sport. Baseball Bugs 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Merkle
Because the previous version of the article was more complete and informative. It was only whacked when some other user decided to make separate articles for Merkle and for the play. Since that decision was reversed, it seemed best to restore what he knocked out -- especially, since as I said, the older version is more informatie and more complete. So that is why.

Not anything I'd care to battle over, though, so if you really like the other version better, then very well. I put it back. Mwelch 04:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi --If you want to go through the differences between the two, borrowing the best of each, great. My problem is that I made interim revisions, such as the one that I pointed to.  Which you have now reverted.  Those revisions were good ones.  It is not a matter I think of which version is better -- now that I have made revisions in the interim.  If you think "your" version is better, you should included the proper revisions that I had made in the other version, such as the one I refer to above.  Does that make sense, or am I being unclear at this late hour?--Epeefleche 04:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. I don't have time to do all that now and likely won't for another week or so since I've got a business trip to take tomorrow.  In the absence of being able to amalgamate the two like that, I'd respectfully disagree that it's not a matter of which version is better.  One will have to stand until what you suggest above is done.  Seemed to me that that one should be the more complete one (not "mine" since much of it I did not write, and even parts I that I did were not my own contributions, but edits of others').  I hadn't expected that call to be particularly controversial, but obviously I was mistaken.  As I noted, my feeling about that version to stand in the interim is not strong enough to put up a fight over the matter.  If I get time next week, maybe I'll worry about it more then.  But in the meantime, if you prefer the newer version to be there instead, that's fine.


 * Cheers! Mwelch 05:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi M. I'm happy to wait for you to do it -- you seem to be reliable and reasonable. Tx.--Epeefleche 05:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And guess which user insisted on separating into two articles after the issue had seemingly already been decided once? In fact, Mr. Welch had an "early" encounter with Herr Tecmobowl on this matter, about the first week of May. Little did we all know how that would turn out. It's fitting that Tecmo was working on an article about a "bonehead play", yes? Baseball Bugs 05:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Links on Dave Matthews
It looks like fansites aren't specifically mentioned at WP:EL anymore, but I really don't see how they are more than just specialized personal web pages. Farm Aid is already linked to from his page, and people can find their link from there. If it has to be there, I'd prefer to use the link as a reference about his being a director and remove it from the external links. The file sharing site...I guess that one's fine since they are one of the few bands that don't mind people recording at their shows. I suppose I don't have a problem with the tabs or almanac links either. --Onorem♠Dil 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. I will start by putting back those, and give some more thought to the fansites.--Epeefleche 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Baseballstats
I've edited the template to direct the link to the mlb bio page as opposed to another stats page. Let me know if you have any concerns. Cheers, Caknuck 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates
I think you are saying you prefer WikiProjectBannerShell to WikiProject Banners. The latter was determined to be preferable at a debate on the matter several months ago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You hit it on the head. I did not see the debate, but I have the opposite view.  The template I prefer is still small -- which addresses the clutter concern.  At the same time, it allows the reader to see at a glance how the article is rated by the various wikiprojects, without the need to click through.  It also allows the reader to see what wikiprojects cover it, without the need to click through.--Epeefleche 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - its my own obsession about rating unassessed martial arts articles so I'll of course do it like the last group you flagged (unless you or someone else gets to them first) but several of these have already been rated under other projects. Can I ask that if you put in the martialartsproject tag that you also attempt to assess. Cheers.Peter Rehse 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I would assess, but I think it better -- since I worked on these, to have someone else assess.  Also, some projects prefer to have their people perform the assessment, which makes some sense to me.--Epeefleche 02:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So I'll do it but generally I think that Stub and Start can be done by author. After that the more removed the better.  I also think that if the page is already assessed in another project - the grade is generally transferable.Peter Rehse 02:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I expect that most of the prior grades are old, so am not sure that their value is as much as it would be if they were current.--Epeefleche 02:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad - I forgot to increase the numbers on the sequential nesting. Taken care of.Peter Rehse 09:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hector Lopez
I added a defensive positions chart. Feel free to help me reedit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Curious; Banned Editor Tecmobowl
Was reading up on an old post of yours here. Could you tell me the original account of Tecmobowl? He's still at it. Durova Charge! 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought Tecmobowl was the original account of Tecmobowl. Now Jmfangio is also Tecmobowl but I don't know of any Tecmobowl before Tecmobowl.  Also, what do you mean by linking to the Craigslist section of WP:ANI?  Did you mean the "Blocked User:Jmfangio as a reincarnation of User:Tecmobowl" section? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tecmobowl started out as User:Blacksoxfan, although I'm not sure if that's what Durova is asking. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, I was not aware of that. Good to know.  Did he confess to that somewhere?  I know that's the name of his web site.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his cover story was that that was a friend's ID or something, just like his story that the black sox website was owned by a friend. I've forgotten some of the details now, as I try not to dwell on that stuff too much. User:Irishguy's investigation indicated that they were all the same guy. Just as a side note, in addition to his interest in sports, Tecmo and his recent clone were both interested in video games. Tecmo was specifically into something called Tecmo Super Bowl, which is where he got that handle from. I'm not sure where Jmfangio comes from as a name, but he seemed to like Joe Montana. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Chipper Jones
The Chipper Jones article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 08:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Heather Higgins
You reverted my edits with summary "Was fine as it was", which means that a missing period and a dead link were fine (I repaired them). I moved the image only because it interfered with 'Notes' section. As to the paragraphs, is it good to begin the article with a single-sentence paragraph? Guide_to_layout says that the number of such paragraphs should be minimized, but the article in the present form has 3 of them. Ruslik (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm moving this to the HH talk page, to allow others (if they have interest) to contribute their thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Braun is a GA
Congratulations on the Good Article status! I noticed you adding the article at WikiProject Wisconsin. I'm glad to see that one of my images is attached to a Good Article! Keep up the great work! Royal broil 13:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go Wisconsin! Tx much.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Braun; A-Class?
Sorry for the delay, like I said, sports biographies aren't my speciality. My guess is, unfortunately, we wait until another reviewer says "support" or others say "oppose" before we determine whether it's A-Class or not. One reviewer can't decide that on his own. You certainly might submit it for peer review indicating that you want it to get FA-status, though. That might help the article's chances. John Carter (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Viktor Barna
Can you please check this page, the number of World Titles he won was changed last year and the references seem to dispute how many, as you're the person who created the page I assume you're the best person to ask. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. There seem to be divergent references. I've not time at the moment to determine which seems the soundest. If I get a chance ...(or feel free to yourself). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives
Please note that to create talk archives, you should use a forward slash "/", so as to create a subpage. I've fixed this with your user talk archive (hope you don't mind): recently a lot of these pages have been deleted. Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Baseball League
I have decided that this article has GA potential. I'm going to take it under my wing to get it there. I wanted to know if you to help me. Respond on the article talk page or my talk page. Thanks. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey Request; Medical Information
Hi,

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on Sada Jacobson
Any chance you could do the same for the other medalists? I tried to add a section on 2008, but they need to have their sections updated with 04 stuff as well if you can (or indeed expand the article in other directions). SirFozzie (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... but procrastination has its limits! If I have time, sure ... but should be studying at the moment.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Braun [Note: editor Jackal4, who has made entries below, has since been banned from Wikipedia]
Stop reverting my edits on Ryan Braun. Most of those awards in his infobox are not notable, a nickname goes after the birthdate, his bbcube page, which doesn't even link to the correct Ryan Braun, is http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Ryan-Braun-1.shtml his name is capitalized. He doesn't steal a lot of bases or score any more runs than average, and his infobox should be like every other MLB player's the stats are updated through the 2008 season not Oct. 1 and it should have his birthplace in it. If you revert them again I am reporting you. Jackal4 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you as to notability, and agree with the others -- including those who gave this an A rating when it had those attributes. If you like, leave it as it has been and demonstrate support for your position, or bring in others to arbitrate this. Stop reverting us. Your views are your personal subjective views, and not in accord with the rest of us.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you agree with me about everything except the awards being notable or not, then why did you revert everything about the infobox? 21:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What other changes would you suggest, and for what reason? Those -- and the stats and your view of their notability -- seemed to me to be your primary changes. I would be interested in hearing what others you would like to make, and on what basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First, his birthplace should be in the infobox. Most other baseball articles have it, and those that don't just haven't been updated since birthplace was added to the MLB infobox. Second, what does that mf=yes thing do or mean? i don't see any difference in Ryan Braun's infobox (the only infobox I've seen with it) and other infoboxes. Third, the years he has played for teams. I know the new consensus has people removing date links, but generally they don't remove those in the infobox, nor those that contribute to an article, such as Template:Baseball Year.

Fourth, most infoboxes list only 3 stats (BA, HR, RBI, in that order). I have no problem listing up to the max (6) on star players that have good numbers, such as Braun's slugging which was 1st in the NL in 2007 and 5th this year. However, Braun's SB numbers are not anywhere near league leaders, neither are his runs scored, he had 30 fewer than the NL leader this year. Jackal4 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm personally fine with 1-3, so unless someone else objects with a cogent reason I won't object to you making those changes. As to 4, I think it best to list up to the max, and would include those that are here.  He has scored a great deal of runs in two years (even though one was partial -- only 11 players scored more than him in each of those two years), and stolen a great number of bases, and his speed distinguishes him from other sluggers (none of the NL sluggers who had more home runs than him either of the past two years had nearly as many stolen bases as he had).  It is not clear to me that there is any suggestion, moreover, that he needs to be a higher performer than he is in these areas to have those numbers displayed.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason you want runs listed first in the infobox and batting average fourth? I think they should be swapped. Jackal4 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would you say that? The convention I am familiar with, which you will find in official MLB box scores, is runs earlier than batting average.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 99% of infoboxes have BA 1st and if they have runs listed, it's listed 4th, 5th, or 6th. Jackal4 (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another thing, if you accept that Braun's nickname goes after his date of birth, then how come you don't accept Cal Abrams nickname going after his date of birth and death? Jackal4 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Braun (pitcher); Dispute re Jackal4 Failure to Follow Image Placeholders Directive
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * User continues to violate the very clear directive of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders on this and other pages. Pls require that he desist, and revert all inappropriate entries.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See dispute resolution.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've discussed it on talk pages with him, including his. The directive cited above is clear.  This is not a difficult or ambiguous issue.  He has made these changes on many, many pages.  I now follow the next step in the dispute resolution process, and turn to you asking that you assist in explaining the matter to him.  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you see the rest of the steps after discussion on the Talk page? 03:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that before I take more onerous actions, I should exhaust the less onerous ones. Pls see the discussion on Jackal4's talk page, where he now seems to not contest that his entries were in violation of the directive, but refuses to clean them up and instead suggests that others should clean up his innapropriate entries.  I would request that you discuss this with him.  Wikipedia certainly cannot be viable if editors can make innapropriate entries knowingly, and shirk responsibilty for cleaning them up.  That leads to a lesser product, and such practices would be deleterious.  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jackal4; Various Wiki Violations, Including Those Detailed Below
I can certainly try and talk to him. Can you point me to some of the specific problematic edits he's made, just so I can have a background on this?

By the way, I hope my recent comments on my re-reversion on the Gabe Kapler page wasn't too harsh. I just noted that among some of the removed stuff were some actual useful edits, and it does irk me when someone reverts without apparent regard for that. If you've been having problems with this user, though, I can understand perhaps going for a nuclear option :) . -Dewelar (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sure -- one example -- is this use of profanity when dealing with those who criticize the innapropriateness of his edits; see, for example, his accusations of those who criticize him:  "You wouldn't have triggered an edit war if you didn't ... fuck up articles":.


 * A second example -- is his violation of the image placeholders directive,, which mandates that one not put up the ugly blank in lieu of a picture. The examples are replete in his revisions over the past months.


 * One (of many) example can be found at.


 * I've cleaned up many, but many remain.


 * I asked him to clean up his dozens of innappropriate additions. His refusal can be found at, where he said, in part, "You'll be fine doing it yourself."


 * A third example -- is his penchant for deleting perfectly good quote boxes that I have inserted in articles, and then continuing to do so when I reinsert them. An example of this activity on his part can be found at.


 * A fourth example -- when another writer complained about Jackal4's innappropriate behavior on a third party's talk page (where the third party had warned Jackal4 in the past for similar behavior, Jackal4 deleted that complaint from the third party's talk page. See .  --Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's some seriously inappropriate behavior. The profanity, and saying you have a "fetish" for those articles, were way out of line. I'm not sure exactly what I can say that you and several others haven't already, but I will think on it.
 * I have to admit, though, that I'm sympathetic to removing those quote boxes. I'm visually impaired and have my font set pretty large, and those boxes make the article look pretty chaotic and hard to read for me. Just my preference, of course, and not a justification for their removal. Then again, that's the same reason I support removing those placeholder pictures. I did not know that there was consensus to remove them, and I will do so gladly wherever I see them from now on :) . -Dewelar (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He's really starting to get on my nerves. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=265853109&oldid=265852196#Disruptive_edits_by_Jackal4 I say give him the ol' banhammer. =P - Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you've posted this at WP:ANI, which is a good course of action. However, please refrain from the accusations of vandalism, because good-faith edits are not considered vandalism no matter how much you disagree with it. Continuing to do so is uncivil and bordering on a personal attack. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Jackal4 has -- as clearly evidenced even in the few examples set forth above -- engaged repeatedly in massive vandalism. Jackal4's vandalism includes, inter alia:


 * 1) Jackal4's use of obscenities/profanity (which is per se vandalism, and is also considered "Userspace Vandalism" and when used in edit summaries as Jackal4 has done --  "Edit Summary Vandalism" by Wiki when -- as Jackal4 has done -- it is made on a user page),


 * 2) deletion of legitimate content without any non-frivolous reason, including "Discussion Page Vandalism" in which Jackal4 has deleted posts of other users from talk pages other than his own; and


 * 3) insertion in massive numbers of articles of material/images (and refusal to subsequently remove material) that the above-cited image placeholder directive instructs should not be added

--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet another, fifth, example of Jackal4's violation of Wiki guidelines are his violations most recently of the Wiki Guideline on Honesty.

When I indicated that Jackal4 had used profanity, and deleted others' communications on others' talk pages, Jackal4 deleted my comment, falsely writing in his edit summary "(removed false accusations)." See. In fact, as detailed above, the accusations were correct.

I responded by asking "... how can you delete my comment that you used profanity on the basis that it is a false accusation? What you deleted details its veracity."

Jackal4 engaged in further duplicitiousness when he, in further discussion of this issue, wrote "(cur) (prev) 22:38, January 23, 2009 Jackal4 (Talk | contribs) (11,197 bytes) (Undid revision 266041160 by Epeefleche (talk) I didn't say what you said that was false)"

But in fact, Jackal4 clearly did just that. His edit summary, which you inserted to explain his deletion of my true statements, says precisely that. He was untruthful, again, which is against Wiki rules. See [WP:HONESTY]. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Josh Whitesell
Hey, if you read the MLB article cited it says "Big bodied, strong guy, very muscular," D-backs director of player personnel Jerry Dipoto said of the 6-foot-3, 220 pounder. In other words, that he's "muscular" is an opinion held by Dipoto - not a fact. And how could it be anything but an opinion; what's the threshold for the amount of muscles? Depends one one's opinion! That he's a 6' 3" and 225-pound is a fact but to say he's "muscular" is not in a WP:NPOV because it's not a verifiable fact. See more specifically the WP:SUBSTANTIATE part of WP:NPOV, and WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK are probably also relevant here. You could attribute the statement to Dipoto (i.e. "He's been described Jerry Dipoto as a "big bodied, "strong guy, [and] very muscular", which would be OK if it isn't undue weight (which it very well might be). Cheers, -- aktsu (t / c) 09:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed you understood it was an opinion when restoring the sentence so in that case pointing out WP:ASF (or most other parts of WP:NPOV actually) should've been enough -_- -- aktsu (t / c) 09:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoring comments on Jackal4's talkpage
Please stop restoring comments deleted by Jackal4 on his talk page. If you need somewhere to discuss him use your own talk or somewhere else. He's asked you to stop many times and you're being disruptive by continuing. Consider this a warning before you'll be reported for it. -- aktsu (t / c) 09:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:HUSH (part of HARASS-policy) and the WP:UP guideline. -- aktsu (t / c) 10:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, maybe starting a WP:RFC on him is what you're looking for? -- aktsu (t / c) 10:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're free to wikilawyer as much as you want and I don't care to explain the policy to you, but your edits on his talk page - including restoring of deleted messages and constant warnings (often without merit) and/or warnings about things that are part of a content dispute - in my opinion constitute what the policy calls "repeated annoying and unwanted contact" (and is simply disruptive) and if you continue you'll be reported for it. If you think admins will see it differently then you're of course free to continue. There's a saying about not noticing the log in you own eye that probably fits here. -- aktsu (t / c) 10:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No policy or guideline will explicitly say "do not do this ever" except regarding vandalism/outing and similar. I have noticed you of relevant policies and guidelines, and you're free to do as you please in the future. If you want to continue believing restoring deleted comments after being specifically asked not to do so isn't disruptive then that's your prerogative. When it comes to the harassment-issue that's always a judgement call and not something you find specific rules about in policies/guidelines. Cheers, -- aktsu (t / c) 11:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Jackal to AIV for block on edit warring, personal attacks, and much more.(Planecrash111 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Jackal4 has been banned for a month. CELEBRATE!!!(Planecrash111 (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Good work. He certainly has seemed intent upon flaunting Wiki guidelines, and has been extraordinarily disruptive.  I note that even in the face of this, Aktsu has yet again sought to plead his case, which I find very odd.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He was rightfully blocked for edit warring in the face of a consensus, which is far from the problems I've seen you bringing up (RBI[s]/"muscular" etc). Blocks are always preventative (see block policy) and if he pledges to not edit war, he should as such be unblocked. Also note that ed17 was the first to make that point, not me. Restoring deleted content on talkpages is still disruption on you part no matter if the complaints have merit or not. -- aktsu (t / c) 09:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I noted a host of problems that were clear Wiki violations, not the least of which was his use of the word F*ck. You pooh-poohed it, along with his other clear violations of Wiki guidelines.  He has done it again, now.  I stand by what I said.  Now let me ask you this --- let's say he is now found to have created a sockpuppet on top of everything else (and I'm not suggesting that it is necessarily the one initially mentioned) ... how long do you thing the appropriate period of time would be for him to be banned?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He said "fuck" how many times? Not many in any case, and as I argued I fully understood his frustration. When using sockpuppets to circumvent a block, the block should be renewed each time a sock is discovered and the sock indef.-banned IMO. Why do you ask? Also, please AGF and don't think I support Jackal unconditionnaly as you appear to do. I was one of the people reverting him at Tommy Watkins. -- aktsu (t / c) 10:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a special dispensation in the rule for number of times one says f*ck. And here, he said it twice so far this month at least, including once after being warned, so he doesn't seem to be a quick learner.  Its fairly clear to me that Jackal4, after being banned the first time as a result of BaseballBugs report, created Racingstripes, immediately attacked BaseballBugs in a manner that only a seasoned editor would, spoke in a manner consistent with that of Jackal4, and then made edits wholly consistent with those of Jackal4.  We can wait for the expert forensic evidence, but I have little doubt (having seen thousands of Jackal4's edits) that it is the same fellow, and it is completely consistent with his disregard and penchant for flouting rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I regard some restoring over 15 messages to a talk-page despite being told multiple times to not do so far more disruptive than a "fuck you" in response to such disruptive edits. Sure, a reminder of WP:CIVIL is definitely in order but it looks more like WP:BAITing to me. -- aktsu (t / c) 10:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you feel that way. The way you feel often isn't supported by Wiki guidelines, but that's the way you feel.  It's as though I'm speaking to Jackal4 himself.  If you were to troll me more than the Whitesell article, I would have to start to wonder.  That's why I'm happy that you will support his being banned permanently for creating a sockpuppet, when/if that conclusion is reached.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (undent) Troll you? Please explain to me how I "trolled you" by removing a personal opinion inserted as fact? -- aktsu (t / c) 10:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you happen upon my edits there, which you reverted/revised?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By trying to get an overview of Jackal's edits to see if there really was a problem such as you claimed. That was one of the pages you were edit warring on and I stepped in to solve what shouldn't have been an issue in the first place (NPOV is pretty clear on attributing opinions). -- aktsu (t / c) 10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So tell me -- do you think that Jackal4 has created a sockpuppet in Rackingstripes?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I briefly looked to see if they were editing at the same time in the last few days - and they didn't - so I guess it's possible, though it seems somewhat strange to use two accounts at the same time with his supposed main account not blocked. -- aktsu (t / c) 10:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you havn't already seen it: "my previous two usernames were blocked, and i have not been given an explanation why they are offensive. the names were User:Passedflatus, User:Diarrheachacha". . -- aktsu (t / c) 10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's rich. Because Passedflatus is fairly clearly Racingstripes! I've just made the report!! As to Racingstripes, he created the account after his first block, immediately attacked BaseballBugs, and immediately reverted to that account upon being blocked the second time. But if you are Racingstripes, of course you know this already.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who? Me? -- aktsu (t / c) 11:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bump, still waiting for an answer... -- aktsu (t / c) 11:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess you were wrong. I was hoping you would add me before the check as you apparently think I was one as well... Too bad :\ -- aktsu (t / c) 11:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was passedflatus and before that I was diarrheachacha. If you research further, each of those names were banned because they were considered offensive by baseballbugs.  I didn't and still don't see how they are offensive, but thats not up to me, and I am way past it.  If you further research my edits, all of them have been quite civil.  Even the ones regarding baseballbugs.  All I was looking for was why my light-hearted toilet humor was considered offensive.  Along with that, I wanted to know why some user that has a username that I felt violated the policy(not the offensive part, but the promoting a product part) that he was quoting to have my username blocked.  And I got my answer.  I also didnt like how uncivil, that apparently only I felt, that basballbugs was when he told me that if I wont answer his question I would remain blocked, as if it was up to him.  The only reason I created the username was create that article, which by the was, in my opinion and only my opinion, was attacked uncivily by baseballbugs.Racingstripes (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Braun; Pitcher vs. Batter
My mistake. It was supposed to be Ryan Braun the pitcher.Racingstripes (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Other notable alumni"; Nashville Sounds
Lists such as this can't be anything but subjective. Define what notability is in regard to having played for a particular team. Just because other minor league team articles have such lists doesn't mean Nashville Sounds needs it. I don't feel it adds any useful info to the article. Also, if one were to add a complete list of all "notable alumni" (still subjective), it would create an eyesore at the bottom of the page, much like exists on other pages. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi NatureBoy. I agree that such lists tend to be subjective, though one could of course seek to get consensus on notability criteria.  For example, I expect that any Nashville Sounds player who becomes a major league All Star would be considered notable under any reasonable criteria.  This subjectivity has not been cause for deletion of "notable alumni/resident" lists for the vast majority (I would guess way more than 90 per cent) of minor league baseball teams, colleges, high schools, and major cities (at least in the US).  Anyway, your argument that they shouldn't be listed because we don't know who is notable would, if extended, lead to the deletion of the names of notable Sounds players from the body of the article.  I can't believe that you are in favor of that.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Notablity criteria, and a discussion of notability lists, can be found at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel less uneasy about such a list now than I did before. I wouldn't be completely opposed to it if: 1) Inclusion criteria is established. You mentioned being an MLB All-Star. What about MLB awards (MVP, Cy Young, RotY, Gold Gloves, etc.)? Going on to manage an MLB team? Anything else? 2) There will need to be prose in such a section describing the aforementioned inclusion criteria. 3) I feel like references need to be given. 4) The list should be "complete" before it goes live. Listing only Braun makes it look like he's the only player to do something "notable". It’s also a little unbecoming of a Featured Article. Let me know what you think about these suggestions, particularly item one. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm easy. Let me know what you prefer, and I'll likely agree.  You might want to also consider leading the league in certain major categories (BA, HR, RBI, etc., and Wins, W-L percentage).  Or you could use one of the monitors that appear on baseball reference as a guide (e.g., a certain score on the HOF monitor).  Which reminds me ... yes, hall of fame would seem to be a category that you would want to include ... we can always dream.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I put the list together. (User:NatureBoyMD/sandbox) There are a total of 96 Sounds players who have won an MLB season award (MVP, RotY, etc.), been named an All-Star, won World Series MVP, lead the AL or NL in a statistical category, or gone on to manage an MLB team. Does that seem like too many to list? Thirty-five could be left out by eliminating league leaders. Like I said, the list is assembled, I just need to check links and write up a brief explanation of why these guys are worth recognizing as notable. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Impressive work, speed, and list. A few suggestions:


 * 1)  Dates should be writted (for example) as "1996-98," not "1996-1998."
 * 2)  You probably would do best to have the list as a click-through from the main article, given its size (e.g., as its own page).
 * 3)  Do you want to reflect how the player met your notability standar?  Your call.  Might be interesting, but of course its a little more work.
 * 4)  This of course leads to players making the list for leading the league in relatively unimpressive categories (such as Meacham leading the league in sacrifices).  You may want to consider not listing those that lead the league in less significant categories (and certainly not listing those who lead in categories such as errors).

Nice work.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at it now. I weeded out leaders in hit-by-pitch, wild pitches, etc. I've started converting it to a sortable list that will also provide details on awards, stat leading, etc. I'll mention all awards & all-star appearances as well as more common and auspicious stats, while neglecting to mention things like at-bats per strikeout and sac hit leaders, etc. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it! You could go with it as is, I imagine (it is better than anything I've seen w/regard to such lists for minor league teams), or if you like either ask one or 2 of the good baseball editors their thoughts as well, or post it for comment on the baseball page.  But I'm impressed.  Do you like it?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it much better now than I did at first. Once a moderate headache, I feel the list is now well on its way to becoming a Featured List. I decided to scale things back and leave out alumni that have only led the league and that haven't won any awards or been All-Stars. The info/stats were cluttering the table. I just need to write up a lead section and add any managers and coaching staff that meet inclusion criteria and the list should be complete. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about me asking one or two good baseball editors to look at your good work, and chime in w/any thoughts? It could be something that we might suggest other teams use.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think I should leave out alumni that have managed major league teams? There are a few that won manager of the year awards, but others that were just managers. Do you think managing a major league team is a signifigant accomplishment? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since managers can make the hall of fame, I imagined a cogent argument can be made that a major league manager of the year should make this list.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Epeefleche's invitation, I'll comment on this idea. I like how it looks, but one thing I was wondering was what the criteria are on what constitutes an alumnus of a minor-league team. For instance, I don't believe we should include anyone that only played for a team while on a rehab assignment. Do such criteria exist already? -Dewelar (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My compliments on establishing a standard, both in terms of formatting and inclusion criteria. By the time you get to the Triple-A level, virtually every major league player will have passed through. It's clear that the Sounds have dozens of players who have won awards, and including every player who made it to the Major Leagues would be impossible. Looks good to me, and the only thing I might comment on is how much time the player was at Nashville. It also seems to be more relevant if a player played on a minor league team on the way up to the majors, not on their way out, but I'll take another look and offer additional comments.


 * Yes, this is what I was leading to in my above comment. -Dewelar (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a concern I haven't addressed yet (though I may have before you read this). An alumni would be anyone who has ever played a game in a Sounds uniform. Right? Barry Larkin only played two games for the Sounds on rehab. Though it was a rehab stint and he didn't make an impact on the team, he still played for them. Therefore, I think he and others with the same status should be included, but with a symbol/coloring to indicate that games were played during rehab. Also, the critera for inclusion will be clearly laid out in the lead; I just haven't gotten that far yet. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good, though I have the same tick about the idea of anyone ever playing one game being inclusive. Then again, those who go onto be all-stars may only play half a season with them, so I wonder if there should be a game requirement, which would be harder to handle, since making it anyone ever playing a game is easy to figure out. The current number of players now is good, though I imagine some lists may be huge. Wizardman  13:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the list into main space (List of notable Nashville Sounds alumni). There is also a peer review for it if anyone would like to comment. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer having a alumni page that would list all players who have gone on to play in Major League Baseball. I think drawing the notability cutoff at All-Star selection and MLB award recipient is a bit too narrow. There are notable players, in my opinion, who have never received awards or been named to the All-Star team. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nish--I might well agree as to your criteria with a Single A team, but not with AAA team. The list would simply be too long, as someone mentioned above, and include too high a percentage of the AAA team ballplayers, and therefore be of minimal use or interest.  The above approach, however it is tweaked, seems to me the more useful and interesting one.  Perhaps you would suggest putting back in to the list some of the categories of league leaders?  As you will see from the above discussion, eliminating them, who we initially considered, led to eliminating three dozen players.
 * As to the issue of whether to list those who appeared on rehab assignments, my guess is that isn't always clear, and certainly is tougher to determine than a bright line rule. But listing all, with some asterisked or other reference to the rehab ones is fine with me, as our editor appears up to the task.  Just my view.
 * New thought for all -- I wasn't clear enough above on my thoughts on managers. Perhaps we should only list those who managed the AAA team, rather than those who were players.  Second thought -- and this one I feel more strongly about -- perhaps we should only list those who became notable (All Star manager or manager of the year?) managers, rather than the current list ...Tx to all for your input.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ep, I'm not very clear on the second sentence of your third point above about managers. Right now, the list only has Sounds players/managers/coaches that have gone on to manage MLB teams AND have won manager of the year awards. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My confusion ... sorry. I took a closer look.  It's still not quite what I had in mind myself on the manager side.  When I said that managers made sense, I was thinking of someone who managed Nashville, and subsequently won manager of the year awards in the majors.  I don't think that it makes sense to list those who were for example All Star players, and then came down to Nashville and managed.  I can explain why, if you like (or at least try).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Perhaps for an alumni to be listed, they have to have won some award or been named an all-star after playing for the Sounds. That would address your concerns about managers and Bugs' concern about "cup of coffee players" (those on their way down). Going by this rule of thumb, about 2 dozen players would be eliminated. It sounds like a decent idea to me. Thoughts?-NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One guiding factor could be to see who the minor league club itself considers notable enough to "brag about". The notability issue is that every major leaguer is considered "notable", i.e. worthy of an article. But is every minor leaguer who made it to the majors necessarily notable at the minor league level? Some guys are obvious stars-in-the-making. I had this feeling when I first saw Greg Maddux pitch in Peoria in the mid-1980s. But others just quietly come into the bigs and maybe play awhile, maybe don't. So it would at least be interesting to see what the minor league club has to say about their alumni. Oh, and let's keep in mind that "alumni" suggests "graduates", i.e. players who came up through the system and made it to the bigs. Being sent down for rehab is more of a "cup of coffee", not a true alumnus, I would say. An example of an alumnus would be Reggie Jackson, who once talked about his minor league days and how all these guys showed up with the A's at about the same time from their top farm club, and it seemed like a college graduating class. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This point was touched on earlier. The guys who came in for rehab are indicated with a symbol/color code. But what, if anything, should be done about players who came through at the end of their careers. For example, Dave Righetti played 16 games for Nashville and 10 for the White Sox in the final year of his carrer. Should it be indicated when a player is on the way down? Should they be included at all? Dictionary.com gives a second meaning for "alumnus": a former associate, employee, member, or the like. With that in-mind, anyone who played for the team, and won some kind of MLB award, should be included. ??? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although that's the dictionary definition, it's typically understood to mean a graduate of a school, or at least an attendee of some significant duration. I saw Bo Belinsky pitch in the minors toward the end of his career. He surrendered a bunch of runs and was roundly booed. I don't think pitching for a minor league club when you're at the end of your career, trying desparately to hang on, really counts the same way. It's like a soon-to-be-laid-off worker taking a night class at the local junior college just because he can't think of anything else to do. In that game, the young Cesar Cedeno hit a grand slam. That was an alumnus of the club he was on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Racingstripes
Jackal4 may be in fact RacingStripes, both accounts seem to love to edit things that have Ryan Braun's name on them. It's strange.(Planecrash111 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Ampersand use
MOS: "Special characters—such as the slash (/), plus sign (+), braces ({ }), and square brackets ([ ])—are avoided; the ampersand (&) is replaced by and, unless it is part of a formal name (Emerson, Lake & Palmer). This guidance also applies to Section headings, below." -- aktsu (t / c) 08:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tx ... Clear enough (though it conflicts with the spirit of what I cited to you, as well as the call for brevity in section headings).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

D'Or; Years
Why is there such a problem with the full year may I ask? Afkatk (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The proper question is why is there a problem with the original, since (as with dates) the original is deferred to if there is no reason for a change. But 1990-99 is a format blessed by Wiki, preferred by many (if not most) English style guides, and does not encumber the reader needlessly with extra digits.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * stating 1992-1999 is the common way to list years, I don't see it as giving the readers extra digits or needlessly doing so, I feel its an improvement in the way the article is represented, in fact the best articles I've seen on Wikipedia state the full year title, take this featured article for an example you'd probably say it needlessly gives the reader extra digits, I would disagree on that fact. Afkatk (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from your POV, show me a Wiki directive that says that you should change the original presentation of 1990-99.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Change it back then if its such a big deal to you, I am only changing it to what is commonly used on Wikipedia. Afkatk (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * says "2005–06 is a two-year range.... A closing CE/AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not." Given that, and the aforementioned reasons, I'll restore it to the way it was, which is clearly acceptable and even "normal."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Youkilis
Sorry for the delay in response. I was merely adding the mid-season walk figure because I stumbled across that article, which contains several random facts, statistical and otherwise, about players on various major league teams. If you check my contributions from that day, you'll see that I added facts to several players' articles. If you feel that it's inappropriate for Youkilis' article, I suppose you may revert it; I guess it needs a little more context for support. Glass  Cobra  12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My only reason for thinking it doesn't belong is that it is not notable ... at least a skim of them suggested that they were not notable. Did I miss something?  We can easily find that stat in baseball reference, and if it were notable I would support its inclusion ... but I just don't see why that in itself bears mention.  Year-end stats, and especially those where he is in the top 10, seem more worthy of mention than half-year stats by themselves, that don't demonstrate anything else IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ian Kinsler
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ian Kinsler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 22:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Tx!--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to notify you that I've started listing items for review and improvement at the Ian Kinsler GA review page. Before I move on to reviewing the major league portion of the article, I would like to see some of the more serious issues, including inconsistencies with referencing, corrected, so that I can move forward in a uniform manner. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Also, feel free to use the GA page itself as a checklist. I've watchlisted it, so any comments or questions you leave there will be seen and addressed. Thanks. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 11:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've listed several groups of comments to be improved in this article; however, a few more days is all that I am able to give before the nomination will fail for lack of participation. Please let me know if you plan on addressing these. Thanks! KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tx .. had not seen this, and started addressing.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC
Hi Epeefleche. I just want to let you know some of the protocol surrounding WP:FAC. When you want to nominate an article, don't forget to transclude the nomination at WP:FAC so that reviewers will be able to find it. Please note that the rules as stated on the FAC page currently permit only one article nomination per nominator; this is to ensure that a) the nominator has time to resolve any issues that may come up, and b) reviewers aren't overloaded with articles by the same person, which may contain similar issues. I've removed the FAC for Ryan Braun, as another one had already been entered at the FAC nomination page. Welcome to FAC, and if you have questions, feel free to ask on my talk page or at the FAC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-English citations; Ehud Banai
Thanks for the info. I did not know about this. --Kbob (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anytime. My pleasure.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Braun FA Nomination
I haven't had a chance to get on Wiki the last week or two, so I just got your message... I checked the nominations page but it looks as if the discussion has passed. I was just wondering how it went, sorry I couldn't give my two cents. At the very least his article is very close to being FA-worthy. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 07:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tx. It was put on hold as there was another nomination pending from me (see above discussion).  I did not know that I personally could not nominate two at once.  But I gather that if you would like to nominate it, you should feel free to do so!  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Undelete
Can you help tell me how we undelete the deletion of the category of Jewish economists? I didn't even get a chance to blink, or input my thoughts. I think the discussion was uninformed as it missed that the Jews are a nation, not just a religion, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, not sure if that is possible. However, I would suggest the creation of Category:Jewish American economists instead (as well as other "Jewish economists by nationality" categories). If you haven't noticed yet, there is a currently a major censorship campaign raging on Wikipedia wherein rabid censors are attempting to hijack the CfD boards and unjustly delete as many Jewish related categories as they possibly can. Let us be vigilant against their 'book burnings' and let us also attempt to save as much of this valid info as we possibly can before it is wantonly tossed in to the censorious flames. --Wassermann (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

David D'Or
Hi E, I'm reviewing David D'Or (DDO). I assume you want helpful criticism more than a premature GA; at least I hope so- b/c I already left a heap of suggestions. But I've since noticed other fundamental issues. For example, Please make it a principle to use conservative rather than expansive WP language everywhere (especially when others are hot). Your words are running away with your story. Luckily I do feel it will worth it to spend a bit of my time on this baby.  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 07:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your responses on CfD
Hi there. I'm an admin who monitors Categories for discussion. I'm Jewish, and I have frequently sparred with Otto, whom I often find abrasive. I'm going to say this so that it is crystal clear: stop suggesting Otto is an anti-Semite. Instead of swaying people on the merit of your argument, you're ginning up people against Otto's nominations based on spurious and ugly intimations that he dislikes Jews. This is a group discussion, not a flame war. He has every right to attempt to get you banned, and I will support him if this continues. Am I clear?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mike, all I've pointed out in that regard is that: 1) Otto has singled out Jewish categories for deletion in his last 500 edits; though his arguments related to all nationalities/ethnicities/religions, and 2) that he has lied. Those are both worthy of consideration.  If you have a problem with that, I think it is wrong-headed, and urge you to seek the involvement of an administrator immediately.  I think that it is quite appropriate to point out when someone lies here, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and your suggestion/threat that you would seek to have me banned for it is clearly innapropriate.  Again, I urge you to involve an admin at the earliest opportunity.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Otto wrote, well before you attacked him: "The category was discovered while looking through Category:Jews by occupation. If there are other models by ethnicity categories that should be eliminated, then they can certainly be nominated." Then you wrote: "Is it the case that you have in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation. And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be?" So I'm not suggesting that pointing out when someone is lying is worthy of banishment. I am directly stating that alleging an anti-Jewish (or anti-any-other-ethnicity) agenda on another editor's part, when you have no evidence that such exists, is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm not being clear, or assuming that you've followed the whole convuluted conversation without clarifying it. And btw--your use of "attack" is innapropriate, but that's just an aside.  But here is the relevant material, as I see it.  1) Otto suggests in his discussions with another editor that his reasons for seeking deletion of a number of Jewish categories is not a focus on Jewish categories per se, but that his reasons have to do with his (innacurate, I would argue, and typically lacking citating to WP guidance) views on whether it is permissible to have categories of regligious/ethnic/national groupings).  He also innappropriately calls the other editor "paranoid," but I don't address that.  2)  I ask him Otto, therefore, if it is the case that he has in fact "focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation.  And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be?"  3) In his response to me, Otto lies.  He writes, in a blanket scarcastic denial to a very direct question, devoid of the vitriol of Otto's writings:  "Exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you?"  4) I then take a look at his last 500 edits.  I note, and report to him, that despite his denial the facts show a quite different picture.  He in fact sought to delete the categories of Jewish surnames, Jewish American models, Jewish astronauts, Jewish chess players, Jewish shutterbugs, Jewish conductors, Jewish economists, Jews by occupation, Jewish travel writers, Jewish fashion designers, and Hebrew names.  But at the same time he did not seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicities.  Sadly, while I assumed good faith, that is a rebuttable presumption, shaken by the facts. Lying is unethical and hurts the project.  An honest Wikipedian does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument.  5) The good faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence, and assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, such as what you are seeking to chill here.  But instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.


 * So I asked again why that would be. That is all reasonable discourse, devoid on my part of flaming, vitriol, and bullying, assuming good faith, soliciting Otto's explanation rather than branding him, and devoid (on my part at least) of personal attacks, threats, and bullying. For you to seek to quash my reasonable discussion through threats of blockage is curious, and as I said I don't think it is appropriate.  I do think it appropriate, however, for you to address the personal attacks by editors in regard to this, such as characterizing other editors publicly as paranoid or, here ...  ... as insecure.  That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, and has not place in a reasoned discussion, and as an admin I think you might help the discourse (if so inclined) by taking appropriate action to quell such activity.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a debate, and I'm not looking for feedback. I've made my position clear to Otto on his poor choice of words. It's up to him to decide whether he wants to hear that. It's also up to you whether you want to hear what I'm saying. You've left it for other editors to decide whether you mean to label him an anti-Semite. If you truly mean you don't, then revise or clarify your comments so there's no question.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How could Otto be an anti-semite? He has stated that he is Jewish. What I did say, which the evidence supports, is that while suggesting his efforts to delete categories is not specific to one religion/ethnicity/nation, the evidence of Otto's last 500 contributions suggests that that is not true. Failure to tell the truth bears on the good faith presumption, as does motive, and both issues are manifestly appropriate for discussion. I note that I've never asked Otto (or you) if he (or you) were Jewish (though you have both proffered that you are Jewish). I've laid out the facts, and asked Otto what his motive is. His response has been in stark contrast with his last 500 diffs, and has raised questions of honesty and motive. I don't see that any of the above calls for any additional clarification, and the good faith guideline manifestly does not prohibit discussion and criticism, such as what you are seeking to chill here. Whether he has an anti-specific-ethnicity agenda is an open question, thought his honesty issue and diffs are evidence are pertinent. Personal accusations such as "antisemite", "paranoid", "attack", "insecure" are poor personal attack word choice, and those personal attacks have been part of this conversation--but they are not my words.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * * I never said I was Jewish. I said that my grandfather was Jewish, and while the Nazis would have agreed with you that I am Jewish, Judaism is passed matrilineally and so I am not. "Liar" is also a personal attack word, as is "singled out" and those have certainly been a part of your conversation. Otto4711 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I have restored the preceding comment to its proper place in the thread. Please do not atempt to distort the thread by moving comments from their original position. Otto4711 (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - of my last 500 edits as of the timestamp 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC) - 11 of which will appear on the second page of my contribution history after this edit is completed - 61 of them have been related to Jewish-related CFDs. I am including in that count edits relating to categories like "Hebrew surnames" but I am excluding edits relating to my ANI complaint about Wasserman. It also includes my comment at DRV regarding recreation of Category:Fictional Jews, a category that I supported keeping when it was nominated at CFD. That's about 12% of my last 500 edits. I feel constrained to point out that many of those edits would not have happened had I not been compelled to split a group nomination into separate ones. I have made, if I am counting correctly, 65 edits to other CFD discussions in the same 500 edits. A cursory, non-biased review of my edit history would reveal that I nominate categories relating to any number of areas of interest and do not focus or even pay that much attention to Judaism-related categories. What frequently happens at CFD is that a category relating to a particular area of interest will be nominated in isolation by one editor. Over the course of that CFD, other editors will review other similar categories to see if the issues regarding the first apply to them as well. If so, then those categories may also end up being nominated. A good recent example of this is the Category:Accused spies structure. One category was put up for deletion and was deleted. Since the issues that led to the deletion of one "accused spies" category probably apply equally to the entire structure, the rest of the structure was put up for deletion. There was no "anti-accused spies" agenda at work. Similarly, Shawn in Montreal has been putting a good deal of work in on the film awards categories. He does not, to the best of my knowledge, have an "anti film awards agenda". As I stated, with the recent nomination of a number of Jews by occupation categories, I looked at the parent and nominated those for which I saw no encyclopedic relationship between being Jewish and the occupation. I still do not believe there is, for instance, any link between being Jewish and being a fashion model, nor is there a Jewish way to model clothes. For this I am branded an anti-Semite, a conspirator and a liar. And I see that you are continuing in this attempt even now in the various CFD discussions. I will see you at ANI, as I believe your actions have now risen to the level of disrupting the project. Otto4711 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be too late, but I'll try anyway. Mike asked me to take a look at this situation.  You two have a bigger problem than a few CFD's.  I think both of you could do with some time apart.  You've both been threatened with blocking by Rlevse, and I don't see that either of you have taken those words to heart.  If this ends up at ANI (it may already be there, haven't checked), you'll both probably wind up blocked.  If so, when the blocks expire, please think about what got you here.  Epee, you need to stop being concerned about why anyone nominated a category for deletion.  Deal with the issue at hand.  Give reasons why you think it should be kept.  Don't comment on the nominator, whoever it may be.  Because speaking as someone who closes a lot of CFD's, if your arguments to keep are based upon the nominator's beliefs, I'm going to discount your them as irrelevant.  And Otto, tone it down.  You are frequently abrasive when you clearly don't need to be.  Same with you: present your arguments in a levelheaded tone, don't comment on the editor.  You two are not going to agree, that much is clear.  Which is fine.  But if you are to convince others to agree with your arguments, you'll both do well to stick to the issues, and leave the other out of it.  And if all else fails, WP:DR is thataway, give it a shot.  --Kbdank71 20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Otto -- what I said was that of your last 500 edits, all in which you sought to delete an ethnicity/nationality/religion category were focused on deleting Jewish categories. You maintained that that was not the case, which is at odds with the evidence.  Truthfullness is a hallmark of appropriate editing here.  And Mike (and Mike's invitee), the assumption of good faith is not meant to chill discussion.  If Otto were to seek to delete all African American categories, and only African American categories, though his argument were that there should not be categories of any race, then I believe it would be appropriate for people to consider as to his motive.  It is not a violation of Wikipedia guidelines to point that out.  Nor to point it out when someone's words are at odds with their practice.  Nor, as I have done with Otto, when they misstate Wiki guidelines, or make up standards that do not exist.  I have discussed all of this at the CFD in level tones.  I'm completely within my rights when pointing out dishonesty, with specific evidence.  And I'm completely within my rights when asking questions as to motive in circumstances such as these.  If the person deciding the CFD sees things differently than I do, that of course is their perogative, and they can discount any of those points as they see fit.  But it is by no means a violation of Wiki standards for me to have done what I have done.  I've never been blocked (though I note Otto has many times).  The reference by Mike's invitee to Rlevse misses entirely the fact that I invited Rlevse to weigh in (rather than engage in an edit war), and that I followed the precise Wiki directions as to how to resolve the edit dispute, which was resolved properly.  I've not violated Wiki guidelines in tone or content.  I've also discussed the substantive issues in depth.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * what I said was that of your last 500 edits, all in which you sought to delete an ethnicity/nationality/religion category were focused on deleting Jewish categories. This is a deliberate mischaracterization of my history, as immediately after splitting out the group Jewish nom I nominated several nationality categories (the "accused spies" tree) for deletion.
 * If Otto were to seek to delete all African American categories, and only African American categories - this statement is based on a false premise, as I have not sought to delete all Judaism categories, nor have I only nominated Judaism categories for deletion. This is a base and deliberate misrepresentation of both my actions and my so-called "motives".
 * You have repeatedly violated Wikipedia guidelines by calling me a liar without justification. This is an absolute violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I have explained time after time after time the process that led to these nominations. I have no doubt that you understand exactly what happened here, but it serves your goal of falsely painting me as an anti-Semite and a liar. Your examination of my edit history in no way supports your ridiculous assertions and your continued wide-eyed insistence that you're simply asking a question would be laughable on its face were it not for how disgusting it is. The only reason that this isn't at ANI already is because of Kdbank's blocking threat, but if you continue in your deceptions and false accusations then taking a block to put an end to your poisonous attacks might end up being worth it to me. Your behaviour here and at CFD is reprehensible and a strong indication that you have no sense of personal shame. Otto4711 (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Help me here, Otto. Looking through those 500 diffs I saw ones relating to your efforts to delete the categories of: 1) Jewish surnames, 2) Jewish American models, 3) Jewish astronauts, 4) Jewish chess players, 5) Jewish shutterbugs, 6) Jewish conductors, 7) Jewish economists, 8) Jews by occupation, 9) Jewish travel writers, 10) Jewish fashion designers, and 11) Hebrew names.  But at the same time I did not seek you in any of those diffs seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicities.  If I missed those, can you please point me to them?  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've "helped" you as much as I intend to. I have explained my actions and pointed out counter-examples time after time after time. Your response has been to blithely ignore them and continue to pretend that you're the wide-eyed innocent who's only asking questions of the big bad Jew-hater. Clearly, your purpose here is to goad, bait and intimidate. I have no further interest in feeding trolls. Otto4711 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple Grammar
The sentence I changed should read "ethnicity, nationality and religion", not "ethnicity, nation and religion" for grammatical reasons. I'm not trying to take your point about the Jewish nation away. It exists later on in the very same sentence. Rosencomet (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I understand, but I'm not sure that I see the grammar point.  I did see that the sentence was not well written (from my prior edit), and in fixing it I did revert your entry while changing a later part of the sentence, but will take a look to see if I can understand your grammar point as the sentence is currently constructed.  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

?
I didn't "vandalize" anything. If you could inform me as to what I "vandalized", in your opinion, then that would be very gracious of you. 216.99.49.176 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly. See .  --Epeefleche (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Invite

 * Jccort (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Angela Buxton
I don t really know for sure - I m more of a feel it out person, then a know the official policy type. One thing is if there s been talk on the matter of the tag (neutrality in this case, isnt it). If so, I d first consider talking to that editor. If you don t wish to, then if it s been four to six months, I d just take it off with an edit summary saying that there has been no talk. If you don t wish to get involved in discussing the matter with the user who s complained, either on the talk page for the article or that user s talk page, because your views seem too far apart to bother to try in reconcile, then I d try deleting it with your reason and see it there is a revert. Then if there is, you really should discuss the matter. Usually, whoever is more right ultimately prevails - it is always good to get the support of likeminded editors. (check the edit history for the page - I, personally, am not very interested in ladies tennis, but happen to have been editing the category page links for British players.) all the best, Mayumashu (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Aleksandra Wozniak
Look at her entry, her previous manager piped up saying she was a Catholic. He said that the source provided with her name in it was wrong. (Curiously, they also blocked his account on Wikipedia for spamming the truth) 203.56.87.254 (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing reliable to indicate that the person who wrote that was in fact who he said he was. I could leave an entry indicating that I am god, and my gmail is God.com, but that would likely not do much in the way of convincing you.  The reliable sources indicate the contrary.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, there isn't much that proves that he is who says he is, however the guy was trying pretty hard (linking to photos of her wearing a cross for instance because a written source of her religion was hard to come by), AND the entry has been left alone since regarding this topic. 203.56.87.254 (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that in the conversation that I saw it (which was not at her entry) it was suggested that, since the reliable sources (including a book) suggested the opposite, if her purported friend was as he said as close with her as he indicated (and was telling the truth), all he had to do was have her reflect her religion on her website. Perhaps people are just giving him time to do that (or not). BTW, have I mentioned to you that I am Mike Tyson's manager, my email address is tysonsmanager@gmail.com, and Tyson is not a Black man but actually a Polynesian Māori as is evidenced by his tattoo (which is much more permanent than a necklace) which you can see at ?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in Mike Tyson, he could be an alien for all I care. As for Wozniak, why write what religion she is on her website? It seems irrelevent to her as a sportswoman. The funny thing in all of this, is if one were to ask her about her religion and then write it here, it still couldn't be accepted as it would be OR...203.56.87.254 (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
I have added my input at the Italian-american poly deletion over there. Thanks for the warning. Wm.C (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleasure. Didn't know what your view would be, but thought it was a subject of interest to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Marat Safin
Hello, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a sports commentary page. Content should be sourced facts about the topic of the article without puffery such as "stunning". -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The Wiki approach is to attribute such comments -- which in this case were discoverable as the opinion of the paper that was cited -- but its not necessary on the Safin page, as he was not the one stunned.  Otherwise, it could have been reported that Reuters reported that "Israel stunned heavily favored Russia," or BBC reported that "Israel stuns Russia in Davis Cup." --Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ausmus
Here is the link that Mentions he has 80 Home runs. He hit his 80th today against the Brewers. http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=110385 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicNirvana (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that. But please read the sentence -- it doesn't speak as to how many homers, etc., he has on July 13, but rather on an earlier day.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Youkilis
Hey. The Good article nom oon him is now on hold - I'll give you a week to fix all the issues, hopefully that'll be taken care of. Wizardman 01:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work on the article. :)  Enigma msg  00:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

98.15.150.182
I have declined your block request at WP:AIV for. If you wish to continue the discussion, please use my talk page. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I actually have no idea what to add to what I've already said.  The user was warned twice.  Then blocked in June.  He then followed by making at least 5 mored vandal edits; at least half of his 10 edits since his block have been vandalsim.  Received 3 more warnings.  Seems pretty standard support for another block, especially since vandal edits are being made to a bio of a living person -- and we are especially concerned with those.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted at the top of the AIV page, "unregistered users must be active now," however this IP's last vandalism edit was 17 hours ago, which is clearly not "active now." Regardless, AIV also requires that "the user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop."  The IP's last vandalism edit was at 22:21 on 7/29, for which you issued a level-two warning at 17:08 on 7/30.  Since the IP has not vandalized since receiving your uw-vandalism2 warning, it would appear that the person took heed of your warning and stopped their disruptive editing.  To block the IP now -when he or she has actually followed the instructions in your level-two warning and stopped vandalizing- would be both punitive and an assumption of bad faith.  However if you still do not like my or Enigmaman's answer, and you wish to continue admin shopping, there are about 1700 other admins to choose from; I am sure you could eventually find one willing to issue a punitive block.  — Kralizec! (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. It's not clear to me that "now" in that regard means a period shorter than 17 hours; I would think that anything within 24 hours would be fine, as the concern seems to be a response to a long-gone user.  Suggesting that 17 hours is too long seems arbitrary; even a once-a-day checker of the article would not be expected to see the vandalism is less than 24 hours, and here it was caught in less time than that.  As to sufficient recent warnings -- we can only warn him after his vandalism (which was done).  He was warned and blocked in June.  Again, I guess "recent" is up for interpretation.  But this seems to be the same guy, as he is vandalizing the same article he has been warned for in the past.  Surely we are not following an approach that allows him to vandalize it once every six week, without ever being blocked.  As to your last point, the vandal was just given my last warning minutes before she was reported.  The sequence is always (is it not?) vandal-warn-report.  Here, it is vandalize multiple times-warn multiple times-block- .... and now vandal edit 3 more times (since the multiple prior warnings and block, including to the same article), 2 more warnings ... but no block?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours.  Enigma msg  02:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Athletic Training
"Athletic training encompasses the prevention, diagnosis, and intervention of emergency, acute, and chronic medical conditions involving impairment, functional limitations, and disabilities." -http://www.nata.org/about_AT/whatisat.htm With that in mind I believe that it is not accurate to add several of the pages that you have to the category of athletic training. --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps we should augment that description? Tx -- I will take a look.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a category that you think that hey fall under that is better -- that involves the natural word meaning of "athletic training" -- the training of athletes?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I note that NATA says: "Some places athletic training services are provided include:

•Athletic training facilities •Amateur, professional and Olympic sports venues ...

Which I believe the facilities at issue fall into.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned on the talk for the category: Athletic Training that a new category should be created for sports/performance/personal training. You’re right, I’m sure that all of those training facilities have athletic trainers working at them, but if we’re including all the places that athletic trainers work in the category: Athletic Training then there are a LOT of places we’re missing especially when you consider that the military, school districts, colleges, hospitals and many major corporations hire athletic trainers. Should articles about high schools be included in the category because an athletic trainer works there? Let me share my perspective. I am a student in college studying to become an athletic trainer and it seems like every time I tell someone what I’m studying they say, “Oh yeah? So you’re going to tell people how to work out huh?” and I have to spend five minutes explaining to them the difference between a personal trainer and an athletic trainer. When people see an article about an “Amateur, professional or Olympic sports venue” in the category: Athletic Training, they don’t think about the athletic trainers that work there, they think about the coaches preparing their athletes for competition, and that’s another five minutes that I have to spend with someone explaining the difference. --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever works. I'm easy. On the one hand, I think from what I've seen that two different definitions are used for athletic training. One, the one you and NATA use. The second, the princeton one, which you would call by another name as indicated above. It's not clear to me that everyone (eg, Princeton) would agree, but if it will make it easier I'm happy to go along with you. Can you set up the category as you think best? Then I'm happy to help, and perhaps we could populate it and yours a bit more.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

NB
I came across this, a work in progress. Occuli (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * .1 or .2?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Category Deletion Discussion -- Italian Americans
Hi, Epeefleche.

I missed all the fun, huh? Oh well.

I perused the discussion, because this issue of supposed overcatting/multiple intersections is an important one. Judging by that discussion and its outcome, there seems to be no consensus on the matter. I'm a bit confused. SamEV (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As am I, as am I. I suspect that little is as simple as it seems.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor leagues
Not a problem, I've done quite a few minor league baseball articles for Australian players, as long as you use that argument, you'll survive 90% of AfD's =]  JRA _ Westy Qld2  Talk 11:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Milkbreath's sig
I rarely forget to sign, actually. Thanks for the heads-up. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

References in Phillies articles
Hi Epeefleche. Your name keeps popping up on my watchlist today. I see that you are adding some situational stats from 2008, and they are good chunks of info to have in the article, but would you find formatting the source instead of using a bare external link? I've cleaned up several Phillies articles that have come up on my list, and have formatted the reference in those articles; you're welcome to simply copy the citation out of Cole Hamels, Joe Blanton, Greg Dobbs, or some of the other Phillies articles that you've added info to today. I appreciate the hard work that you are doing. Thanks! KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll try to be sensitive to that on the Phillies articles. Since it takes a lot more time, and I figured that having the info in the article with the bare reference is better than not having it, or having it without any cite, I've generally limited to (acceptable form) bare references, but will try to be sensitive on your articles that have other citation forms.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Scott Feldman move
I explained why on the article talk page, respond there. Hekerui (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to encumber the article talk page with nonsense that readers of the article will have to read forever.


 * You just deleted all the relevant talk page material from his talk page. Including all of the task force links.  Please restore it immeditately.


 * As to the material that you inserted, I do not think we need bother readers for the baseball player talk page with it -- if you want to move it elsewhere, feel free.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand, the content is not deleted, but it has to be properly moved, therefore I listed it on Requested moves. Look it up for yourself. Hekerui (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian Kinsler
On the surface, the article looks fine. If I can find time I'll give the full GA review. Wizardman 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)