User talk:Tecmobowl/Archive 2

You are doing a good job
You are doing a good job. You really understand the concept of wiki and should not let trolls and vandals get you down. I support you 100%. Belly Flop Patrol 09:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * TV Newser is part of the CFIF/Splash cabal that sees socks everywhere. They think I am a sock and will claim that me defending Tecmobowl is more evidence that I am a sock and he is a sock. I am not a sock, he is not a sock and he as only made good edits and really understands the concept of wiki. TV Newser, CFIF, and Splash should all be banned forever! Belly Flop Patrol 09:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support! I agree, onward and upward!!! --Tecmobowl 09:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

user:TV Newser
I've blocked this user for 24 hours for harassment. There's simply no reason to add a prod tag, which clearly states it can be removed "for any reason", and then call it "vandalism" when someone does. Thus, the vandalism warnings you received were also out of line, and you were justified to remove them. Since this user has still not made it clear why he considers you a sock of a previously permablocked user, and since you have never come near any article the blocked user has edited, the allegations appear baseless. I would advise you to try to tread carefully when dealing with this user, as there's no need to inflame the situation further. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  09:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help with this situation. I really don't mind if people want to give me legitimate warnings, but I still don't think I have done anything to warrant one yet.  I have read your comments on my Talk page and thank you for your help. If you have any advice as to how I can quickly and easily deal with these types of incidents (other than what I am doing), it would be appreciated.  Thanks for your time. --Tecmobowl 09:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You've opened a Mediation case, you've reported the incidents to WP:AN/I... That's all you can really do. Try not to refer to a user's contributions as "vandalism" as you did here and that may also help. Remember you can almost always de-escalate a situation by using a calm tone. Probably won't work for someone who thinks you're a sock, though. It may also help to not have inflammatory comments from a user calling for the banning of a well-respected admin (see above). Anyway, happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester  10:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i have taken on your case at the Mediation Cabal. If you have have any issues please contact me on my talk page. This is my first mediation case. Jeffklib 08:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HankAaron.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HankAaron.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page headers
Thanks for editing the talk page headers at Talk:Babe Ruth - it's hard for us to keep up with articles getting delisted as GAs, so I appreciated you re-grading it as a B. Could I request, though, that you leave the headers on the page? Those headers will remain there whatever the article quality - Babe Ruth will remain a core biography even if it's a stub! For Version 0.5, we have the option of using an older version if the quality goes REALLY downhill. Thanks! Walkerma 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hank Aaron tag
Hi, I started a discussion section at Talk:Hank Aaron involving your primarysources tag. See you there. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rookie Card picture
What do you mean there's no need to have Babe Ruth's rookie card on Babe Ruth's page? MikeBriggs 13:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson article cleanup
Thank you for your efforts in cleaning up this article. I'm semi-new to Wikipedia and not well versed in it's policies and procedures. But, wow, did I learn a lot by simply reviewing your edits! Once again, thank you. robertjohnsonrj 15:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson article: His first encounter with a MLB team, the Chicago White Sox
Reguarding this, do you feel that the removed statement reguarding his 1st encounter with the White Sox and with Luke Appling to be noteworthy enough for reinstatement into this article? Comment appreciated. robertjohnsonrj 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
Thanks again. The source does not say that it was his first time, I realized. robertjohnsonrj 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble Brewing????
Just thought you should be aware of Tecmobowls. You will notice he/she has suddenly appeared and is only contributing on pages i have recently edited. Nothing outrageous or in violation of "wiki" has happened, but this might be another example of TV Newser trying to pick a fight. Any thoughts?Tecmobowl 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He's banned now. The violation of wiki is being an imposter of another user, in this case you.  BTW, TV Newser is simply a sock of Spotteddogsdotorg which is one of the larger sock rings going around.  I've blocked over a dozen of them and Splash has blocked far more in over a year.  If you refer to Spotteddogsdotorg, many will know who you're referring to.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson article (concerning POV & weasle words)
I'm not sure what to do to fix these problems. The confrontational elements that I've added to the article are from, I believe, reliable and neutral sources. I could be wrong about that, of course. Do you have any further suggestions to correct these problems? Thanks for your comments. robertjohnsonrj 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:JakeDaubert.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JakeDaubert.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jake Daubert
Just a suggestion...

Edit summary comments like "you are now being reported for the violation of the 3rv rule. I'm not taunting you, i'm getting sick of dealing with you." can be considered incivil or a light personal attack. I'd advise making comments towards the changes/edits and not the individual. --Madchester 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

More hints
A couple hints after glancing over your user page. You can link correctly to a category by prefixing with a colon, Category:Baseball cards → Category:Baseball cards (the same goes for templates and images). Another useful template to add is fact which tags a specific sentence as needing a reference. I prefer to use the unreferenced tag only when there are zero references in the entire article. Enjoy. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Template editing help
I was thinking that some adjustments could be made to the,  , and the  templates, but I don't know what the process for suggesting changes to templates is. Ithink the cooperstown box is somewhat unnecessary on pages where the baseball player box has been used. I think the MLB HoF box could be used a lot more, but think it lacks one piece of important information: induction year. Perhaps changing the display text to be: Player Name, inducted in YEAR, is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. What do you think and how do i go about asking for others for their input? I'd be happy to move this discussion to my talk page or some other page where it would be more appropriate. //Tecmobowl 14:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly hadn't looked too hard at those. I see Infobox baseball player already has an "inductiondate" parameter so I'm not sure why Infobox Cooperstown even exists.  I've never been impressed with MLB HoF.  As far as where to start a discussion, I'd think the best option would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball.  Unfortunately, it's questionable how many people have that on their watchlists (it was dormant for so long that I took it off my watchlist for quite a while).  The best way to ensure a lot of participation for baseball discussion is probably to leave a short note on individual users' talk pages directing them to where the actual discussion will be.  You could also leave a note on the templates' talk pages.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

HI: I don't have any experience with the templates, as I haven't used them in any articles. So...I don't feel I can really weigh in with any opinions on the subject. Thanks for asking, though. It looks like an interesting discussion, and I wish you luck in achieving any change(s) you hope to get made. BurmaShaver 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about CardPricer.com Image Library
Thanks for adding a link to the Resources section on Wikiprojects:Baseball Players. The question I had about CardPricer.com's image library is if there is a way to view the image without the cardpricer.com watermark placed on top. If there's not, I'm not sure there is much use in using any of them for an article. - Mattingly23 02:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Ruether...
...another nice article. Great job! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Beckett Media Company
I'm pretty sure there was a long article about the compnay, but i can't seem to figure out what happened. Does this mean that the article never existed? Thought you could help me on that one. //Tecmobowl 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a Beckett Media article that was created in late August and deleted on October 12 because it was a copyright violation from http://www.beckett.com/mediarelations/aboutbeckett.html. Does the text at that URL look familiar?  I don't see a Beckett Media Company article by that exact name though.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do a lot of new page patrol, and I hate to say it, but that James Beckett article is one of the nicer stubs I've seen in a while! :)  But, in general, I try to encourage people to watch others at first - figure out which users are well-respected and see how they edit (not necessarily how they behave but how they edit).   jumps to mind as always being associated with well-written and extremely well-researched articles.  Also, look through WP:FA to see articles that have been through a pretty rigorous process to become featured.  I suggest people start out slowly since it worked fairly well for me - not too many take me up on the offer though!  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe Gedeon
Returning your message: while I do agree with you on the larger point that many of the facts of the Black Sox scandal will never be known, such as just what did Shoeless Joe know and when did he know it, Gedeon's suspension is a matter of the public record. As he was the only active ballplayer to be suspended for the scandal other than the Eight Men Out, the page should mention him, in some manner. Thank you for responding personally. Vidor 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lee Smith
FYI, is trying to get Lee Smith (baseball) to featured article status. I've dumped a lot of detail into that article (maybe too much). I like what you've been doing with large baseball bio articles - maybe you'd care to have a look at that one?

BTW, no need to put the note in User:Tecmobowl/notepad. Except for extreme cases, no one is going to want to delete pages in your user space. I probably have a dozen or more - some I've probably even forgotten about. You can use those however you see fit! If you feel like deleting one, just put a db-user on it and it will disappear eventually.

The only exceptions to keeping user space pages I've seen are 1.) people whose only edits are creating personal ad-space (for their band or company or some nonsense - I've had a few of those deleted) and 2.) blatant attack pages.

Hopefully I'll see you at the Lee Smith page! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like good suggestions at first glance. As far as the more important baseball bio pages you mentioned, I couldn't agree more.  It seems like no one "babysits" them properly so people start hacking it up with no checks and balances.  I also started some expansion to Fred Clarke since he's in the HOF and his article is practically a stub.  But I've only gotten as far as web researching and piling a bunch of random facts in User:Wknight94/Stuff In Progress.  I'm not real good at concentrating on single articles, esp. since the admin deal started.  Thanks again for your help with Lee Smith!  Hopefully someone can eventually find the time to actually implement the changes you've suggested...  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Toppslogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Toppslogo.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)