User talk:Win777

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal &mdash; and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mercora
Hi, sources for the Mercora entry can be found in two locations: a) the Mercora corporate website listed in External links, and b) the ABC News and PC Magazine articles listed in Press. Please let me know if you require more details. Aghose 19:12, 30 June 2006 (PDT)

Main rivals stuff
Good luck. That anonymous character that posted them might come back. As an alternative, for teams that I know something about (i.e Chicago and Minnesota), I have substituted "Traditional Rivals" and "Divisional Rivals", both of which are, respectively, verifiable and obvious. A lot of that "main rivals" junk, as well as pointing to non-existent articles, was somebody's invention. Where articles exist, such as Yankees-Red Sox, Dodgers-Giants, Cubs-Cardinals, Cubs-White Sox, etc., the rivalry stuff actually has merit. Wahkeenah 17:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I had not got around to doing anything with the Twins. In fact, the only obvious rivals currently, besides the Yankees (who are everyone's rival), are teams in their division. So it's pretty much bogus. Good riddance. Wahkeenah 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yankees
You went into lengthy detail about the design of the Yankees' top hat logo. I didn't remove that (I'll leave that up to you) but I added that it's an "Uncle Sam" style, which I think is self-explanatory, and the link to Uncle Sam should cover it, just in case it isn't. =|:)# Wahkeenah 02:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Oakland A's
I've reverted your edit removing the rivalries. As it was worded prior to the delete it was not POV. Divisional rivalries are a certainty in all sports. And the Giants are a geographic/local rival both off and on the field.Gateman1997 17:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Lets use yours since the discussion has already begun here. I've read those links, but most of them refer to the "rivalries" created by that shadowman a while back. Those were definitely POV and by and large made up (Citrus Derby anyone?). However I believe the way many of the articles were reworked with Geographic and Divisional rivalries was both NPOV and inspired. Divisional rivalries do exist. Good examples would be Anaheim and Oakland right now. And the rest of the divisional teams invariably come into contention vs each other when they are in competition for 1st. Geographic rivalries for instance SF and Oakland also exist as both team compete on field for bragging rights and off field for revenue, fans, etc...Gateman1997 17:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

My examples were recent. Here are 3 more: ,,. Apparently, other editors feel that it is something that should not be included. I myself would feel more comfortable with "Teams in same division." -- Win777 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The only problem I would have with "Teams in the same division" is that it takes away from the fact that they are rivals who are competing for a common prize. The word rival is not a POV term unless it's being misused by creating rivalries that don't exist. For instance on the Red Sox page someone had put the Braves as an Interleague rival. They are no more rivals then the Chicago Bears and the Philadelphia Phillies are. Gateman1997 17:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How about "Divisional Competition" and/or "Regional Competition"? There's something about the word "rival/s" that irks me when it's used in something that is supposed to be NPOV such as Wikipedia. -- Win777 17:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that stem from the misuse by that phantom rival man earlier this summer. He created so many "rivalries" that he's tainted the word here. It's not a POV word in general. All great "competitions" that exist without any question or debate such as Sanford-Cal, NYY-Boston, Ohio St-Michagan are called rivalries. I think we've just been turned off to the word by its earlier misuse here. However that doesn't have to make it a bad word to use in an encyclopedic context.Gateman1997 18:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also I realize there has been some difficulty in determining what constitutes a rivalry. Divisional rivalries exist, you obviously think so per your wish to rename the term but keep the info above. Geographic rivalries are a certainty. Many of them have names, are advertised by the press, teams and fans, prior to games. And many of them such as the A's and Giants have been spatting over more then just on field performance, but revenue, territorial rights etc... for year. Any rivalries listed beyond that are fancruft of the worst degree. No major competitive (either on or off field) matchups exist outside of geography or division in MLB (and indeed any other sport save USC-Notre Dame in NCAAF). Gateman1997 18:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep using "Divisional Rivals" and "Geographic Rivals", I say, (under protest - it's not something I'll like) go ahead. It's better than "Main Rivals" and is something that should be handled with extreme care, though. There some famous rivalries, like Yankees-Red Sox, but others are not as well-known. -- Win777 18:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * CrazyTalk has also left a message on your talk page. -- Win777 18:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that. I'll refrain from readding them to any other articles for the time being, at least under rivalries. I might put "Divisional Competition" and "Geographic Competition" as you suggest on any further articles until the debate comes to some resolution. I don't think it had nearly enough time to be fleshed out before however. I'm standing by the A's and Giants articles as they've been reverted also.Gateman1997 18:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn Sox. Their only saving grace is Fenway Park.Gateman1997 20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page
Hi, saw you took the BP link out because it required registration. Is that a WP guideline for links, because, if so, I'm unfamiliar with it. At a minimum, we should incorporate some the facts in that very good BP article into the Y-RS rivalry wikiarticle. Thoughts? Friejose 20:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would be very helpful to a normal person to register just to see one page, especially if a user is not looking for much or not thinking of using the site long term. It's inconvenient, and too many sites require registration today.

From External links: "That is, try to avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications (Flash, Java, etc.) to see the relevant content, at least if there is a simpler site available." -- Win777 20:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

MLB infoboxes
Hello, I am nearing completion of the infoboxes for each MLB team and I wanted to run it by a few individuals before I ran it by the project and published them. Check out a finished one here. Please focus on the info box and not the rest of the page. Here are some points I wanted some feedback on: Any feedback, especially constructive, is much appreciated, have a good one!--CrazyTalk 22:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * was not sure about how to handle "notes" about championships and retired numbers so I stuck the notes on the template
 * I limited the infobox to MAJOR LEAGUE info only, no Western League and no other minor league info
 * stuck Jackie Robinson onto template rather than on each team

Looks good. Maybe replace "champs" with "titles" and add "Playoff appearances"? I'd still like to see the minor league teams, though. Perhaps adding them this way: for example, with its own section in the box, the Yankees would have: Minor league system
 * AAA Columbus Clippers
 * AA  Trenton Thunder
 * A    Charleston RiverDogs, Tampa Yankees, Staten Island Yankees
 * R    Gulf Coast Yankees

or some sort of slight variation. -- Win777 22:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Gateman1997 was doing a minor league footer eventually, but I do not know how far along that is. I was just sticking those at the bottom of the page as a stopgap for the time being.  Maybe you could see if he wants some help.....


 * "Titles" is a good idea, I will change that. I see someone added "Playoff apearances" to the pages this morning, I do not have a problem with those, it is just a matter of when is too much too much? Truthfully, though, if you ask me, all you have to do is add up the championships and you can derive the # of playoff appearances that way - it is not like the NFL or NBA or NHL where you kind of lose track (just my opinion, not really rejecting it, just skeptical).


 * I am kind of thinking now that maybe anything that I left off of the infobox (team colors, team mascot, playoff appearance, etc.) we could stick at the botom of the page under the potpourri heading "Quick facts"; that might keep people from cluttering up the infobox and also encourage them to add all sorts of interesting/weird stuff. What do you think?--CrazyTalk 23:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Playoff appearances" isn't necessary, but not everyone will know how to derive that information from Wild Card and Division titles. Team uniform designs, logo designs, and the like should be in the infobox. Mascot info should be in a type of "Fun facts" or "Quick facts" box. -- Win777 01:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If we stick those in the infobox, do you have an idea how they should be fit? My logic is we have to draw the line some where to keep it from being too long. Logo designs would not be too hard to fit in there right under the logo maybe(?), but if you think about it, it is really needed in the first place if we have a picture of the logo? That has always bothered me a little, I think it may have been added right when the pages were created in 2002 just to put some meat on the page; I usually do not see a description of the logo when there is a picture, but this is just me thinking out loud, maybe it is usually descibed and I just never really noticed. What do you think?


 * Regarding the team colors, and using Oakland as an extreme, since the infobox lists the history of the information, I am afraid the infobox could become rather lengthy since Oakland has a rather "colorful" history; I was thinking that that might actually warrant a paragraph or two for each team in the body of the article. If we start listing "current" items, I am afraid people will start listing current TV stations, current owner, current payroll (just look at the mess on the BoSox page); that is why I was proposing to quietly shove all of that to the bottom of the page. What do you think?--CrazyTalk 05:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Basic stuff, like titles and retired numbers, to the infobox. Current/fun facts to a box at the bottom or as a paragraph in the actual article. -- Win777 22:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Thank you for your contributions. And I have a request. I would like to ask you to use edit summaries more often when you contribute. An edit summary helps others understand what you changed when checking the watchlist or the recent changes, and often times complements studying the diff. Think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. I hope you don't mind. :) Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. =) -- Win777 01:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:MLB team rosters
Actually, I was creating that category, which is why it was redlinked. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 22:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Making it blue linked would have helped... Done. -- Win777 23:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How would I have made it bluelinked, adding content? ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just like I did. Assign it a parent category and description. Categorization -- Win777 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Texas Rangers
About your edit to Texas Rangers: diff. Excess wikilinks and piping don't go on disambiguation pages. One wikilink per line is reasonable. Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) has more information and I'm always happy to discuss disambiguation.--Commander Keane 00:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. =) -- Win777 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Baseball on Wikicities
Hi Win77, Googie Man here - I'm a fellow Wikipeidan and baseball fan, and noticed you've done some good work on the New York Yankees. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done such great work on Wikipedia I was hoping you could help me get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please tet me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks!  Googie Man ( Talk), 15:23, 4 January 2006.

Babe Ruth
I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Number24165
If you want to argue with him, please don't do it on my talk page. And, it's worth assuming good faith with him. FreplySpang (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

World Series teams
I noticed you've been adding the cats in some of these cases, so I thought I'd ask a question I posted to Floydspinky71's talk page last month: Are the categories for members of World Series champions really necessary? I can't help thinking it would be more economical to simply include the roster of the champion team in the article for that year's World Series (most of the WS articles could use some serious expansion). There's already something of a glut of categories on some articles, including those for baseball players with numerous All-Star appearances. (Between All-Star games and WS champions alone, Yogi Berra would end up with 25 categories, in addition to another 15 already on his page.) I don't think it's advantageous to have that many categories on an article; at some point, it gets difficult to wade through them, and individual categories become easy to miss. MisfitToys 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have any interest in Template:MLB
please join the current discussion at Template talk:MLB. As a member of WikiProject Baseball your opinion is particularly valued. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Detroit Tigers
You reverted that a-none's running commentary on the 2006 season (which I might agree is a bit excessive) by pointing to the "What Wikipedia Is Not" page, but did not point to the specific rule that is being violated. Wahkeenah 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Akron Aeros
I saw you added a cleanup tag to the Akron Aeros page this morning, so I went ahead and did it. I've been using this same "outline" for other teams in the Eastern League (I'm about halfway through). Feel free to take a look. I need to expound on their stadium a little (I've been describing the actual design and "neat features" on the other parks), but that's for another day.

I noticed on some of the "alumni", when you link to their bio page (Manny Ramírez), they've got a category called Akron Aeros Players. Is that something that exists (or should it exist?) for all the minor league teams? As much as guys move around, do they need to belong in a "category" of every minor-league team they ever played for? Just curious. Maybe another discussion topic for the project page.

Thanks. Dakern74 18:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the Aeros page. For the minor league team categories, I'd leave the discussion for the project page. -- Win777 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about this, but our diehard resident Akron fan just put the hard-coded roster back on this page and removed the links to the team site. He left the rest of my expansions, but still. The idea was to eliminate the need to update the page every two days. Maybe he gets his jollies by doing it and I should just let him be. Thoughts? I'm not an admin, so not quite sure how to handle it. Dakern74 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am far(!) from your "diehard resident Akron fan" but I understand a little of what you are saying. Agreed, the red linked names on the current roster look tacky and should go.  The roster however should stay. Nick22aku 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to revert it and to leave a message on the Aeros' or the user's talk page that shows the consensus against having current records and stats. Minor league rosters would fall under "current" as they change so frequently and would become outdated quickly should the fan stop editing the roster. If a user has to update an article daily because the article keeps becoming outdated, there's a problem. Wikipedia is not a news source/service or a directory (WP:NOT). Wikipedia is not a fan site either. The article as it is right now is too local and leaning toward vanity (WP:VANITY). The fan's edits leave too many redlinks (the players are not that notable yet), and the article is too cluttered. -- Win777

Danys Báez
I'm keeping the articles up to date, rather than having them for the previous season. Cs-wolves 06:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like having "current" records and stats on Wikipedia. They become outdated too quickly. Wikipedia should not have to rely on a few people to keep this type of information accurate. Records and stats up to last season should be as recent as they come because these types of information for last season are too subject to change, which I can't say for stats and records "as of Month, Day, 2006." Wikipedia is not here to offer news reports; that's for Wikinews. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." Current stats and records aren't too historically significant until they are finalized (such as at the end of a season). Milestones, such as a pitcher's 300th win, can be put on articles because those achievements are final and significant; the date of the accomplishment will not change and neither will the fact that the accomplishment was reached. Current records and current stats in baseball become outdated almost concurrently. See other people's thoughts on current records:,. -- Win777 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Decent enough thought - Good work :) Cs-wolves 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete talk page comments
Hello. This is really straightforward stuff that I shouldn't have to come to your talk page to remind you of: Don't delete other people's talk page comments. While it is, of course, acceptable to move discussions to archive pages when the page grows large, but it's certainly not needed on Talk:Windows Live Mail, which you deleted in its entirety for no easily discernable reason. Warrens 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." The discussions on Talk:Windows Live Mail were chatter about Windows Live Mail. They were not discussions on improving the article. -- Win777 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

World Demise
I removed CSD as it provides a basic definition capable of expansion. Tyrenius 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Please give uploaded images meaningful names." message
Suggestion: Don't post it to users more than once. See where this becomes a problem here. Ral315 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal talk:Baseball
I removed and replaced it with  inasmuch as portal space ≠ mainspace and in view of the necessary unprintworthiness of portal space (consistent with WP:1.0); if you think me to have been wrong, please revert me or leave a note at the portal talk. :) Joe 06:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. I was going to correct myself, but you got there first. :) -- Win777 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yankees
Quit reverting the section on famous fans. This is a very common section for articles dealing with sports teams (see Boston Red Sox. Also refrain from rephrasing the sentence on road attendance--the phrase "the country" is used numerous times throughout the article and is self-explanatory, as the subject of the article is the NEW YORK Yankees.-66.254.235.231 02:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also common to have none or few citations, but that's a problem on Wikipedia (To see how much of a problem this is, see Category:Articles needing sources). Just because something is commonplace doesn't make it right. See WP:CITE, which states: "Providing sources for edits is mandated by No original research and Verifiability, which are policy." So, please provide a published source that verifies these people as fans. If you cannot, then it's against Primary (original) research. It's not a wanted section anyway. See Talk:New_York_Yankees. -- Win777 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, wrong on both counts. It's and unwanted section by YOU and one other person.  Myself, plus two others on prior occassions, have included it.  So you're actually in the minority.  Second, try taking a look at the articles on any of EPL teams--just about all of them have a section detailing the team's high-profile supporters.  Third, it's not "original research."  It's common sense.  Just as the section on the design of the Yankee uniform doesn't contain any references (why should there be when it's patently visible), no references are needed to document a matter of common and/or visible knowledge such as whether Person A is a fan of the Yankees.  A cite is not required of every single sentence uttered on Wikipedia.-66.254.235.231 03:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." Other people can verify the Yankees' uniform by looking at it, but they cannot verify these people as fans because you have not provided a source. Seeing if certain people are fans is not "common sense" like looking at a uniform. Who knows? Maybe someone was wearing a Yankee cap because s/he lost a bet, but the person is actually a Red Sox fan. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Verifiability, NOT TRUTH. Looking at a uniform is verifiable because it's clearly there. -- Win777 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Miho Nosaka
I removed the unreferenced tag because all of the info I posted is from the manga and anime series. WhisperToMe 18:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion
I'd prefer not to drag other people into this, but could you have a look at the discussion at Talk:Jake Daubert? I'd be most interested in additional opinions in the dispute between me and Tecmobowl as to the article content. MisfitToys 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

50 States in 50 Days
I have added a "" template to the article 50 States in 50 Days, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 07:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees GA/R
New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
-- jj137  (  talk )  03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Battle of Ohio (MLB)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Battle of Ohio (MLB), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Notability of the "Battle of Ohio" or the series unexplained, could simply be merged into team or season articles.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mosmof (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Win777! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 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) 01:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Tony Womack -
 * 2) David Weathers -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)