User talk:Spanneraol/Archive4

J-Whit
Why are you merging the Wittleman page on the Texas Rangers minor league players page. Ositadinma (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Wittleman is not notable enough to have his own article.. the minor league players pages are for bios of minor leaguers who shouldn't have their own articles yet. See New York Yankees minor league players as an example. Spanneraol (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't decide weather or not a minor league player is deserving of a wiki article. If there is already a wiki page, then leave it alone. There are plenty off other idiots that have wiki pages, so I don't see the reason to merge his perfectly good article onto a Texas Rangers minor league players page which has only roster templates on it to see all of the players in the organization and what team they are on. Ositadinma (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The baseball projects notability guidelines decide that. I can take the article to afd if you prefer... I just sent you a note on your page about the purpose of these pages. Spanneraol (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

MLB infobox
I take it there was some sort of discussion about infoboxes that I was unaware of, and a concensus was made that we would use the infobox of the major league affiliate for minor leaguers.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, their was a discussion awhile back on the baseball project talk page that the info box should reflect the MLB team the players belong to and that minor league teams shouldn't be mentioned. You can bring it up again if you disagree. Spanneraol (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter to me either way. If that's the way Wikipedia wants it done, that's fine with me. I was just making sure.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Miracle All stars
I don't know how to do something, and was hoping you could help. I posted a list of the team's All-stars on the Miracle's entry I don't want it to have a bunch of numbers like it does here; I want it to be: 1) Injured & did not play 2) FSL All-Star game MVP 3) MLB All-Star 4)Promoted & did not play. I don't know how to do that --Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1992 - Troy Buckley, Brian Raabe
 * 1993 - Brent Brede, Steve Hazlett, Damian Miller
 * 1994 - Gus Gandarillas, Andrew Kontorinis, Matt Lawton, Scott Moten, Chad Roper
 * 1995 - Shane Bowers
 * 1996 - Mike Moriarty, Javier Valentin
 * 1997 - Chad Allen, Phil Haigler, Jacque Jones, Brad Niedermaier, David Ortiz, A.J. Pierzynski
 * 1998 - Joe Mays, Chad Moeller, Tommy Peterman
 * 1999 - Matt LeCroy, Kyle Lohse
 * 2000 - Brandon Masters, Juan Rincon, Saul Rivera, Ruben Salazar, Brad Thomas
 * 2001 - Ronnie Corona, Juan Padilla
 * 2002 - Beau Kemp, Josh Rabe, Matt Scanlon
 * 2003 - J.D. Durbin, Jason Kubel, Joe Mauer
 * 2004 - Scott Baker, Travis Bowyer, Kaulana Kuhaulua, Francisco Liriano, José Morales, Justin Olson
 * 2005 - Nick Blackburn, Matt Moses, Denard Span
 * 2006 - Alexi Castilla, Matt Garza, Kyle Geiger, Brandon Roberts, Kevin Slowey
 * 2007 - Eddie Morlan, Ryan Mullins, Oswaldo Sosa
 * 2008 - Robert Delaney, Brian Dinkelman, Jeff Manship, Wilson Ramos, Anthony Slama, Rene Tosoni, Danny Valencia
 * 2009 - David Bromberg, Chris Cates, Carlos Gutierrez, Steven Hirschfeld, Daniel Lehmann, Chris Parmelee, Ben Revere, Steve Singleton, Spencer Steedley
 * My idea would be to use symbols with a legend at the top or bottom of the section explaining what they are for... for example you'd have a player's name with a * after it and then somewhere say *=FSL All-Star MVP.. and then #=promoted and did not play.. does that seem like it might work?

or --Spanneraol (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1994 - Gus Gandarillas, Andrew Kontorinis *, Matt Lawton ^ , Scott Moten, Chad Roper #
 * 1994 - Gus Gandarillas, Andrew Kontorinis (*), Matt Lawton (^), Scott Moten, Chad Roper {#)


 * Yeah, I could probably do that. I just thought there was a way to do it in code and have them redirect all to the same number. I thought I did it right until I looked at the site. I'm gonna tour Wikipedia a little and see if I can find where anyone did what I was trying to do, and see if I can figure out how. If not, I'll do like you suggested.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is.. but I'm not all that great with the code stuff.. just find a page you like and "steal" it. Spanneraol (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris Parmelee
I think that Chris Parmelee's article was deleted was BS. If you look at the article's history, apparently some sort of concensus was reached back in March or something like that. It was, however, never followed through on. The season then started, he was named a FSL league All Star. Add that to the fact that he was a #1 pick, and he's since become notable if he wasn't before.

A new banner was added just before the All Star game, then immediately removed. It was my impression at that point that the nomination for deletion was reconsidered. Instead, the deletion concensus from 3 months earlier was finally being enforced. That makes no sense.

He was also the All star game's home run derby winner and the FSL's player of the week the week following the All star game.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnny, he is still in Class A.... those FSL All-Star appearances aren't good enough.. his article still exists, it's just been moved to the minor league players page... You should just use that page.. you can create mini-articles about all your Miracle players there without having to worry about them being deleted. It will save you alot of headaches. --Spanneraol (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone accuses me of anything...
I went to the page you told me to go. It was my understanding of the directions there that I was supposed to revert the page back to the original article so people could see it. Is that accurate?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking? You should leave the Parmelee article alone as a redirect cause thats what the afd said to do... and add anything new to the Minor league players article. Spanneraol (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC and File:NLW-LAD-Logo.png
WP:NFCC #10c specifically requires that a separate, specific fair use rationale for each use of the copyrighted image in question. That does not exist for File:NLW-LAD-Logo.png and Arizona League Dodgers. I'm not particularly interested in your evaluation of me not using my head and being a knucklehead. I am interested in our image use abiding by policy, which this use does not. Either come up with a fair use rationale for this image use and add it to the image's description page, or stop adding it to Arizona League Dodgers. Either of those actions is compliant with policy. Insisting on adding it in violation of WP:NFCC #10c obviously isn't. --Knucklehead (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Either you mention the specific part of that policy that the article doesn't comply with or stop deleting it. Obviously it is a valid use of the image. You blindly deleting images without thinking about the validity of them is not using your head. That policy is a mess of bad writing.. if some obscure technical wording is missing from the image description page then add the correct wording.. you can fix things instead of just deleting them.. as I said.. USE YOUR HEAD.. not be a robot. Spanneraol (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your actions are a blatant violation of WP:NFCC #10c. I've cited the specific policy and how it is being violated. I'm sorry you can't see that. Not wanting to engage in a revert war, I'm reporting this elsewhere. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10c says the page name needs to be mentioned and the rationale given. That is the case.. the page name is listed on the image description page and it has a rationale. I really wish you guys would stop just spouting "violation of such and such" and explain what EXACTLY is the problem and how to fix it.  Spanneraol (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

T-navbar removal
Yeah, I can definitely do that. -Dewelar (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Spanneraol (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up: when the T-navbar header is present, the "color" parameter in the first line of the roster box is getting overwritten by the "fontcolor" parameter in the template. This is, apparently, the correct value for that parameter. Some rosters (most notably the Seattle Mariners ones) have NO value in the color parameter. When you remove the T-navbar header, you need to also copy the fontcolor value into the color parameter. If you don't, the text will be the wrong color (or, when there's no color parameter present, it will be black by default). -Dewelar (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Martinez
Just a head's up about my revert. It's unlikely that the successive stages of a contract signing will be viewed as encyclopedic, or survive future edits. And Martinez's 6 IP in the World Classic hardly merits its own section. Martinez's free agent signings with both the Mets and Red Sox combined take up all of 3 sentences in the article. As Martinez performs for the Phillies, the section will expand soon enough.208.120.7.152 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Manny Ramirez
As you can plainly see, the purpose of the earnings table is to inform people how much money Manny Ramirez earns. He is one of the highest paid players in the game so it is very notable. Faethon Ghost (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rosters
Hi there. My apologies. I had no idea that a change was implemented. I will make sure to follow the new way of doing the roster. Thank you for the info. Maple Leaf (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Steroid Article
I am not too Biased to write said Article. The Mitchell Report is Biased. Senator George Mitchell conducted this investigation. The list of 104 was seized by the government during this investigation. Senator Mitchell saw the list. This list contained the names David Ortiz, & Manny Ramirez. Senator Mitchell is an admitted Red Sox fan. The Mitchell Report had no mention of David Ortiz, & Manny Ramirez. Yet it included the names of not one, not two, but three prominent Yankee's. Now I ask you. How can we now trust the integrity, of Senator Mitchell, or his 400+ Page report?

By the way I don't want to write the article, I think it should be done by someone in the WP BASEBALL. If you want total neutrality it should not be done by anyone is a baseball fan, but good luck finding that person.--Subman758 (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you still feel I am too biased to write said article, because of my feelings of the Mitchell Report. Take a look at this. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4408083

Apparently I am not the only one who felt the report itself was biased. Lets just remember who said it first.--Subman758 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
I brought the Babe Ruth and Rickey Henderson argument to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor league tables
Hi there. The table format to list minor league/farm system affiliates has improved the look greatly, and now being 15 levels deep (rather than six) is welcome. I have been adding original content on Farm Systems for all the teams except the Dodgers (another user - perhaps you - initiated this and inspired my work) and those I have not yet had time to enter (Pirates, Astros, Padres, Rockies, Marlins, D-Backs, Brewers, Rangers, Mariners, Blue Jays and Rays; hope I can get to them). I think the 15-deep table will be especially useful in converting the pre-1963 farm system section into a tabular format for extinct classifications such as Open, B, C and D, and for accommodating teams like the Dodgers and Cardinals who in their heyday had 20-30 affiliated or owned farm clubs. If we go deeper than 15 teams, we can do a two-column format, which has worked under the old six-deep system. Notes about franchise shifts/collapses, league foldings, etc., which were common before 1963, can go into the bottom of the section outside the tables. I'd like to continue to add to these sections, which I have enjoyed building, and want to use the tables to advantage.

Incidentally, my browser (Safari 4.0.2) frequently shows a distorted last row when every row is not filled. The row does not have the save north/south proportions as the upper rows. This could be solved in the past by labeling it level6 (now level15) and the one above it level5 (14), etc. But it could simply be a browser problem on my part.McGill1974 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed the excellent work you are doing on the farm systems... I did those original Dodgers pages and have recently started updating them to that new table... As you mentioned the original table that Ohms law created only have room for six levels, It took me a few tries but I figured out how to expand it and i've been adding levels as I need them.. currently up to 20. I'd like to create an optional notes field but I can't figure out how to do that yet... so for now we'll need to list the championships etc. elsewhere. I haven't had the problem with the last row that you mention.. but I'll keep a lookout for it. Spanneraol (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked for some input regarding the design of this template at its talk page. Incidentally, the problem with row height also occurs in both IE and Firefox, so it's not browser-specific. I have no earthly idea how to fix it. -Dewelar (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea I noticed that... I've just been adding levels to the original template as I needed them... I tried to fix the row problem when I noticed it but I don't know enough about template coding to figure it out. Spanneraol (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Craig Bjornson
I have nominated Craig Bjornson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Craig Bjornson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wizardman 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeff D'Amico
According to WP:NC-BASE, if a player spent his whole career with one team, that takes precedence over DOB. I'll have to move that page again. -Dewelar (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, (Royals pitcher) at least looks better than just (Royals) which I thought was confusing... though according to WP:NC-BASE shouldn't it really be Jeff D'Amico (Kansas City Royals pitcher)? Spanneraol (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen it done both ways. I think "Royals" is fine because there's never been another MLB team by that name, but if it was, say, "Athletics" we'd probably have to include the city. I won't object if you want to make the change, though. -Dewelar (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Standings template (2008 AL East)
Is there a reason why 2008 AL East standings was changed so drastically? We started using this new format last year; now, a lot of the changes that we have a consensus on have been removed, including the use of fractions over decimals, the use of an em-dash over two hyphens per MOS, the inclusions of games back, home and road records, etc. No other 2008 templates have been changed in this way. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to match all the earlier season standings templates... everything from 1876 to 2007 was in this format... don't we want it to be consistent? I restored your emdash and fractions... never took out GB.... we don't need winning streak with the season over and none of the past seasons have home and road records. Spanneraol (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the past seasons do, no, but that is because we only started using the new format last year. Consistency is certainly an admirable goal, but I didn't know if there had been a discussion that I missed or something. I agree that winning streak is unneeded after the season ends, but home and road records are valuable information. Of course, that's just my opinion. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lasorda's Kingman Rant
I noticed something interesting about the Tommy Lasorda Kingman rant, and brought it up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. I think you might want in on this discussion.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up
About the minor league discussion. Although I disagree with Vidor's opinion, it just proves that baseball historians and Wikipedians have strong views. Am willing to stop further work until the community resolves whether this data belongs where it is now, or somewhere else. (Just as long as the work a few us of have done isn't wasted.) McGill1974 (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Olsonivy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Olsonivy.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, 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.

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 16:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Free Agents
Don't remove players from the roster just yet. Today was the first day of free agent filings and everyone has not filed yet. Players have 15 days to file until November 20th when the roster lockes for the Rule 5 Draft in December. Teams will add players to protect and remove players. During the two week filing period which has begun the previous team has exclusive negotiating rights for major league free agent. After that two week period they become free agents. But not until, meaning they will be keep on the roster till that deadline (Or MLB removes from the team rosters and puts back after the deadline or they get signed after the deadline). But players shouldn't be romoved until the roster gets stable per MLB. Players like Wolf, Belliard, might sign an extension with the team like Abreu of the Angels before he became an actual free agent.  Osi  tadinma  18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Once players file for free agency.. they are no longer the property of the team and should be removed from the roster.. Yes they have exclusive negotiating rights, but they are no longer part of the team and are free agents. MLB is sometimes slow with updating their rosters, but players should be removed from rosters if they are free agents. Spanneraol (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but that is alot of removing (And adding players if they sign with the old team). But it would be weird for Lackey to be removed from the Angels roster and be in free agent space before the teams' rights ends. Would have alot of people questioning.  Osi  tadinma  18:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be surprised if Lackey resigns with the Angels in the next couple of weeks.. he is almost certain to entertain other offers. In any event, if they resign it isn't that hard to add them back. They certainly are no longer on the "active roster." Spanneraol (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I dunno, Angels got money especially if they don't re-sign Vlad.  Osi  tadinma  19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Francisco Lizarraga
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Francisco Lizarraga. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Francisco Lizarraga. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jamie McCourt updates
11/12/09 Hi, I saw you removed the owner categories from Jamie McCourt listing. This issue remains an open legal question as to whether Frank owns the team 100% or she owns 50% as community property. it will be months before a court makes a determination (then appeals?), so neither you, nor me, nor Frank, nor Jamie, nor anyone can really say for sure what the outcome will be. It is an open question and any definitive statement either way is questionable. It is just an opinion at this point to say that she owns 0% or 50% or whatever. Just wanted to point that out. mdukas
 * The Dodgers website lists Frank McCourt as the owner of the team, as he is recognized by MLB as the owner.. thus Jamie should not be listed as "owner" unless she gets a court order to say she should be such listed. Spanneraol (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alan to Alvin
Just a heads up, it's Alvin Davis not Alan Davis. I know it was a long time ago and you probably won't edit the roster or the name again but I just wanted to let you know so you could be more careful with other edits. Good work otherwise. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Casey Deskins
I have nominated Casey Deskins, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Casey Deskins. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wizardman 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Response
Just doing a little housecleaning. Alex (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
For weighing in. I stared at my comment for a minute after making it, wondering if I was too harsh. But if he is not going to follow the standards, or misstate them, it troubles me if he is closing AfDs. BTW, not sure if it is technically a COI, but rather something else. Not sure if I know an acronym for it. But something along the line of not following policies. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Spanneraol! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Butch Hughes -
 * 2) Mike Vail -
 * 3) Ben Hines -

Your rollback request
Hello Spanneraol, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Grote
I brought up a debate converning Jerry Grote and the Colt 45s at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. I'd like your input on the topic.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kyle Russell
I agree with you on Russell. I thought policy was to go with official MLB/time site rosters unless damning evidence to support otherwise can be presented contradicting them. So far, the links presented by other show nothing conclusion to contradict Russell no being on the Dodgers 40-man. Mattfranko81 (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clubs usually put out a press release when they add someone to the 40-man... It would be extremely unlikely for a minor league player like Russell with no chance of making the opening day roster to be added to the 40-man at this point of the spring... the recent press release from today about 48 people in camp seems to back up the notion that he isnt included in that list... It is certainly an odd situation for him to be listed on that roster but with all the other evidence it seems that the most likely scenerio is that the roster is in error. Spanneraol (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, there is a source saying he was . It says "Active," while if you look around at other minor league, non-NRI and non-Active roster guys that have been "assigned" major league camp, their status is "Signed."  Like I said, the official website says he's on the 40-man, and he's been there for more than a week now which seems unusual if it's a mistake.  Nothing else I've specifically says he's not.  Perhaps they just haven't gotten the release out, being in Taiwan and all.  Can we really find a base in fact that he's not on the roster just because the Dodgers haven't done what's "usually" done, and put out a press release?Mattfranko81 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree with you.. but it just seems so unlikely that they would add him and take up a 40-man spot that they will need to add any of the NRI guys... the 48 man release also seems to agree with the notion that he isnt included. With all the available evidence and common sense.. the most likely scenerio is that whomever does the website made an error. His "active" page and the roster page are tied together.. so they dont prove each other. Spanneraol (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)