User talk:Giants27/Archives/2010/June

fangraphs
Fangraphs is one of the most reputable sabermetric sites out there. It's constantly cited by numerous ESPN and SI writers. It's more than a blog, it's a statistical database for every player in MLB history. I've read books that cite it as a source as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaguarswin09 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still a blog which unless there's more sources that have the same information for what pitches Leake throws then it should be left out of the article IMO since blogs aren't always reliable.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Images
Cheers for the help. It's much appreciated --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Feel free to ask me a question if you're having any problems with uploading the images.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 18:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch
The was a lot of embedded vandalism, guess I reverted too far. John Reaves 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, I figured it was something like that since there was a lot of vandalism going on after his goal.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 20:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

NFLactive
Please see User talk:Eagles247.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Ping.)  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Emmanuel Frimpong
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton peer review completed
This post is to let you know I've completed a peer review on Joey Hamilton's article. I hope you find the comments constructive, and if you have any questions about it, feel free to let me know. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Are reverts a must?
Is it a must to revert bad or unconstructive edits, or edits that violate a Wikipedia policy? I mean those articles that requires a reviewer. They will not show up anyway, until they have been confirmed by a user with the reviewer rights. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 16:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if they're vandalism yes. Even though they can't be seen it's still vandalism.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 16:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I especially meant Frank Lampard. It wasn't vandalism, and I believe those edits wouldn't have been accepted by a reviewer anyways. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 16:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Giants, this edit does not look like vandalism to me. A wild POV maybe, but this "goal" may deserve a mention in the article. Revert or preferably rewrite it, but don't categorise it as vandalism, when it's actually more a POV. It's not nice to have your work called vandalism, especially if your edit is made in good faith. Heymid, don't make edits which you don't think are going to get through, it just wastes everybody's time doesn't it? - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned vandalism, if your asking me. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)When did I call it vandalism? I should've expanded on "no" (which I've now done on the talk page) but other than that I'm not sure I see where I called it vandalism since all I did was undo the edit.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was kinda referring to up above, you saying "Even though they can't be seen it's still vandalism", I thought it was pretty obvious that Heymid was talking about the Frank Lampard edit. Also, "no" isn't exactly a very good reason to revert anything other than blatant vandalism, remember to write out a proper summary unless you're reverting vandalism. Still, seems there's no damage done, so just bear in mind for future, but don't let me get at you too much :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now, my first comment was not directed towards the edit on Frank Lampard rather I thought he was wondering why I used "rollback" on pending changes edits but it seems like this situation has more or less worked itself out.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 16:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17