User talk:No Guru/Archive 6

Stalking
Why do you keep going around and telling people that you are me? I don't get it. Please stop. NoGura

Baseball Sites
Hi. Tx for your input on baseball sites. Since you liked Fangraphs, you may be interested in looking as well at .--Epeefleche 00:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting link. I wasn't aware that Sportsnet had sortable stats. -- No Guru 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'm not sure where else one can go to find the tallest and shortest players sorted by height, for example. --Epeefleche 07:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite the discussion and consensus, Tecmo today began deleting more Fangraphs urls. Any suggestions? --Epeefleche 16:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I just mentioned on the project talk page, and as Mondegreen had reminded me rather sharply, the right way to handle this is through an administrative complaint, a Request For Comment. Keep in mind that there's a good chance Tecmo will turn right around and file one against us as well. He wants to have things his way, and curbing his approach won't be easy. It took many weeks for action to be taken against an even more disruptive user, Gravitor/Carfiend, on the "Apollo hoax" pages. One tack would be to look at that mysterious red-linked user that appeared and immediately tried to create artificial "consensus" for that baseball card link on the Shoeless Joe page that Tecmo wants so badly; made a few other random edits; and then disappeared, all while Tecmo was under suspension. The user, called "El redactor" (which I read as "External Link Red Actor") could be a sockpuppet. That would be a different complaint, a request for a user check. That's not to say it is a sockpuppet; it could be just a weird coincidence. Baseball Bugs 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is another site that may interest you ... --Epeefleche 00:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Sox
I got into a revert scuffle with someone over this: I'm just curious whether you think it qualifies as a "spam" site. If you think not, I'll let it stand. If you would rather not get involved, I'll understand. I probably ought to just post it on the baseball project page ask about it. :) Baseball Bugs 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I took a quick look but did not see a lot of content there. Might be a more valuable link if the article was about Baseball cards from that era but even then I'm not sure. -- No Guru 01:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. That was my feeling about it also. That site is just one piece in a much larger puzzle about a zealous editor who got under the skin of several other editors. But I'll keep this under my hat (or cap) for now, as it's only in one or two places (about that era, as you say) and not worth making a big deal about. Baseball Bugs 04:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that I got sharply criticized for the way I dealt with that guy (Tecmobowl), and there is something to that argument, but it wasn't just me. Anyway, he said he was quitting, but his 48 hour block should be expired by now, so we'll see what happens. I'll try to ignore him if he comes back, rather than re-starting the skirmish. Baseball Bugs 04:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is now a straw poll on Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson on this subject. Feel free to add your tupence worth if you want to. Baseball Bugs 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Crystal ball?
Is it "crystal balling" to state that the 2007 World Series is scheduled to end on November 1 if Game 7 proves necessary? I say no, another editor says yes. I'm not totally sure, from the strict wording of the guideline. Baseball Bugs 14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Crystal: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. - So as long as that date can be verified the sentence you proposed would seem to fit under that policy. -- No Guru 14:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if there is no certainty that a Game 7 will occur? Baseball Bugs 14:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as the organization that sanctions or runs the event (Major League Baseball) states that a game 7 (if required) would occur on a certain date that would be good enough for me. -- No Guru 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, I can't find where (or if) MLB.com states the 2007 World Series schedule. So the user who keeps reverting it might have been right, but for the wrong reason. Thanks for your help. :) Baseball Bugs 15:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Baseball
Hey, No Guru: Just to let you know. I got the album covers restored for the VM albums (4) that were deleted before you helped me with the fair use rationale. Appreciate your support and help. Agadant 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tecmobowl/links
In your opinion, does the smart-aleck comment on that user sub-page constitute a violation of wikipedia rules about personal attacks and so on? Baseball Bugs 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's not on his main user page, which is good. Personally I would not put something like that on one of my sub-pages as it borders on antagonistic. I don't think it constitutes a personal attack however - but that's just my opinion. Hopefully he will see fit to remove that at some point in the near future. -- No Guru 22:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that kind of nonsense is the least of our worries with that guy. Baseball Bugs 23:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Armada
The page got vandalised again, can you revert it it former state ? (i have no clue how to do it) A1000 13:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Response
I want to point out a few things. If you really feel that my work here prevents articles from being created or getting better, than you can do what ever you want to me. I am not inclined to see that discussion as consensus. What has happened, due to the behavior of certain editors, is a disjointed, confusing discussion that has been refractored to such an extent that it is no longer realistic to expect anyone to isolate the issues. The discussion was spread throughout various pages. The poll presented during the mediation was poorly constructed even though I explained quit clearly what needed to happen for this issue to be resolved. WP:EL speaks to a number of issues and here is where we are at: I am not removing references that rely on fangraphs, nor am i trying to find alternative sources for that information. Fangraphs is perfectly acceptable as a source. 2) In many instances where there are multiple statistics sites, I am reducing them to two or three. This is perfectly appropriate and i will continue to do such.  Unfortunately, based on the behavior of a number of editors, I am reduced to WP:IAR.  I have been and will continue to WP:BITE Baseball Bugs as his behavior is ridiculous and he will not leave me alone. However, when possible, i will simply ignore him. He will surely comment here and there is nothing i can do about it.  He has been wikistalking me and this has been brought up on the incident board several times with little to no response.  I am sorry if you find my edits disruptive, but fangraphs has not been properly disgussed.  There is no need to warn me on my talk page, i will give you some time to discuss this with me here.  In the meantime, my behavior continues.  Epeefleche is the person who inserted fg on most of the articles where it is found. Most of the information on that site is not widely accepted amongst people in the world of baseball. There are very few examples of this type of data being discussed outside of specialty media outlets (if even there). It is confusing to most non-baseball fans and does not improve or enhance the quality of the articles. That being said, if someone wants to cite the website, it is perfectly acceptable. WP:EL is what i am using to base this on. //Tecmobowl 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. All of the above is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However as I said on your talk page if you continue to remove the link to fangraphs which meets the requirements set out by WP:EL and which has a clear consensus for inclusion, you will be blocked. -- No Guru 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a clear consensus. That's a confusing mumble of junk where 30 different topics are being discussed at one time.  Ban me if you must ... but fangraphs is not a good EL.  Just because the information exists and is verifiable doesn't mean it is good for articles.  Do you really think that all baseball articles should discuss the specialty stats included there?  Just to give you some more information as to why i am doing what i am doing, let's look at this. (again - this might be looked at as misdirecting the conversation, but I simply want to communicate about the content with you). First, unique presentation does not automatically qualify a site for inclusion.  Second, there are several other sites already used for statistical analysis.  Third, let's compare babe ruth.  here is the fangraphs link for his stats grid.  here is the b-r page.  The only information that fg has that b-r does not is BB%, K%, BB/K, BABIP.  Do you really feel that qualifies  fg for inclusion? I certainly don't as most baseball fans/participants don't use that information.  (ever heard BABIP used during a game?).  Then, there is the graphs page. Again, that in and of itself does not improve the quality of every article.  Some of them could certainly be useful and seeing as they are graphs, using them should not be a problem.  Keep in mind that B-R also has stats to communicate how well the hitter did relative to the league average. Again, we can go on and on about this, but I'm not going to stop until a reasonable discussion about this site takes place.  One where people are not called names, not warned, and not bitten.  Lastly, you will notice that on pages like Brad Ausmus, my entire work is being reverted.  Does that follow the rules? Look at what i've removed - I'll bet you'll agree with most of my choices.  Go visit all the links and see what comes up. //Tecmobowl 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My previous comment completely sums up my thought on this issue. -- No Guru 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ban away b/c that's the worst attempt at WP:CON I've ever seen. This place is getting more and more ridiculous every day.  Hell...i think brad ausmus article should have 30 ELs. //Tecmobowl 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Carolla Section Deletion
Thanks for your contribution to the article on Adam Carolla. However, while I agree with the change you made, I take issue with 2 things:

1. You marked the edit as "minor". Though I agree with the change, I can't agree with the rationale of marking the deletion of an entire section as "minor". Rest assured, I'm not asking for an explanation. I assume good faith. I just thought I should advise you of this.

2. This one's more important: You deleted an entire section without discussion. You risk upsetting people this way; I have found that when editors such as yourself change an article in this significant a manner, without describing your reasons on the talk page, you invite potential upset.

Again, I thank you for your contributions, and I agree with the change you made. I only suggest that in the future you follow the 'best practices' of Wikipedia editing, informing others of your intentions and providing them with the opportunity to share their views on the changes. You'll find that every article has a "talk page", which is where you should involve yourself with discussions, or even begin your own if you are planning major edits. For example, the corresponding "talk page" for the Adam Carolla bio is Talk:Adam Carolla.

Cheers, ManfrenjenStJohn 02:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No sense of humor?
Sir,

Do you have no sense of humor? Sadly, unlike some wikipedians, you seem to be without that vital trait. How could anyone confuse NoGuru with NoGura? Have you even looked at the NoGura user page? It's nothing like yours. What's the deal? EdRooney --

Edit Summaries
No Guru -- Thanks for your note about "edit summaries." I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn the correct formatting and style rules for Wikipedia. I have not been completing edit summaries and will try to do so in the future. Is there a way to go back and add summary information to major edits I have made previously? Over the past month, I have been creating and/or editing pages for many Detroit Tigers baseball players. I have extensively edited the pages for Sam Crawford, Charlie Gehringer, Harry Heilmann, Donie Bush, Lu Blue, George Mullin (baseball), and Win Mercer, as well as the List of Baseball Nicknames. I love baseball history and lore and find Wikipedia to be a remarkable vehicle to spread knowledge of the subject. If you have the time to take a look at any of the articles I have edited, and provide me any feedback or suggestion, I would be very appreciative. Cbl62 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yankees-Red Sox rivalry
Hi! I was wondering whether you wanted to help a concerted effort to clean up, reference, image, and otherwise spit-shine the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry article - saw that you've made several edits there already. I'm hoping to get a small cabal of people together for the drive from both sides of the rivalry (and neutrals too to keep things on the up-and-up) and for a GA rating by the end of the season. Interested? I'm personally going to be away from my computer for two weeks starting at the end of this week, but I think it's something that could be within reach. - RPIRED 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for blocking User:Crazyoldheshe. Angel Of Sadness  T /C 17:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome ! -- No Guru 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I never get vandalized
Nobody "loves" me. :'( Baseball Bugs 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the peace ! -- No Guru 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Form of flattery?
user:NoGuruu - Transplanted suburbanite 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New Brunswick
Hey, you're from New Brunswick! I'm from there, too- The Miramichi. Though now I live in Edmonton, AB. AR Argon 22:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim Rice
I saw your recent delete in the Hall of Fame Debate section of the Jim Rice article, and I think it might have been a bit drastic. The information deleted was essentially correct - there are many people who feel Rice's best shot at election to the Hall is 2008. That probably should have been a bit more specific, like cleaning up the text to make it clear that 2008 might be Rice's best shot at election by the BBWAA, as opposed to future election by the Veterans Committee. And I understand the source cited wouldn't support the lead-in "Many feel...", since it was essentially the view of just one sportswriter. But that could easily be corrected by either adding additional citations that express the same view (such as: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=264), or by changing the lead from "many feel that..." to "there is debate that...". That wording would be perfectly appropriate - there IS debate about Rice. That's a factual statement, not speculation.

In short, I'm not in favor of wholesale deletions of factual information due to wording or citation issues. The problems with the section you deleted were correctable, IMO. Jakzhumans 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we have a differing view on what encyclopedic material is, then. Who cares what many people feel about his HOF chances in 2008? I'm sorry but people's opinions (sportswriters or otherwise) about this are unimportant. -- No Guru 16:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The section is about the ongoing, still-changing Hall of Fame debate about Rice. Factual statements about the current state of that debate, as long as they're properly cited, should remain, IMO.  But even if your opinion differs, I don't understand your criteria for deleting the part that you did.  In the same section you left writers' opinions about why Rice's election has been delayed and how writers' views of him may have changed due to recent steroid controversy.  You left an uncited opinion about Rice being a "masher" who dominated through "pure strength and hitting technique" to lead the entire section.  (Which I will probably go remove as soon as I'm done with this.)  Why leave all that yet selectively delete factual information about the Rice HOF debate as it relates to the upcoming ballot?  Jakzhumans 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out a useless opinion. I am glad that you have identified other useless opinions to delete.-- No Guru 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you edited Gaston Waringhien
The category Esperantists was deleted recently, and the deletion is up for review. In case you'd like to chime in, go here. -- Orange Mike 18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you but it was just a vandalism revert on my part. I don't have an opinion on this matter. -- No Guru 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1918 World Series
There was an article in USAToday.com, probably around the time of the 2004 World Series, that talked about the "fix" rumors of 1918. That doesn't mean it actually was fixed. There was such a cynical attitude already about gambling, though, that Heinie Zimmerman had to openly assert that he did not throw the final game in the 1917 Series. Can you imagine someone having to make such an "I am not a crook" statement nowadays? About steroids, maybe, but not about throwing games. And of course baseball's unhealthy relationship with gambling came to a head in 1919. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had bookmarked it at the time, but it was on a different computer. It was also not at World Series time, but in June of 2005, when the Cubs and Red Sox met in regular-season play for the first time. I hope you had a chance to read some of it. Things were very different in 1918. I gather that the author's source, directly or indirectly, included Bill Veeck's Hustler's Handbook, which was an interesting read but is probably no longer available (in contrast to Veeck: As In Wreck which gets re-issued from time to time.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hugo Kelly
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hugo Kelly, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Hugo Kelly (2nd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 10:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with perceived vandalism
Hi, although it's time-consuming, it's important to document vandalism on a user's talk page if nothing else so other editors are aware of editing issues. Some folks simply don't know the wikipedia way and there are those who purposely ignore community protocol and standards. In either case it helps to establish if the user is warned and chooses to ignore warnings or if they are genuinely trying to improve articles. Benjiboi 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

? or or just a curse
No problem on reverting - that's what wikipedia is about. It is kind of a ridiculous article, but since it's a legitimate topic in a weird way, it's interesting to see the attempts to make it legitimate. - DavidWBrooks 13:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Van Morrison deleted images Image:Vm4.jpg and Image:Vm1.jpg
No Guru: Can you help with this strange situation. All past versions of the Van Morrison article now have images that were created on 12/17/2007 by user showing buildings. I guess this means all online past links show these images. There's a notice that the images are up for speedy deletion but so far they haven't been. Can you check into this and see what you think can be done to correct the past history links to the Van Morrison article? Thanks, so much No Guru, I always turn to you to help with problems, don't I? You're the Man! Agadant (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks No Guru for your prompt reply.  You're right, it seems okay now. Agadant (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hola
How goes it? Hope all is well in sunny Canada. Have you earned any barnstars lately? Seriously, how does one earn those? Take care and long live baseball! EdRooney (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use robot
"It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Stupid-bot!" Can I use that? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Weir
I would like you to be aware of Don't template the regulars. You may also wish to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. Why do you think that self-published material should never be used in biographies of living people? Catchpole (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)