User talk:Killervogel5/Archive 4

Silver Slugger Award Future FTC
Just to tell you, I'll help you out with this future FTC (since I have nothing else to do). I'm currently planning on making the lists for the shortstops, the designated hitters, and the pitchers. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The other future FTC I'm working on is currently on hold until Chrishomingtang finishes his semester, as well as my school year. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -.- Why not let me make some of the lists featured? Wouldn't you rather promote the FTC faster than taking credit all by yourself? Collaborations are way more fun. :D --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 22:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me. Good luck on the FTC. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See my talk. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dude
Lol, I was just looking at your sandbox when I noticed you had the second basemen up, I didn't know you had just created it. WP:baseball - Lightning quick WP banners! Anyway, if you want/need any help with those I'll see what I can do.  black ngold29  23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, start mentioning stuff like that and I'll probably try it sooner or later.  black ngold29  00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Hey KV, I was wondering if anything came of this. Thanks,  Grsz 11  13:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the time trying. I just saw all these competition articles that were surprisingly missing infoboxes. Take your time, keep me updated. Thanks!  Grsz 11  13:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Silver Slugger
I thought the line break helped make the columns in the two tables more even. I think it might be best to remove the images, the table probably looks very bad on small screens. -- Scorpion 0422  20:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of Silver Slugger Award winners at second base
--Dravecky (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase
Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion 0422  17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Oh-em-gee, I accept. Thank you so much for that award, its just something I like to do here on Wiki.--Best,  ₮ RU C Ө   21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I used to only like reviewing sports list only too, but I soon realized that other lists are similar to one another (A lead, optional body prose, and the main list) and by following what I did with the sports list I just applied it to other lists. If you know Wiki's policies and guidelines, as well as the FL criteria, you should do fine with reviewing other lists.--Best,  T RU C O  21:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies
Hardly redundant. The body of the article doesn't include anything about the manager of the club or its regular season records and winning percentages. It's also rather unwieldy to expect a reader to sift through a rather large body words for information that can be more easily and clearly presented in table form. Restored.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You conveniently overlook the key word in that policy statement: "sometimes" -- as in "sometimes" information listed in tables is better presented in prose form. That is not a universality or an absolute, and in this case, it makes abundant more sense to list this type of information in a quick reference list rather than blended away within overly long franchise "history" sections that can literally run on for more than 20 densely worded paragraphs and thus obfuscate priority information.  I'd also advise you to muzzle your thinly veiled insinuations of bad faith on my part, as I have not called your motives into question.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd caution you to refrain from your repeated ad hominem attacks. I understand you must feel that your intensive editing of the Phillies article entitles you to ownership over it and you must view me as somewhat of interloper, but that is no substitute for making a reasoned, persuasive, good faith argument in defense of your stated position.  Let's try and keep this civil.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll ask you for the last time to refrain from making ad hominem attacks and insinuations of bad faith on my part -- they're uncalled for. You've repeatedly made statements such as "use of big words and your law degree don't intimidate me" and "big words don't intimidate me," despite the fact that I have not said anything to belittle your own English skills, nor have I ever even disclosed my law degree to you: if you feel inadequate about what you perceive to be my "big" vocabulary or about my legal education, that's your problem and a product of your own insecurities.  Keep me out of it.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not disclosed my law degree to you, so the point is not moot; you sought out that information yourself, I have not cited it or appealed to it as authority or as a means of making you feel inferior. If you feel threatened for some reason because you see a law infobox on my page, that's your problem.  Likewise, I will not dumb down my vocabulary just because you may find big words in some way intimidating, even though that's not my intent.  Those are your issues, so don't project them onto me.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. You've repeated the refrain that you won't be intimidated by big words and law degrees on your own initiative many times.  Exactly why, for the life of me, I still don't understand.  I find it rather odd that you brought this issue up completely on your own and then have spent such an undue amount of time trying to convince me of its veracity.  What borders on the uncivil is you making this unprovoked assertion to imply that I was trying to intimidate you with my law degree and vocabulary, when, again, the former was never disclosed to you and the latter is a product of your own subjective assessment.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FLC nominations and reviews
Hi, Killervogel5. You may not be aware, but the new Featured list criteria was implemented Sunday 5 April, 00:56 (UTC) following two weeks of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria.

I've gone through the nominations and have noticed the following have received reviews from you, but no indication whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL: Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, check them against the new Featured list criteria, and indicate whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL. It would be much appreciated as the nomination will not have to be kept open any longer than necessary.
 * 1) Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Blackhawks players/archive4 (List of Chicago Blackhawks players)

Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat  05:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter
Thanks - I also really like this picture File:White Deer Hole Creek Panorama 2.jpg, but had to take it out of the article as there were too many creeks in the woods pictures already. Happy Easter! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

J. D. Durbin
At WP:Biographies of living persons, it says blogs are reliable if written by a professional. Matt Eddy, the blog's writer, makes his living writing for Baseball America, a reliable source, and is therefore a professional. Here Eddy says he gets his transactions from MLB's transactions databank, which is certainly reliable.

All those sources you listed saying Durbin is a free agent copy their information straight from MLB.com, which doesn't do a good job of keeping their profiles updated unless players are in the major leagues. 2008 Topps (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Featured list candidates/List of San Francisco Giants managers/archive1
You have an oppose and a support on here. Strike one of them (I'm assuming the oppose). Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
I've created a peer review page for the Jackie Robinson article. I've done a lot of work in the past weeek and want to take this article to FA status soon if possible. Noticed you're a baseball volunteer, so if you can offer any comments that would be great. BillTunell (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive comments. Very helpful. BillTunell (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Football diagram
You made some nice football diagrams. However, there is one still missing: 3-4 defensive end. Could you please make that one, too? --bender235 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV for Category:Knuckleball pitchers
The close of Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17, in which you participated, is now under discussion at Deletion_review/Log/2009 April 28. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

K
I actually didn't know how to do that.Next time I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Morandini
The Mickey Morandini article could use some help. Thought it would be a candidate for WP:Phillies. If only I wasn't done at work for the day; perhaps we can spruce it up a bit over the next few days... Fightin&#39; Phillie (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing help
Hey, how do you feel about going through and copy editing posting system a bit? I've been working on the article for quite a while now, and I'm getting close to nominating it for FAC, but I'd like someone else to take a look at the article. Thanks! -- T orsodo g Talk 16:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its been through PR a few times now. They are all closed though. You can either leave comments on my talk page, or, if they are just prose edits, feel free to directly edit the article itself! -- T orsodo g Talk 17:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I finally addressed all of your concerns with this article on its talk page. If you wanna pop on by again and give it a quick once-over, I'd appreciate it! Thanks for all your help. -- T orsodo g Talk 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your helpful comments at Featured list candidates/29th Golden Raspberry Awards/archive1, and the polite way in which you imparted them. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long on the FLC. I've been busy in real life, and people are still in a funk over swine flu (I live in Texas). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ok
thank you, i'll try and remember that Warriorshockey1 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

you too Warriorshockey1 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Light blue
I placed the light blue on the words "website", "hide", and the left menu. JaMikePA (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Logo
So says you. Your use of a Wikipedia policy doesn't mean anything if you apply it in a vague manner. There is nothing wrong with its placement. You just don't like it, that's all. However, every other pro sports team has this arrangement with their logos.JaMikePA (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-free use media rationale - non-free logo for Philadelphia Union. This is from the logo's description page. The logo isn't fair use, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

Don't get too full of yourself: Edit war

Key word is "may." You're stretching this to create a valid argument for your bias.

Call it what you will, but it's an edit war. Another example of you trying to justify yourself with invalid definitions.

By your interpretation, there wouldn't be any logos on WP.

BTW, you violate the three-revert rule, too:

(cur) (prev) 16:58, 12 May 2009 Killervogel5 (talk | contribs) m (6,879 bytes) (per WP:IG) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:24, 12 May 2009 Killervogel5 (talk | contribs) m (6,700 bytes) (and that's wrong, per WP:IG, fair use images can NEVER be included in a gallery) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:03, 12 May 2009 Killervogel5 (talk | contribs) m (6,565 bytes) (image doesn't need to be in a gallery) (undo)

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of galleries (usually by way of the gallery tag or gallery template) may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750-1795 in fashion for an example of a good use of galleries.

If you read this, you'll see the logo is appropriately used. Also, re-editing is still the same principle, it's just edit-warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaMikePA (talk • contribs)


 * Both of you need to use the discussion page rather than edit war over the use of the secondary logo in a gallery. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm glad we have a resolution, too. I appreciate your work and passion. JaMikePA (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series
Are you going to give this anymore feedback?

Website citations and Phillies
I appreciate the heads-up on the difference between Works and Publisher. I had not considered that. Nice work on the Phillies pages! I'm glad there's a few of us working on them.

dablinks
Hey Killer, You mentioned that you could find the dablinks using the toolbox. I've never done that before and can't see an obvious tool to do so, could you tell me how that is done?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sergio Escalona
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Re:
No, it's fine. I already have a layout of what I want to do in my userspace. If you get something done, just let me know. I had no idea someone else wanted to do the MLB awards too. iMatthew : Chat  16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:IMatthew/Featured topics. iMatthew : Chat  16:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, iMatthew asked me to take a look at List of World Series champions and possibly consider working on it. However, I'm not sure I'm the right user for it. The series has a complex history with the pre-modern championships (my initial thought was to remove them, since MLB doesn't list them as world serieses) and I think someone who has a good grasp of baseball history should work on it. Would you mind helping me out with it? I can do the formatting (it's what I'm best at). -- Scorpion 0422  21:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you have a chance. Would an option be to move the pre-Modern World Series champions to a seperate list? -- Scorpion 0422  21:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FA Nomination; Ryan Braun
Hi. I've nominated Brewers left fielder Ryan Braun to be a Featured Article. Since you may have interest, you may wish to contribute your view as to whether it should be a FA. The discussion of the FA comment process can be found at, and the page that you can go in through to leave comments is the article's talk page at. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chuck-klein-baseball.jpg
Hey, I removed File:Chuck-klein-baseball.jpg from the Philadelphia records article, and deleted the NFC rationale. Per WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC, a non-free image generally can't be used in a list or stat article like that - it would be considered decorative, and not fair use. I'd be happy to discuss it, but I can't imagine it surviving WP:NFR if it gets that far. Cheers. --Mosmof (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking "decorative" the wrong way. There are only so many kinds of images that are non-decorative. The main kinds, and ones that qualify as fair use on Wikipedia are:
 * Significant images that are, in and of themselves, subject of critical commentary or discussion. This isn't to be confused with images that show important moments or whose subjects are very very important.
 * Images that identify the article subject, like the team logo on a team page or a portrait on a biography.
 * Images that provide visual descriptions where text fails - say, the Zapruder film or a map.
 * Considering the article is a list of team records, all images in the article are decorative. It's just that the Klein portrait is a non-free image, while the others have expired copyrights. We don't lose anything of encyclopedic value when the Klein picture is removed - he still shows up in the records, right? Again, please take the time to review WP:NFCC, particularly #3 and #8. --Mosmof (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, your displeasure is noted, if not completely understood. If you change your mind, you can always take it to WP:NFR and ask the admins who are well versed on non-free content use. --Mosmof (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

List of American football teams in the United Kingdom
Hi KV5. First of all, many thanks for peer-reviewing this article. Apart from getting rid of the TBCs in the BUAFL table, do you feel there's anything else that needs doing before submitting this as a Featured List Candidate? Bettia  (bring on the trumpets!)  19:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WILD CARD DELETION
dude, i am just trying to help out, and make it easier for wiki users to see baseball standings. i worked hard on it, and if theres a problem since your mister "know it all" why dont you fix it up. you probably dont know a thing about baseball, maybe you do, but you should do the things it needs to be fixed. if your too lazy to do so, then tell me how, and if your to lazy for that, you shouldnt have a wiki account if yyour going to delete stuff. honestly, you should not be living if thats what you do in your fun time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueJaysFan32 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * if theres no encyclopedic value to the wild card standings, then why bother having division standings?

Union
Your reasoning is "apples and oranges", as those other teams use the article "the" in official correspondence. Yes, Philly Union is an American-style name, but the team doesn't refer to itself at "the Philadelphia Union." Look at philadelphiaunion.com to see what I mean.JaMikePA (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What I mean by "official correspondence" is the team's official media reporting, such as the team's website and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Union never refers to itself as "the Union."

Another example of "official correspondence" is Ohio State. You and I say "Ohio State", but the school itself mandates that all media sources call it "THE Ohio State University." This is what I mean.JaMikePA (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that the official website doesn't use "the."

Not if third-party sources are inaccurate. Newspapers make mistakes, too. In this case the first-party trumps the the others.

Pretzel history
Why do you always change the addition to the history of the pretzel? It's very hard to evine that they should be of Italian origin. Honestly I've never heard that before - only the name could be Italian or Medieval Latin, and even this point is highly controversial. I gave you the link for the probable German origin, and I would highly recommend to consider that side too. It's not very scientific to defraud proved opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.102.35 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could play this game forever if you want to. As already known, you're obviously deleting every single comment which does not fit into your concept of "this must be and that couldn't be true". So nobody in Europe really knows about an "Italian origin" of the pretzel. Reuters say that the invention took place in 610 A.D., others in the third century (which could not be correct, but to show the liguistic reasons is senseless here, I think). And what is the source for reuters? a historical book? Which one? Why should your source be "more scientific" than mine? I really have the feeling that you WANT to be the pretzel invented by Italians. And this is NOT the way wikipedia should be exploited. If you don't omitt these misrepresentations, maybe you should read the fundamental intentions of wikipedia. The German interpretation is a legend. But the Italian intrpretation is a legend, too. In fact, you CAN'T prove the history. So, there is only one way to solve our problem: None of both opinions are in wikipedia, or both of them will be. It's your choice. Another point: See http://www.brezel-baecker.de/brezelgeschichte - your very scientific source "reuters" took only one of the many legends that exist, but you declare it to be the absolute truth. That's a very dictatorial prejudice and certainly not an attitude of prudence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.86.102 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cy Young edits
I see that you didn't like my edits to the Cy Young page because they removed the conversion templates from English to metric. But the conversion isn't being done correctly. The distance from the pitching mound to home plate is 60 feet 6 inches. The metric conversion is processing those two numbers separately as if they were two separate distances (yielding the rather strange result of 18m, 152mm). If you know how to make the convert template process "60 feet 6 inches" as one number, then go for it. You could switch to 60.5 feet, but that won't sound right to baseball fans. While my edit didn't use the convert template, it at least produced text that had the correct distance in both English and metric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.153.42 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:MLBPostseason
This template is not to replace the linescore, but the table of the matchups under the Matchups sections. I only put the template in articles relating to the 2008 Postseason, but I still left the linescores. Also, I included a sample model of what to enter. Team 1 is the road team and Team 2 is the home team.

68.96.162.195 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Natedawg519

Pretzel
It's a press release distributed by Reuters. The source of the press release was "Aunt Annie's Pretzels." Reuters distributes press releases from companies in addition to its own proprietary content. Press releases from for-profit companies are not reliable sources except about themselves. See WP:SELFPUB. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Phillies uniform image
I'm sorry to be so snappy about this but, don't lecture me please. Even if my version of one of the Phillies jerseys is incorrect. Angel Seda (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Angel Seda. Ok but when you ask don't act like I've done something wrong please.Angel Seda (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Angel Seda.I'm sorry. Angel Seda (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Angel Seda

List of World Series champions
Hello, I've kind of forgotten about the list as of late (and I've been working on other projects) and I suppose we should try to get it done. I believe that the modern series table is finished. Despite what others say on the talk page, it is simple and practical and conveys info effectively. All that is left is the lead, the precursor table and some of the history. Like I said, I'm not an expert on baseball history, so could you take care of the latter? I can do the lead and work on the precursor table - do we want to include managers or anything else in that one? Thanks, Scorpion 0422  20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Season linking
Thanks for the invite to participate in the discussion. I read the talk page and I agree with the nature of and direction of the discussion. It has been my practice to "season-link" - but in good faith, I am happy to follow the general consensus. smel4727