User talk:Tecmobowl/Archive 3

Please be careful when reverting
Hi, you made changes to Babe Ruth and cited legitimate concerns (which I will discuss later when I get a chance), but a few of your edits I just don't understand. Why break the link to Loss (baseball)? Why did you change Ruth's induction year to 1935 from the correct year of 1936? Why remove my citations for Ruth's accolades? I understand if you disagree about how information is presented, but it doesn't help anyone to make blanket reverts that reintroduce many of the past errors. Please return these to their corrected versions if you agree with me. Also, in your edit summary, you say 'i would suggest adjusting the information, not the info'. Can you explain what this means? Thanks, - Mattingly23 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse of the black sox
Hello, you added a db-blanked template to Curse of the black sox. When I check the history, it was created by Amchow78 (talk • contribs). Are you sure that was the right template because it doesn't seem like it. Please check. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax
I noticed you added the tag to the Sandy Koufax article. I don't necessarily disagree with you, and in fact I haven't read the whole article, but I'm disturbed by a featured article having that tag. If you think it's only in a few spots you might want just user instead (although you can always add that to specific spots anyway). If you think it's a large portion of the article you might want to list it on Featured article review so the issue can be addressed and if not addressed, the article can have its featured status removed. Vicarious 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Koufax Card -- Reply
Hi; belongs to a friend and so I will have to ask her to scan it and give me the pic. :-) Thanks for your interest tho; I know she'll be grateful as well. Rivka 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ken griffey rookie.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ken griffey rookie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit(s) to List of social networking websites
Your addition to List of social networking websites has been reverted. In the future, please only place entries there that are internal links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will be removed. Please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia; Wakoopa was launched May 2 2007 and is not yet notable. If you have questions, use the talk page. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 11:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Jim Morrison
Hello Tecmobowl. I have reverted your recent edits to Jim Morrison. You seem to believe that "being encyclopedic" means reading like a police report. And you also have deleted valuable information about the early years of JM - which could be seen as a form of "soft vandalism". These issues have been adressed in the talk page of the article (see section "Style and tone"). Please discuss any future changes of this nature (ie arbitrarily removing text that you deem "non encyclopedic") on the talk page first. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That article is a mess...if you want the statements to stay, then cite sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a literary document.  The fact that it reads "like a police report" is irrelevant. Tecmobowl 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved your answer here for clarity of reading. For the rest of the discussion, see the article talk page. Please do not make further changes of this nature before a consensus is reached. Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fils--I have just run into the same problem wiht Tecmobowl making changes without discussion in the face of contrary opinion. Despite attempts to have him desist and discuss on a talk page.  See --Epeefleche 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit(s) to List of social networking websites
Your addition to List of social networking websites has been reverted. In the future, please only place entries there that are internal links to actual Wikipedia articles about notable social networking sites. External links, redlinks, substubs, non-notable sites or things that are not social networking sites will be removed. Please see WP:WEB for information on notability for websites on Wikipedia; As previously stated above, Wakoopa was launched May 2 2007 and is not yet notable. Please do not re-add the site until it becomes notable. The talk page is a better place to ask questions, rather than an edit summary. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Regarding your revert of the above and your comment in the edit summary, "see (what post) on (what) discussion page"? There's nothing in the discussion page for the article, nor the list, nor this user talk page - where is it? Until you enter proper discussion on the matter, I will return the list to its correct state. Any further reverting may be taken to admin intervention. Thanks. Please disregard the above as you have now entered into discussion about Wakoopa. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 20:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chief yellow horse.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chief yellow horse.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. 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked an admin...
...to look into this ongoing debate we seem to be having. My greatest beef with your editing at the moment is the reversion of the Ty Cobb stats back to those of the researchers, which are both inconsistent with each other and with the official MLB stats. To pretend that one research group's stats are the "correct" stats is blatant POV-pushing, which you claim to be opposed to. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to your inconsistencies on POV issues, I have also reported your blind deletions of trivia sections on many articles, which is not what WP:TRIVIA says to do; and your deletion of fair comments from your talk page, which is also against the rules. Baseball Bugs 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA
Hello Tecmobowl. I see you are having a dispute with another user over content. Using article talk pages and your own talk page is a good way to build consensus. Shutting down communications or simply reverting edits that you don't like will not help to build good articles in the long run. Check out this page for more info.

As far as the policy regarding trivia please not that the policy states that trivia sections do not need to be deleted on sight (unless they contain speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel) but need to be incorporated into the article. If you are unwilling to do that please place a tag at the appropriate place in the article. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Cheers. -- No Guru 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the reply. I would just really encourage you to read the policy links above and to make sure that you fully understand that trivia sections do not need to be deleted on sight (unless they contain speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel) -- No Guru 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)