User talk:Spanneraol/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
Spanoel, sorry for messing up the loons page! I love baseball and i know all about the loons...just not wikipedia! I tried to add a new player (Blake Brannon) to the roster and messed it all up. Really sorry! Thanks for fixing it and go loons! What are your sources for Santos going to Midland? A reply would be appreciated. --Baseballfan12594 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Baseballfan12594

My roster info comes from the official websites. I'm a Dodgers fan so i've tried to keep track of their minor league affiliates as well as possible. Spanneraol 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I just didn't hear about Santos. (I saw that you had removed him)

Unspecified source for Image:Diora Baird BB.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Diora Baird BB.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Genisock2 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Diora Baird
Thank you for adding an image to the Diora Baird article! Since you have been generous enough to upload the image, might I suggest that you go just a bit further and upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons? If the image is on the Commons, then all the Wikipedias in various languages may use the image for their articles as well. Dismas |(talk) 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would suggest the same for Jana Thompson.  Dismas |(talk)

Lieberthal
Hi Span. Actually, I was trying to get out the "as a," while leaving in that he was a veteran, and adding that Martin was a newbie. I agree that vets often get paid more than they might otherwise, because they are a vet. But not always. Some sign for little, compared to their prior salaries. If we don't have the front office saying that that was the reason, I think we are adding more to the article than we should. My vote would be to simply say he is a vet, the other guy is 2nd year, and he gets paid more even though the other guy starts. And letter the reader decide. OK w u?--Epeefleche 00:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Works. As does all the other deleted langague, other than "as."  Am fine with it either way.  Tx.--Epeefleche 17:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. You suggested that we not reflect that his nickname is Leiby, because you assert that it is not commonly used.  I'm not sure what your basis is for that assertion, and your delete of my addition, or if you did a google search before deleting my entry to check whether or not I was wrong.  But I think the fact that Baseball Reference, Baseball Almanac,, and teammate Luis Gonzalez as reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer all indicate that his nickname is Leiby, and the fact that he himself sponsors "Leiby's VIPs," all suggest that it is common enough for inclusion here.--Epeefleche 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You could have included one of those reference URLs next to the nickname and I wouldn't have questioned it. I've put one into the article now. (Spanneraol 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Understood. The reason I didn't is because while I have seen a number of bios of baseball players mentioning their nicknames, such as Bo Belinsky, Ron Blomberg, Hank Greenberg, etc., I didn't recall ever seeing a citation for them as long as there was a reference to baseball reference and it reflected their name.  Just as I never saw a citation to their date of birth, as long as there was a reference reflecting it.  And the examples in  did not happen to have citations.  That said I have no problem with it being left in and the citation added, of course ... works for me.  Personally, before deleting someone else's work like this I generally try to do a google search to see if there is credence to their point of view.  Or instead of deleting the reference, to put in a wp:cite template to alert them that I question it.  Unless, of course, I think they are completely wrong (after a google search) or a vandal.  Anyway, the resolution is fine, I think we are both happy with it now.  Tx.--Epeefleche 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Betemit
Yes, the trade is official now. But it wasn't when you made the edit, so it was preemptive.► Chris Nelson  20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Juan Gonzalez (baseball player), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Finngall  talk  22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Maxine Hong Kingston at Mid Pac
You removed my reference to Maxine Hong Kingston having been a faculty member at Mid Pacific Institute because you felt it was inappropriate to the article. Why are Notable Alumni appropriate to the article, but not notable former faculty members?--DaKine 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was didn't fit where you put it... Let's put it under the alumni for now.. Former faculty can be considered alumni.. {Spanneraol 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)}

Thanks, that works for me.--DaKine 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology
I noticed that I am nominating a bunch of articles that you created for deletion. I would be upset if I were in your shoes, because if the article gets deleted, it feels like the time spent creating the article was wasted. Therefore, I apoligize. However, my deep respect for Wikipedia leads me to nominate articles that I feel are cheapining this encyclopedia. If every loser (like me) has there own article in Wikipedia, Wikipedia will be a joke. Thankfully, WP:BASEBALL agrees with me ( I understand that you disagree, per WP:BIO). --Truest blue 00:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, you never played professional baseball. I feel Wikipedia should be inclusive and that many minor league players are worth including. How exactly does it cheapen the encyclopedia to have minor league ballplayers in it? Are they less accomplished than players in the Japanese leagues or the Mexican leagues, who would be included under your criteria? Again,I feel WP:BIO accepts minor leaguers.. You seem to be spending a lot of time searching for articles to delete.. perhaps you would be better off writing new articles yourself? Spanneraol 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletions
Reply to your reply to my reply I agree with you. ALL professional baseball players should be notable under WP:BIO. Unfortunately, many people involved in WikiProject Baseball are under the impression that they can override WP:BIO, and they are getting away with it. Minor League baseball players are effectively barred from Wikipedia by WikiProject Baseball's elitest policies. If it's not major league, it's not baseball in their eyes. Well, here's the test. This is the least notable Negro League player on Wikipedia. If we have to play by their rules, they have to abide by them as well. It will be interesting to note how many of the deleters will chime in to keep, even though it goes against their own policy. Kinston eagle 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review comment
I really didn't appreciate the comment that you left directed towards me at Deletion review/Log/2007 August 16. First of all, "Ksy wouldn't know a valid argument if it hit him in the head" is a personal attack which I really didn't appreciate, and "It really is not fair that just because Ksy and his good buddy Jaranda don't like the decision they can bring this up again" isn't a good comment, either. I really didn't appreciate either of these comments, so please refrain from making these types of statements, alright? Ksy92003 (talk)  20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Ksy92003 (talk)  20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I apologize for getting angry.. It just felt that the two of you were ganging up on me and I find your copyright charges to be insulting and untrue. Also, it is impossible to have an argument when everyline of argument is met with "you can't use that sort of argument" which I feel is just hogwash and curtails debate to only allow arguments on one side of an issue to be heard. Spanneraol 20:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't ganging up on anybody, and Jaranda and I certainly weren't ganging up on you. I don't know where you got that impression from. It's not fair to judge just because Jaranda and I share the same opinion. Ksy92003 (talk)  20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I guess that you didn't like my attempt at a humorous protest of the overly specific guideline creep. --Kevin Murray 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I'm sorry that you felt the required warnings for WP:NFCC violations were vandalism. In any event, the baseball uniform images can be replaced by free equivalents - see, as an example, Image:NLC-Uniform-STL.PNG, along with most of the other baseball uniforms shown on team articles. I'm afraid this applies to the other uniform images you lifted from the Baseball Hall of Fame's site as well, I just haven't tagged them yet. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Baseball uniform images can NOT be replaced. Do you want me to build a time machine and go back to take pictures??? Most of the baseball team sites use the pictures from the hall of fame.. which are also widely available on multiple different baseball websites. Using them in no way affects the hall of fame or detracts from the images. I was attempting to show the different uniforms on the season pages... this is a fair use of these images. I strongly disagree with your assesment that their is some other way to show the same information. I do not understand why you would be so concerned with this as to disrupt a project I have been spending some time working on (the season pages). Wouldn't your time be better spent working on your own articles?? Spanneraol 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it's not right for us to simply take those images from the Hall of Fame. They make money by attracting people to their website and we're competing with them by using their work without paying for it, which is a violation of WP:NFCC. I don't expect photos of the uniforms, but we can make our own illustrations, like the example that I pointed out to you. There are many others. The soccer team authors make their own images as well. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not an artist and am not capable of creating illustrations that are as good as the originals. The Hall of Fame is a "not for profit" organization, so to say they are attempting to make money by attracting people to their website is erroneous. The pictures on the soccer website are terrible. Spanneraol 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that the terms of use on the Hall of Fame site allows images to be copied for non commercial, informative uses.. which my use of them qualifies as. Spanneraol 00:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could approach User:Silent Wind of Doom, who created the other free image of baseball team uniforms. And I'm really sorry, but it's against our policy to take someone else's work when we can make our own, regardless of the purpose of the organization. I know you are trying to improve the articles but this is something we're not allowed to do by the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, non-commercial usage licenses are not treated any differently here than any other non-free license. I apologize, I know that image policy is complex. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So the Wikimedia Foundation wants crappy stick figure images of stuff rather than nice images? That's just stupid. Why would they want a crappy encyclopedia? Or is it just you that wants things to be crappy since no one else has seemed to have a problem so far. !Spanneraol
 * The Foundation wants material that is free, and expressed it in this resolution. No, I don't want things to be crappy, but there's nothing preventing a Wikipedia graphic designer from making a free image that is just as nice, or nicer, than the Hall of Fame's. I'm afraid it's not just me - if you check the baseball articles, you will see that Hall of Fame uniform images have been deleted in pretty much all of the other articles, except for the Dodgers. I'm afraid they have to be removed from those articles as well. No need to get personal - I'm just the messenger here, please feel free to ask somewhere else for another opinion, like WP:MCQ, WP:FUR, or WP:ANI. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nl_1916_brooklyn.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Nl_1916_brooklyn.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Burch.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Burch.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)